Rockets

Which is exactly why the High Court judge has ruled the West Dulwich LTN unlawful.

Ha ha...are Healthy Neighbourhoods the new name for LTNs.....like renaming a night club that has an awful reputation? And is Lambeth now using an "engagement" as the new watered-down "consultation"? Correct me if I am wrong but Lambeth distinguishes between the two don't they and an engagement requires less detail - ahem, one wonders why they might be choosing that path..... Let's see if Lambeth can make these ones lawful hey!!! 😉 Really? The High Court Judge doesn't seem to agree with you on that one.... He said that the dossier created by WDAG, which argued traffic would be pushed on to heavily congested boundary roads affecting thousands of school and nursery children, was "highly relevant to the decision confronting officers". He said: "The 53-page presentation did not form part of the council's considerations in its decision to make the [LTN] orders. It should have done. "The failure to have regard to it was a serious failing, rendering the decision to make the orders unlawful."

BBC News - West Dulwich low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) unlawful, High Court rules - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg4178plvdo Hmmm, might be wishful thinking on your parts there folks....

But the point I am making is they treat the decision they make as if it were a a referendum - except they are the only ones who have a vote! Do you see the point I am making: we the council embark on a democratic consultation. The people say they don't want it so we say - well we're the only ones with the vote that matters, we are going to ignore the weight of evidence against us and are going to do whatever we want whether you want it or not....this is the whole basis of why the High Court Judge ruled the West Dulwich one unlawful. The judge is actually saying the consultation should have been run more like a referendum.

One Dulwich Campaign Update | 12 May West Dulwich Action Group wins LTN legal battle Congratulations to the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), the first campaign group in the UK to win a legal battle over an LTN. Last week, a High Court judge ruled that Lambeth Council’s consultation was unfair and the West Dulwich LTN unlawful. The LTN was implemented last September after a consultation in which 67.5 per cent of residents objected (a similar percentage objected to the Dulwich Village and East Dulwich LTNs). It will remain in place pending further direction from the judge, who may order its removal. The judgment has given hope to our fellow campaigners in Croydon and Greenwich. Challenging councils over consultations has always been hard, firstly because the time window for legal action is so small, but also because the courts have previously seemed reluctant to rule against trial schemes, especially those introduced during Covid (listen to the report at 1:34:59 on BBC Radio 4 Today). But now, in 2025, the tide may be turning. WDAG’s win was widely reported – see The Times, The Telegraph, and BBC London. Now WDAG are calling on Lambeth to refund more than £1 million in fines issued since last September. Southwark News calls for the Council to work with Dulwich residents Cllr Richard Leeming’s comment at last week’s meeting on the Future of Dulwich made front page headlines in this week’s Southwark News: “Ward councillor asserts that Southwark’s most controversial LTN will not be lifted whilst there is a Labour Council.” The newspaper also devotes its entire editorial to the meeting, highlighting local anger and frustration, and the “vital importance in politics of bringing people with you.” “Going forward,” the editorial says, “the council should explore ways it can work with local residents to address some of their concerns – only then might we see a system that works for everyone.” We couldn’t agree more. Our councillors have our contact details – we look forward to hearing from them. Thank you for your support.

Because it's not in their interests.....any council, no matter the political leaning, likes the idea that they can manipulate the outcome....we are repeatedly told by the council and their supporters that "consultations are not referendum's" but the council actually treats them as if they are by making binding decisions on the basis of the outcome (nee the decision they decide that is right whether residents support it or not during the consultation). Ahem and then loose-lipped councillors like Cllr Leeming say silly things like they will stay whilst there is a Labour administration which makes them look even more entrenched and stubborn and utterly at odds with the local mood board. The whole consultation process is a farce and only works if the result the community gives is the result the council wants - they're about as democratic as Russian elections.....;-)

But folks remember, it's not the constituent dissenting voices who are the problem here. It is the people who are running the consultations who are trying to skew things to their advantage. All of these dissenting voice groups are only in existence because the councils tried to railroad their plans through undemocratically. The West Dulwich group had to raise £50,000 to challenge the council after the council refused to entertain any of their concerns - that is shameful and shows the lengths constituents have to go to to be heard and the lengths councils will go to to silence them. There is a similar pattern of behaviour between all of the councils locally.

