Statutory guidance

Implementing low traffic neighbourhoods

Published 17 March 2024

Applies to England

Foreword by the Secretary of State for Transport 

Last year, the Department for Transport commissioned a review of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) – this is the outcome. The research shows that, while they can work, in the right place, and, crucially, where they are supported, too often local people don’t know enough about them and haven’t been able to have a say. Increasingly and frustratingly, we see larger and larger low traffic schemes being proposed by some councils despite concerted opposition by local residents and by local businesses, and in some cases being removed again. This guidance makes it clear that should not happen. 

It also sets out that, even if they are introduced, councils should continue to regularly review low traffic neighbourhoods, ensuring they keep meeting their objectives, aren’t adversely affecting other areas, and are locally supported. This guidance makes clear our expectations, and I will carefully consider how councils follow it, alongside other appropriate factors, when looking at funding decisions. 

Separately, a consultation will also be launched on targeting the use of DVLA data by councils to enforce substandard LTNs and other anti-motorist traffic schemes.

Ultimately government can make changes to the legal framework if advice is overlooked – although working cooperatively with local councils is by far preferred. We need a fair approach, where local support is paramount, and this guidance sets out how that can be achieved. 

Secretary of State for Transport 

Network management duty guidance 

This guidance is additional statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Transport under section 18 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. 

When published in final form, it will apply to all traffic authorities in England, who shall have regard to this guidance to deliver their network management duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004. 

It does not replace the original network management duty guidance published in November 2004, but provides additional advice specifically on the design and delivery of LTNs. 

The guidance sets out high-level principles to help local authorities to manage their roads and decide what actions they should take. It should be read alongside the latest statutory guidance on civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions, and the good practice guidance in the Traffic signs manual. 

Introduction 

This guidance delivers the commitment in the Plan for Drivers to produce updated guidance on LTNs, focusing on the importance of securing local support. It has been informed by the results of research carried out by Ipsos on behalf of the department. It aims to ensure that LTNs are only introduced where there is clear local support for them and where they are well designed and do not cause undue problems for drivers, emergency services or other road users. 

LTNs can work well where they are well-designed and where there is local support for them. They have been around in one form or another for many decades. But they can do more harm than good where they are poorly thought-through and introduced with insufficient public engagement and support. This guidance makes clear the expectations government has for how LTNs should be appropriately designed and delivered. 

For the purpose of this guidance, an LTN is defined as: 

An area-wide traffic management scheme aimed at reducing or removing through traffic from residential areas, put in place using traffic signed restrictions or physical measures such as planters or bollards.

This guidance applies to LTN schemes meeting the above definition. It does not apply to School Street schemes or pedestrianised town or city centres. 

The LTN review process 

The LTN review was undertaken as a rapid evidence review, focusing on whether LTN schemes have delivered the objectives they set out to and how they took account of communities’ views. It was carried out between September 2023 and January 2024, and included the following: 

• a review of existing evidence, drawing on literature covering UK and international precedents
• analysis of a voluntary survey of local authorities undertaken by DfT
• a survey of residents affected by LTNs living within 4 scheme areas, identified from the local authority survey responses
• interviews with a small selection of key stakeholders – local authority officers, the Metropolitan Police, an ambulance service, the RAC Foundation, the Disabled Persons’ Transport Advisory Committee, an active travel stakeholder

Ipsos were commissioned to analyse the data gathered, and the headline findings are summarised below. These have been used to inform this advice. 

Headline findings 

LTNs can provide some benefits, particularly for active travel and air quality, but longer-term evidence is required to draw conclusive findings on the impacts of LTNs on active travel uptake, road safety, street crime and the local economy. 

The importance of engaging effectively with the whole community is clear. Schemes were more likely to remain in place where good engagement had taken place. 

In the 4 schemes surveyed in depth, most people in a scheme area were either undecided, or unaware of schemes in their area. Ineffective engagement may be a factor in this. Those in favour and opposed to a scheme were each a minority of respondents. 

From the 36 schemes that reported numbers of penalty charge notices (PCNs), an average of 36,459 have been issued per scheme. An average of 5,707 were challenged and 2,745 overturned. Among schemes which issue/issued PCNs, a higher proportion remained active, and engagement with different stakeholders was higher. Not all these PCNs will have resulted in fines – some may have been warnings for first offences. 

Schemes were more likely to remain in place if they provided exemptions to traffic signed restrictions. 

Most residents considered traffic-related problems to be a serious problem where they live. 

