DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: News / Press Articles
*****************************************************
#Post#: 70874--------------------------------------------------
Lambeth LTN illegal
By: John U.K. Date: May 11, 2025, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
From
HTML https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/09/labour-council-could-be-forced-to-axe-ltn-lambeth/
[font=Times New Roman]Labour council could be forced to axe LTN
High Court judge rules that Lambeth gave a ‘masterclass in
selective partial reporting’ as document failed to register
hostility to scheme
The West Dulwich Action Group are against the low traffic
neighbourhood scheme
Steve Bird
09 May 2025 9:05pm BST
A Labour council could be forced to scrap a low traffic
neighbourhood (LTN) after a High Court judge ruled it unlawful
and its consultation “unfair”.
Mr Justice Smith said Lambeth council was guilty of a “serious
failing” after it ignored an “impressive” report which warned
that street closures in south London could lead to increased
congestion and pollution.
He also found the local authority had given a “masterclass in
selective partial reporting” after a council document failed to
record how a public consultation about the West Dulwich LTN
engendered tremendous “hostility” from local people.
The West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), which brought the case,
has become the first residents’ organisation to win a legal
battle over an LTN.
The judgment will prove hugely embarrassing for Lambeth council,
which claims the millions of pounds it has generated from LTN
fines is helping to fight climate change.
A WDAG spokesman said: “We are delighted with this ruling, which
clearly demonstrates that Lambeth council failed to fully
consider the impacts and effects of the LTN on local residents
and businesses.
“It sends a clear signal to councils nationwide: communities
will no longer tolerate top-down, poorly conceived schemes that
ignore local input, which prioritise revenue over real solutions
to issues like pollution.
“We were made to feel as though we were climate deniers standing
in the way of work meant to help the planet.
“In fact, we were showing legitimate concerns that the scheme
conversely added more pollution and was unfairly impacting more
people than it was helping, including 6,300 school children and
poorer communities living on the LTN boundaries. This judgment
shows the LTN is unlawful and should be scrapped.”
The LTN in West Dulwich provoked hostility from residents
In February, the Royal Courts of Justice heard two days of legal
arguments after WDAG claimed the consultation on the LTN was
unfair.
On Friday, Mr Justice Smith published a 34-page judgment which
found the local group had proven one of three grounds in its
challenge.
The court heard that council staff had been given a “wellbeing
day” off after being “left in tears” because “angry” residents
at a 2023 meeting at West Norwood Library were “relentless” in
their opposition.
Mr Justice Smith concluded the session was “not a happy event”
with “feelings against the proposals by some of those in
attendance clearly running high”.
He was “less sympathetic” with the council because an official
report claimed the event “gave the local community an
opportunity to look at the proposals in detail and ask any
further questions”.
Mr Justice Smith wrote: “The passage [in the council document]
is a masterclass in selective partial reporting. It is what it
does not say that renders the reporting of the event
misleading.”
Mr Justice Smith said that the council’s consultation process
was lawful, but some elements “could undoubtedly have been
improved upon”.
He added that the way the council considered input from
engagement with the public was unlawful.
Two-thirds against the LTN
A separate survey revealed that 67.5 per cent of those who
responded were either very unhappy or unhappy with the scheme.
Mr Justice Smith also concluded that an “impressive” 53-page
presentation by WDAG given to the local authority “did not form
part of the council’s considerations in its decisions” about the
LTN.
The document claimed traffic banned from the LTN would clog up
and pollute boundary roads where often poorer communities lived.
It also showed how their research had established would increase
journey times, “intensifying rather than reducing pollution”.
The judgment said: “The failure to have regard to it [the WDAG
report] was a serious failing, rendering the decision to make
the [traffic] Orders [to close the roads] unlawful.”
Mr Justice Smith invited lawyers for WDAG and Lambeth to make
further arguments about what would be “appropriate relief”
following his judgment.
Lord Justice Smith said that the way the council considered
input from engagement with the public was unlawful
Cllr Rezina Chowdhury, deputy leader of Lambeth council, said
they introduced the LTN to “reduce road danger and create a
neighbourhood where residents can live safer, happier and
healthier lives” and promote “active travel”.
She added: “The court has allowed the claim against the West
Dulwich Street Improvements on one of the three grounds of
challenge, and dismissed the other two. We acknowledge the
court’s decision and are carefully considering the implications
of this judgment; we will provide further updates in due course.