It might be irritating for you Mal but it is a victory. It is a victory for all of those who said the council/s have been manipulating the process of forcing these measures on local residents. As I said a long, long time ago the way councils were going about is ultimately doing long-term harm to the climate change debate as they fixated on idealogical rather than pragmatic measures - and measures that actually did nothing to help the very cause they were trying to influence - in some cases making it worse. I sense your irritation is because that one decision vindicates much of what some of us have been saying for a long time and I suspect you also realise this will have a knock-on effect in other areas as the template and legal precedent has been set for more challenges on the basis of councils installing them unlawfully. Actually Earl, the problem is that they are skewed towards councils being able to manipulate the process to install things, in the case of West Dulwich unlawfully - this is the crux of this but I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be wholesale change to what is clearly not a democratic consultation process and one that is being manipulated. This is why I think this is a watershed moment because if you look back on how Southwark council behaved in relation to LTN and CPZ consultations in our area it was a woefully poor and biased process. Just think back to consultations where you could not say a simple "no" but were forced to agree to some sort of measure - it's utterly shameful how local politicians have manipulated to the process - with the help of many of the aforementioned groups. I do hope that those politicians will one day be held accountable for their role in all of this. Lambeth clearly have a big issue based solely on the number of fines issued unlawfully (is it supposed to be £1,000,000 worth?) - that sounds like the mother of all legal battles and now you may see the ambulance chasers going after Lambeth on behalf of the thousands of people who have been incorrectly issued tickets - more tax-payers money being wasted in defending them. It's going to get really messy and they only have themselves to blame - I suspect a lot of other councils are having cold sweats right now.

Perhaps Richard was there to glean info on how to prove the ones this side of Dulwich are unlawful as well....;-)

I am heartened because many of the laughter emoji trolls laughed at the prospect of a High Court Challenge to the West Dulwich LTN. What's the saying: he who laughs last laughs longest....;-) Ha ha! 🙂

Bravo to everyone involved. Delusional seems so apt to describe how some councillors and their active travel lobbyist friends have become. For every laughing emoji they leave on forums like this or for every attempt to smear anyone who dares question them by accusing them of being a facist you know deep down they know that we are right - that many councils have been acting unlawfully and undemocratically when it comes to LTNs. I do hope you all have a celebratory street party within the LTN! The worm is starting to turn and lets hope those responsible take full accountability for their actions.

I very much suspect that the Southwark legal team will be calling urgent meetings with councillors to determine if, or perhaps more likely how much, the council is exposed in terms of the lawfulness of their LTNs and given the issues Southwark had with the consultations I suspect there will be some nervous folks at Southwark HQ. The house of cards may be about to come tumbling down but at least Southwark can now look for favourable support from central government - unless of course Labour HQ is happy to hang some of their harder-left administrations out to dry - Southwark Labour has always been a thorn in the side of more moderate Labour leadership. Grab your popcorn this is going to get interesting.

Perhaps Ian should, instead of trying to weave a narrative that the residents funded this with money from dodgy right-wing facist/Reform/People's Party of the Right to pollute sources (where have we seen that tactic before), worry that a local council used tax payers money to roll out an LTN that was deemed to be unlawful on the basis that they did not properly take into account all of the material considerations (either they cut corners or didn't do the job they are entrusted to do) and then used tax payers money to defend themselves in court. And lost. Because it is unlawful. Of course it stays, for now, as the council will be exploring every avenue open to then to try and extracate themselves from the mess - which was entirely of their own making. The next moves will be fascinating but this is incredibly embarrassing for Lambeth and a real filip to anyone who sees similarities with their own local LTNs - the template has now been set for any other legal challenges.