Getting community support 

The research showed that while authorities typically reported undertaking multiple engagement activities for individual schemes, stakeholders identified inadequate engagement and communication with residents and affected groups as an important issue. It also found that a significant number of people were either unaware of schemes, and undecided or unsure on the scheme impacts. Ineffective engagement may play a part in this. Ensuring engagement is representative and inclusive of all the community and their views is key to securing strong local support. 

Schemes with good engagement are more likely to last and to deliver their objectives. Effective engagement with the local community, particularly at an early stage, is essential to ensuring the political and public understanding and acceptance of any scheme. Given the strong and opposing views often expressed about these schemes, the government advises engagement as good practice. 

Everyone should feel they have been listened to, and authorities should seek evidence of strong local understanding of, and support for, proposed changes. Local authorities should not impose schemes in the face of strong local opposition that is clearly representative of the views of the community. 

Good practice in engagement 

Good engagement will give the whole community the opportunity to be involved and be representative of that community. A wide range of views should be sought but especially from those directly impacted or with particular requirements. Via its engagement and consultations an authority should be confident that a scheme is capable of carrying the support of a majority of the community before introducing it. 

The type, format and timing of engagement activities should be chosen to make sure everyone can take part. Local disability groups should be consulted at an early stage of scheme development and throughout its design and implementation. Any online engagement or consultation materials should comply with the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 to ensure they are accessible to disabled people. 

Levels of engagement, and resultant levels of local awareness and support for proposed traffic management schemes should be proportionate to their scale and impacts. Where the scope of a scheme is geographically broad, so should engagement and levels of support be. Where changes to local roads are significant, so should levels of local awareness and support be.  

A mix of approaches should be taken, including as a minimum: 

• a number of in-person events in the area affected by the scheme appropriate to the scale of the scheme, advertised well in advance
• online engagement
• information leaflets delivered to all properties within the area of the scheme and a scheme-appropriate radius of properties outside the area

Engagement, especially on schemes where there is public controversy, which has proved to be the case with LTNs, should use objective methods, such as professional polling to British Polling Council standards, to establish a truly representative picture of local views and to ensure that minority views do not dominate the discourse. Polling results should be one part of the suite of robust, empirical evidence on which decisions are made. 

Depending on the measures proposed, there may be a statutory requirement to consult. In making a Traffic Regulation Order, the following groups must be consulted as set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996: 

• groups representing the freight industry
• bus operators
• ambulance and fire services
• chiefs of police 

There is also a requirement in the regulations to consult other organisations representing people likely to be affected by the provisions of the order, as the local authority sees fit. There is no fixed list, but this should include road user groups, local accessibility groups and groups representing local businesses and services, and taxi and private hire operators. 

There should be plenty of publicity when schemes go live, for example through local advertising and advance signing several weeks in advance, so that those affected know what will change and when and can plan. Engagement should include publicity and on-street information warning of forthcoming changes to road layouts so that drivers are aware of them and can adjust their route and future journeys if necessary. 

Digital map providers should also be informed of changes, so that satellite navigation software is updated promptly, to avoid drivers being given a route that is closed to them. This will also assist delivery and logistics drivers to re-plan routes in advance and avoid unnecessary delays. 

Engagement should continue once a scheme is live. Feedback should be sought, reviewed regularly (e.g. annually), and acted on as necessary to make sure any problems are dealt with promptly. Where this engagement suggests that the community is no longer supportive of the scheme, authorities should introduce changes to address community concerns or remove the scheme. 

The Local Government Association has published a detailed guide to engagement, including advice on selecting appropriate methods. 

Design principles for effective LTNs 

Schemes should have clear aims and objectives, with a rationale and evidence to support intervention and measurable metrics of success. In determining whether to implement an LTN, decisions should be taken with reference to wider local policy objectives such as those set out in a local transport plan. Making the link between decisions on individual schemes, and strategic local policies which have been consulted on and signed off by local elected members, will help set the scheme in context and reassure communities that local democratic processes have been followed. 

Local authorities should consider which approach will be most appropriate. LTNs can be implemented through the use of traffic signs, or physical measures such as bollards. A mix of both may be appropriate – for example, bollards may be placed at some roads in a scheme while others are controlled by traffic sign restrictions. The pros and cons of each should be considered including for enforcement and exemptions. Signed restrictions allow exemptions more easily. Physical measures are self-enforcing, meaning enforcement by camera or civil enforcement officer is not required. 

Active Travel England’s Area Check tool should be used to assess proposals during development. This stringent set of criteria will ensure the impacts of any LTN are properly considered and mitigations identified. 