“The current trial scheme in West Dulwich will remain in place
in the meantime, while we await further directions from the
court.
“The council has done a huge amount of work, in partnership with
residents throughout Lambeth, to make neighbourhoods more
pleasant, and make roads safer, more vibrant, green and
accessible.
“We remain fully committed to working with local communities to
transform streets across the borough and getting on with our
programme to deliver benefits for everyone.”
[/font]
© Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited 2025
The Judgment:
HTML https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/west-dulwich-action-group-v-the-london-borough-of-lambeth/
#Post#: 71224--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
By: stamfordman Date: May 13, 2025, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is overblown - the judge misdirected himself I think by
allowing this one point on consultation by a well-funded lobby
group.
This is an experimental traffic order - if councils had to
consider all the nonsense trumped up by the car lobby before
trialling anything then nothing would get done.
I expect Lambeth will see this off.
#Post#: 74786--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
By: gge12 Date: June 4, 2025, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/04/labour-lambeth-council-forced-axe-ltn-high-court-london-uk/
#Post#: 74998--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
By: Hippocrates Date: June 5, 2025, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ge92xldrjo
#Post#: 76062--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
By: theeagleman Date: June 11, 2025, 12:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They have been removed end of last week
#Post#: 76417--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
By: observer22 Date: June 13, 2025, 3:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the High Court decision retroactive ? Could I/we get a refund
for a PCN paid a few months ago ?
#Post#: 76553--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
By: andy_foster Date: June 15, 2025, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If it is unlawful, it was always unlawful. Whether a judge would
decide that you had voluntarily decided to donate the money you
paid in response to the penalty issued by Lambeth, or whether he
would decide that you had the opportunity to appeal (on grounds
that you would not have been aware of when you had the
opportunity) and that the court will not unwind the statutory
process, depends on how bent he is.
Within the judiciary, the "F" word is "floodgates".
#Post#: 77514--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
By: ivanleo Date: June 21, 2025, 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=stamfordman link=topic=6278.msg71224#msg71224
date=1747135023]
This is overblown - the judge misdirected himself I think by
allowing this one point on consultation by a well-funded lobby
group.
This is an experimental traffic order - if councils had to
consider all the nonsense trumped up by the car lobby before
trialling anything then nothing would get done.
I expect Lambeth will see this off.
[/quote]
And you say that having attended the hearing and having heard
and read all the evidence and all the submissions the judge
considered?
#Post#: 77528--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
By: John U.K. Date: June 21, 2025, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Others are thinking along the lines the of the West Dulwich
residents:
see
HTML https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-ltn-and-the-west-dulwich-case/
which link I posted on another thread earlier today.
#Post#: 77777--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
By: stamfordman Date: June 23, 2025, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=cp8759 link=topic=6278.msg77514#msg77514
date=1750514653]
[quote author=stamfordman link=topic=6278.msg71224#msg71224
date=1747135023]
This is overblown - the judge misdirected himself I think by
allowing this one point on consultation by a well-funded lobby
group.
This is an experimental traffic order - if councils had to
consider all the nonsense trumped up by the car lobby before
trialling anything then nothing would get done.
I expect Lambeth will see this off.
[/quote]
And you say that having attended the hearing and having heard
and read all the evidence and all the submissions the judge
considered?
[/quote]
Did you go? I've read the judgement and it seems to amount to
nonsense by the judge (who has been identified as a contact of
one of the well-off campaigners).
It boils down to a presentation by the West Dulwich Action Group
that the judge - who must be a traffic expert (not) - said is
'impressive'. This document includes rubbish such as “TfL
collision data shows that forcing all resident traffic North
will increase their likelihood of being in a collision by over
+1000%”.
All this to reopen a couple of rat runs when real world data was
being collected under an experimental order.
Sources
Judgement
HTML https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/West-Dulwich-Action-Group-v-London-Borough-of-Lambeth.pdf
Lambeth decision details
HTML https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=8618
West Dulwich Action Group presentation
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xxb6ilYIB-bquEmDXwkLKUOXzHcabljv/view
Better Streets West Dulwich - rebuttal of claims by West Dulwich
Action Group
HTML https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iib6gez1hjGUubUdmPeSrwUrowL0Vunoti6dVN9OlWg/edit?tab=t.0
Relief decision
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z0NktxPq-J41OXU1EwEt69Br6ioGPOB2/view
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page