Reform UK vows to axe LTNs in all of the councils it controls

The party has announced it will block any new schemes and reverse existing ones in the 10 councils it now controls.

There are now more than 100 permanent Labour-backed LTN schemes in the UK.

They were introduced during the pandemic as a way to encourage walking and cycling, but have been criticised for increasing traffic and pollution on so-called boundary roads.

Zia Yusuf, the Reform party chairman, told The Telegraph: “LTNs have proliferated too quickly and there are far too many of them.

“We view these schemes with the same suspicion as mass immigration and Net Zero. They are policies which are supported by and made to benefit more affluent people, who are then insulated from the negative consequences.

“You can expect, if you live in a Reform council, for there to be a much higher bar for any proposals for LTNs and for the large-scale reversal of these existing LTNs.”

Reform says LTNs harm high street trading, make life difficult for drivers and push congestion and pollution into poorer areas.

LTNs are used as a money-raising scheme by councils who make millions from them by fining drivers who mistakenly enter them.

Reform candidates campaigned heavily against LTNs during the recent local elections.

Last week it emerged that Lambeth council collected almost £1,080,580 from fines issued to motorists who entered a low traffic zone, which turned out to be unlawful.

A judge declared that the authority had acted in an unlawful way by introducing the scheme, by ignoring concerns from residents that the LTN could lead to higher levels of pollution and congestion.

It was the first time a campaign group defeated a council over low traffic neighbourhood schemes.

The West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG) said: “As the LTN has been declared unlawful, there can be no possible justification for Lambeth to keep the fines collected since September last year, and so they should be refunded.”

Lambeth council said it ‘acknowledged’ the court ruling and was “carefully considering the implications of the judgement”.