Possible impacts should be considered, and mitigations identified and developed. This should include the impact on journey times both within the LTN and on boundary roads, the possibility of traffic displacement, impacts on emergency services and local businesses. 

Schemes should be designed for longevity and for effective maintenance – for example, planters should not be left to collect rubbish. Physical measures should be of good quality and sympathetic to the local environment. 

Schemes should be designed to be accessible to all. Accessibility requirements and the Public Sector Equality Duty apply to all measures. In making any changes to their road networks, authorities must ensure that measures are designed and delivered in a way that enables them to comply with equalities legislation. An equality impact assessment can help identify impacts of proposed schemes. 

Access will still be required for other activities in the road, particularly street works, maintenance and other highway works. Street works and maintenance activity must be permitted. Utilities need to be able to access their infrastructure so, for example, concrete planters that cannot be moved should not be placed over underground apparatus. Use of the Street Manager digital service will help to plan and co-ordinate works. 

Traffic signing 

LTNs are a form of traffic restriction, restricting access to through traffic for some or all of the time. Such restrictions must be indicated with appropriate traffic signs, as set out in this section. For signed LTNs, the following signs are likely to be most appropriate. No specific road markings are required for LTNs. 

Traffic signs must be as prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) or authorised by the Secretary of State. The signs below are already prescribed with no requirements for approval or authorisation. Diagram numbers refer to those in TSRGD. 

It is for traffic authorities to make sure any signs are compliant with legislation and placed in accordance with the good practice advice given in Chapter 3 of the Traffic signs manual. Non-compliant or poorly placed signs may create confusion and undermine people’s understanding of, and compliance with, the scheme. See the section on ‘fair and effective enforcement’. 

Sufficient advance signing to inform drivers of restrictions on side roads should be provided so that they are informed in enough time to avoid contravening the restriction by mistake, or because there was no time to take an alternative route.

Graphic 1 – Motor vehicles prohibited (diagram 619)

The research found this to be the most common sign used. These can be provided with exception plates – for more information see the section on exemptions and exceptions. The restriction can be time limited or operate at all times.

Graphic 2 – Route for use by buses, taxis and cycles only (diagram 953)

Only buses, taxis and cycles may pass the sign. It can be difficult to provide exemptions to this sign as it is a positive instruction, but it may be appropriate as part of a wider scheme in combination with other signs, or clearly identified alternative routes for other traffic. Exception plate legends, other than times or “and authorised vehicles” require authorisation. Consideration should be given to use of the ‘no motor vehicles’ sign (which provides more exceptions) before applying for authorisation of exception plates to this sign.

Graphic 3 – Pedestrian and cycle zone with exception for disabled badge holders and loading by goods vehicles (diagram 618.3C and variants)

As with ‘no motor vehicles’, TSRGD prescribes exemptions and time periods which can be included.

Graphic 4 – No entry (diagram 616)

This is unlikely to be suitable on its own but may form part of a scheme where for example some roads are restricted to one-way access while others are signed with ‘no motor vehicles’. This sign is among the most safety-critical, and for this reason, the permitted exceptions are restricted to ‘except buses’ and ‘except cycles’. Therefore, it is not possible to provide other exceptions, for example for permit holders.  

Prior to the introduction of camera enforcement at specific sites, local authorities should also consider placing temporary ‘A-frame’ traffic signs on the final approaches. This additional, temporary, and inexpensive, option has the benefit of directly communicating with all drivers, whether or not they are the vehicle owner, including locals who might not expect to encounter enforcement at familiar locations. Guidance on the appropriate use of temporary traffic signs is available in Chapter 8 of the Traffic signs manual. 

Local authorities should consider placing permanent traffic signs to diagram 878 to provide longer term information as to the presence of traffic enforcement cameras. 

Graphic 5 – Traffic enforcement camera sign

Graphic 6 – Road closed signs

This sign should not be used as it is a temporary sign intended for use at street works and road works. There is no restriction associated with it that can be enforced, and no way to provide exemptions from it. It is also misleading to traffic, as the road is not closed completely but is still accessible via a different route. 

‘Road open’ signs, such as have been used in some schemes to advertise that the road is open to people walking, wheeling and cycling, are not prescribed in TSRGD and will not be authorised. These signs are potentially misleading, as they give the impression motor traffic is not present, whereas there will still be motor traffic using the road, for example that belonging to residents. Alternative means should be used to promote the scheme and its objectives such as public notices or advertising. 