March46, I know you're disappointed and this must come as a real blow but it is a watershed moment because Lambeth have been caught doing exactly what Southwark have been doing. In that the "council had not taken into account all material considerations, and had therefore been unlawful". And look at the items within the dossier that were the undoing of the council: Displacement of Traffic onto Boundary Roads Increasing Rather Than Decreasing Pollution Increased Road Hazards and Collisions: ● Overwhelming Public Opposition Ignored: ● Damage To Crucial Local Businesses: ● Absence of an Impact Assessment: ● Flawed Monitoring and Evaluation of Pollution and Traffic: Trust me, Southwark will be looking very closely at how this ruling might impact their implementation of LTNS. It is also going to be very interesting to see how Lambeth try to extricate themselves from this self-made mess and to see who takes accountability. Councils have been cheating the system and their constituents and Lambeth have been caught and remember residents had to raise the money to bring this landmark case. Why? Because the council refused to engage with them and tried to push them to one side - no doubt referring to them as a noisy minority.

Where have we seen this before....I do wonder if this has sent shivers through other councils who may worry they also have unlawful LTNs.....could this be a watershed moment and councils will finally start being forced to listen to constituents....#lookingatyousouthwark The WDAG spokesperson added: "This ruling sends a clear signal to all 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. A WDAG spokesperson said: "We are delighted with today's ruling, which clearly demonstrates that Lambeth Council failed to fully consider the impacts and effects of the LTN on local residents and businesses. "Lambeth Council chose to spend public funds fighting the very community it exists to serve, rather than sitting down with us to find a workable, locally supported solution. "Meanwhile, over 700 residents and businesses had no choice but to raise more than £50,000 just to have their voices heard."

BBC News - West Dulwich low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) unlawful, High Court rules - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg4178plvdo

By default anyone who leaves a Glastonbury (parking) sticker in their vehicle window should have it removed and crushed! There are some cars around our way that have a plethora of them in their window - clearly keen to let everyone know how frequently they go!

So Ex- by your reckoning the sweet spot for works is June and July then? One wonders then why so much of the non-essential works always seems to happen at the same time in March.... When did the Dulwich Square works commence......they finished in November/December didn't they? Ahem.....

I think the issue is that Dulwich Square has probably had more council money spent on it than any other equivalent sized-area in the borough - the £ per square foot of tax-payer's money buried within it must be astronomical so people do have a keen interested in what happens there. There clearly will be disruption caused by the building of the new house in the garden so let's see and hope that it is kept to a minimum - the council has a lot of ROI to generate from that space.... 😉

Maybe it is but if it gets approved let's see if anyone has any issues with the disruption it could well cause.....watch this space....

Malumbu......err sorry - it was a legitimate question. You use the Square don't you - surely there will be disruption - the entrance to the building works will be beyond the threshold of the road narrowing and very close to the cycle parking? Not sure how you have managed to take that and link it to Reform - I can't imagine even they would run on a ticket based on the outrage caused by the building of an additional house in the garden of a house adjacent to Dulwich Square 😉 Apparently the application was rejected once and some of the neighbours are not at all happy about it.

Do you not think it is going to cause some challenges given the building works are taking place in the garden of the property and I presume access for the works will be through the back gate that is adjacent to the Calton Ave entrance to Dulwich Square which will probably lead to builders vans and unloading vehicles being parked nearby?

Ex- come on, you know what essential works are - if a water main bursts or the gas/electricity supply is cut - you need to get in there and fix it immediately to reconnect supply/repair the damage. Three lots of changes to the pavement layout are not "essential" and should never have been scheduled to happen at the same time cutting 3 of 4 arterial routes into and out of Dulwich. Surely you be pragmatic enough to agree with that? The timing of having all 3 at once was a disaster and responsibility for that lies with the council and I still believe two of them happened as the council needed to spend surplus as the end of the year.

Ex- I am challenging you as you are suggesting it is a myth that the council ramps works at the end of the financial year to spend any surplus and you claim it is actually because of the weather....but I am still trying to determine why so many non-essential works (like the DV, Melbourne Grove and A205 works) all seem to have started around the same time in March - hardly the most predictable time in terms of weather. I was not putting words into your mouth but posing a question...

Are any of the Dulwich Square supporters concerned that the plans for a two-bedroom dwelling (in I presume the garden of) at 1B Court Lane might lead to significant disruption during the building works?