Exemptions and exceptions 

TROs may include or exempt vehicular traffic of any class as specified in the order. Exempt vehicles are not always indicated on the associated traffic signing, hence the need for them to be easily identifiable to ensure enforcement action is not taken against them. 

Authorities should consider exempting from restrictions vehicles that deliver essential services and that are easily identifiable. This should include emergency service vehicles as a minimum. Others such as Royal Mail vehicles, as a universal postal service provider, and contracted rubbish collection vehicles may also benefit. 

Authorities should always consider exemptions for Blue Badge holders, deliveries and other essential services. 

Vehicles excepted from a restriction are generally indicated on the traffic signs associated with the TRO. These can include: 

• permit holders 

• buses 

• taxis  

• disabled badge holders 

• loading activity 

Although permitted, ‘except for access’ should be avoided as it is not specific enough to enable the restriction to operate effectively. 

Allowing exceptions for buses can reduce journey times and improve their reliability and attractiveness as a service, increasing patronage. In turn this may help a scheme achieve objectives to reduce motor traffic and mitigate negative impacts on boundary road congestion.  

Allowing exceptions for taxis can benefit disabled people who may rely on these services. 

The following should be considered as possible permit holders: residents, local businesses, healthcare workers. Authorities should also consider what destinations may lie within the LTN which would benefit from permits, for example GP surgeries. 

LTNs implemented through bollards, planters or other physical features 

LTNs can also be implemented using physical measures. These have the effect of closing the road to through traffic, usually at all times. 

Physical measures are self-enforcing, meaning enforcement by camera or civil enforcement officer is not required. However, exemptions cannot easily be made, meaning all motor traffic must take the longer route.  

Powers to install bollards, planters and other street furniture are set out in Part VII of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. A TRO is required, which must either be a permanent or experimental order.  

There is no specific traffic signing requirement for LTNs implemented in this way as the barrier itself shows the restriction is in place. However, where the features chosen still allows some access, for example for motorcycles, additional signed restrictions may be necessary depending on the objectives of the scheme. 

This is likely to particularly impact on emergency services when on call, which should be considered during the design phase. Gates have been used in some locations, but these require drivers to have the right key and create delays to their journeys. The potential for them to be left open may undermine the effectiveness of a scheme.  

Physical measures are more likely to be appropriate for small schemes only. A combination of signed restrictions and physical measures may be effective, depending on road layouts.  

Planters should not be chosen as a ‘cheap and cheerful’ option, except for limited trial periods. They can detract from the overall appearance of the street and can attract rubbish unless regularly cleaned. 

They can provide an opportunity to introduce green infrastructure through planting, but a maintenance regime should be established at the outset to make sure it will last and enhance the appearance of the street.  

Traffic regulation orders 

Whether implemented through traffic signing or physical features, LTNs will require TROs, of which there are different types.  

Permanent and experimental orders must be made following the procedures set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. 

The process for making permanent orders includes prior consultation on the proposed scheme design, a 21-day notice period for statutory consultees and others who can submit objections; there can be a public inquiry in some circumstances. The advice in the section on ‘good practice in engagement’ should be followed. 

The research showed that the most common type of TRO used was an experimental order (ETRO) made under section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. These are used to trial schemes that may then be made permanent. Schemes can be put in place with 7 days’ notice. Given this short lead-in time authorities should ensure that any schemes intended to be introduced through an ETRO are developed with proper prior engagement with communities, as set out in the section on ‘good practice in engagement’ before any order is made. Local residents and businesses should be given the opportunity to comment on proposed changes. The requirement to consult statutory consultees prior to making is the same as for permanent orders. 

Schemes installed using ETROs are subject to a requirement for ongoing consultation for 6 months once in place, with statutory consultees including bus operators, emergency services and freight industry representatives. This consultation allows a trial scheme to be adjusted in the light of experience and feedback, which can lead to a better scheme overall and help address community concerns about impacts. Schemes should be monitored and evaluated to help make decisions as to whether the scheme should be made permanent and, if so, in what form. The need for extra monitoring and consultation afterwards can make them a more onerous process overall than other types of order. 

Temporary orders must be made following the procedures set out in the Road (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992. 

There must be a valid, transport related reason for making the order and putting the measures in place. Temporary TROs can be made for the reasons set out in section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984: 

• because works are being or are proposed to be executed on or near the road 

• because of the likelihood of danger to the public, or of serious damage to the road, which is not attributable to such works 

• for the purpose of enabling the duty imposed by section 89(1)(a) or (2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter clearing and cleaning) to be discharged 

Temporary TROs cannot be used to support installation of physical features under Part VII of RTRA. 

Temporary orders can be in place for up to 18 months. There is a 7-day notice period prior to making the TRO and a 14-day notification requirement after it is made, plus publicity requirements. It is also recommended that authorities consult local residents and businesses at the design stage to ensure schemes will not have unintended consequences. 

Monitoring and evaluation 

Authorities should collect appropriate data to build a robust evidence base on which to develop proposals and make decisions. This should demonstrate whether the intended impacts and outcomes of the scheme are observed, recognising the rationale for the investment and include traffic counts, pedestrian and cyclist counts, traffic speed, journey times both within and around the perimeter, patterns of traffic flow, air quality data (particularly the possible air quality impacts of displaced traffic), public opinion surveys and consultation responses. 

Impacts on various groups should be assessed and monitored, in a way that recognises the rationale for the investment. This should particularly include disabled people and those with other protected characteristics to ensure the Public Sector Equality Duty is fully considered, as well as emergency services. 

This should be collected before, during and after the scheme is implemented, to inform design and ongoing decisions about its operation and provide a baseline for measuring whether the scheme has met its objectives.  

Local authorities should follow the good practice principles of monitoring and evaluation which are outlined in the Active Travel England fund monitoring guidance issued alongside ATE-funded schemes. 

Transport analysis guidance unit E1 sets out good practice in planning the evaluation of transport interventions to ensure robust evidence can be collected about the difference that they are making in practice and lessons that can be learnt for the future. 

Local authorities should regularly review schemes drawing on the monitoring and evaluation data collected, to ensure they’re delivering what is expected. Schemes should be adjusted if this reveals issues with performance and removed if they are shown to have failed to deliver as expected, including a failure to demonstrate local support, and cannot be amended to meet their objectives. 

Fair and effective enforcement 

Traffic management schemes should be designed to work for local communities and never as a revenue raising tool. Local engagement is key to this. The public should have easy access to a local authority’s enforcement policies and priorities; this makes a local authority more accountable to its residents and should also help counter accusations that enforcement is being carried out in an arbitrary or unfair way. Enforcement should be proportionate and focus on dangerous/irresponsible drivers. 

Local authorities must have regard to the latest statutory guidance made under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 on the use of moving traffic enforcement powers. This is clear that warning notices should be issued for first-time contraventions for a period of 6 months after new schemes are implemented, or existing ones are made subject to camera enforcement for the first time. 

It is also important that drivers and other road users understand the details of the scheme. Unclear restrictions, or restrictions that do not comply with regulations or with the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance will confuse people, and ultimately undermine the operation and enforcement of the scheme overall. 

If local authorities detect hot spots where a disproportionate number of PCNs are issued or representations or appeals are being made, that should alert them to a possible need to review the cause. Monitoring of PCN/challenge levels should be carried out from the outset. 

Local authorities must ensure sufficient traffic signing is provided to make drivers aware of the restriction, that it is compliant in design, is properly placed so that drivers can see it in time to avoid fines, and accurately conveys the restriction in the order. An adjudicator may uphold appeals against PCNs where traffic restrictions are not properly indicated with traffic signs. The review found a significant number of PCNs issued to schemes were challenged, with 48% of those challenged being overturned. 

As part of ensuring that TROs and traffic signs are accurate and lawful, local authorities should identify and remove any signs that are either obsolete or no longer necessary, whether or not relating directly to the restriction being enforced. This will reduce sign clutter, and aid effective enforcement by ensuring drivers are presented with clear information in an uncluttered environment. 

Enforcement of this guidance 

The government will work cooperatively with local authorities to ensure this guidance is adhered to, but the Secretary of State will, of course, consider what action may be appropriate if it is not. 

The Traffic Management Act 2004 provides that where the Secretary of State considers that an authority is not meeting its network management duty the Secretary of State may give the authority an intervention notice or make an intervention order. An intervention order would see the Secretary of State appoint a transport director for the authority to ensure the network management duty is fulfilled. The extent to which an authority has had regard for the network management duty guidance in performing their network management duties would form part of any decision making process as set out in the guidance on intervention criteria. 

The Secretary of State also reserves the right to take into account adherence to this guidance in relevant future transport funding allocations to local authorities as appropriate. 

As set out in the Plan for Drivers, a consultation is also being developed on options to target the use of DVLA data by authorities who are found to have undertaken unfair enforcement. This guidance will be updated as necessary to reflect the outcomes of that consultation, including any legislative changes.