West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[first mate]

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So I'm confused. The manufacturer has 'of course' said that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles, even in slow moving traffic. Or they have very specifically 'admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph)'?

Earl, do you think the Times journalist was lying when they reported that Metro count as saying their counters did not work well in stop start traffic? Do you think stop start traffic in a 'town centre' is likely to be fast or slow moving? Do you disagree with Aldred's caveat that the siting of counters close to junctions may affect data? You seem to agree with absolutely everything Aldred says so...

Edited October 5, 2024 by first mate

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, first mate said:

You seem to agree with absolutely everything Aldred says so...

Very good point...well made.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

12 hours ago, first mate said:

to try to get this thread back on track...

...you post paragraphs and paragraphs of stuff that's not about the West Dulwich LTN that is the subject of the thread. 🙃

[first mate]

But at least I do try at times to get it back on thread unlike others...

Edited October 5, 2024 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

So the judgment is in - they've rejected two of the three grounds for the claim, but upheld one. In summary, Lambeth's consultation was inadequate

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fh51LzWC7DQHArYoJrnnzoeKSWqp39Aj/view?pli=1 

From my quick perusal of the judgment, it appears to have come down to the council's failure to take adequate account of a 53 page presentation submitted by the complainant (WDAG). Not sure what this actually means for the trial currently in place. Lambeth have said they'll continue with it whilst they seek further clarification / direction from the court I believe. 

Edited May 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

BBC News - West Dulwich low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) unlawful, High Court rules - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg4178plvdo

[malumbu]

Earl had already posted this, and with more information, rather than just echoing the BBC. 

[Rockets]

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."

[march46]

It doesn’t seem to be the watershed moment you’re hoping for Rockets. 2 of the 3 grounds of challenge were dismissed. The one that was upheld is limited specifically to a 53 page report that the council couldn’t evidence they had taken into account in their decision making. Consultation was deemed lawful.

A quote from the judgement: 

“Although I found that the Council fell into error in how it dealt substantively with the output of the consultation (specifically the 53-page presentation produced by the Claimant), overall I did not harbour any significant concerns about the conduct of the consultation and engagement as a whole. As I noted above, the threshold for finding a consultation process to be so deficient that it is legally flawed is a high one. “
 

 

[first mate]

But it does not reflect well on the council who repeatedly claimed they were receptive to resident and business views. It also gives the lie to the claim it is a vocal minority who are unhappy with the LTN. It is difficult to know how this council managed to 'ignore' a 53 page objection document- which the judge said was impressive and full of relevant detail. 

[Rockets]

28 minutes ago, march46 said:

doesn’t seem to be the watershed moment you’re hoping for Rockets. 2 of the 3 grounds of challenge were dismissed.

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. 

[Penguin68]

Is there any evidence that Lambeth will not appeal this finding, after all it's a 'good' use of their limited funds to challenge a ruling which might put a coach and horses through their ability to take forward their agenda? Maybe Southwark will help them here? There are contributers here who would dig into their pockets to help Lambeth out in their time of need I'm sure. 

[march46]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

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. 

 

Why would I be disappointed? 

 

[Rockets]

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.

 

[ab29]

I really hope the arrogant Southwark council will be one day forced to remove Dulwich ltns which it forced on residents against their will

[Penguin68]

16 minutes ago, ab29 said:

I really hope the arrogant Southwark council will be one day forced to remove Dulwich ltns which it forced on residents against their will

I'm afraid, on their own statements, that Southwark electors will have to remove them before there is, or could be, any change. And if that happens then there won't be any labour party left in London. 

[Rockets]

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.

Edited May 10 by Rockets

[Rashmipat]

Just wanted to say we won and beat lambeth LTN debarcle.

It’s incredibly rare for the High Court to rule against a council — which shows just how undemocratic Lambeth has become. They’re pursuing a reckless agenda, seemingly driven by the personal ambitions of two key figures: Council Leader Claire Holland and her deputy, Cllr Rezina Chowdhury.

While the rest of the UK works toward Net Zero by 2050, Lambeth is fixated on a self-imposed Net Zero 2030 target. That’s not leadership — it’s delusional. Expecting to hit that goal in just four years, when they’re miles off-track, is sheer madness.

I support serious climate action — but badly implemented LTNs actually increase pollution. Lambeth’s own data, along with TfL’s, proves this. And yet, the council continues to press on, ignoring the facts and the concerns of residents and businesses.

But let’s not just blame Lambeth. TfL is bankrolling these schemes — without any meaningful analysis of whether they work. Look at the Rosendale Road cycle lane: it’s an eyesore, dangerous, and the cause of accidents. Now they want to extend it, despite openly admitting they haven’t even evaluated if the first phase was a success.

What responsible institution funds expansion without checking if the original worked? No bank would lend to a business like that. And frankly, hardly anyone even uses the cycle lanes.

We need climate solutions that are credible, evidence-based, and collaborative — not vanity projects and reckless experiments.

[Rockets]

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.

Edited May 10 by Rockets

[Rockets]

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! 🙂

Edited May 10 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

An interesting twist 

The campaigners are requesting that Lambeth pays back any fines generated by the LTN 

Estimated at over £1 million in 6 months 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/unlawful-ltn-takes-1m-from-motorists/

[march46]

Interesting to see Dulwich Village’s Richard Aldwinkle (aka Mr One Dulwich) in the article’s photo of “members of the West Dulwich community who campaigned to scrap the LTN in their neighbourhood.” 

[Spartacus]

37 minutes ago, march46 said:

Interesting to see Dulwich Village’s Richard Aldwinkle (aka Mr One Dulwich) in the article’s photo of “members of the West Dulwich community who campaigned to scrap the LTN in their neighbourhood.” 

You make it sound like a conspiracy theory 😅

It doesn't surprise me he's in the picture, along with other people who objected to the LTN. 

Nothing unexpected in the photo, bit like any campaign group would have taken for any other subject 

[ab29]

2 hours ago, march46 said:

Interesting to see Dulwich Village’s Richard Aldwinkle (aka Mr One Dulwich) in the article’s photo of “members of the West Dulwich community who campaigned to scrap the LTN in their neighbourhood.” 

And?

Several anti ltn groups from across London got together to oppose the unfair road closures.

I fully support One Dulwich - the arrogance of the pro ltn crowd -  especially London cyclists and in case of Dulwich, Southwark council: dismissing every concern, every worry, every question from people living / using main roads, the sheer disdain and treating the people like trash - this will come back to bite

Edited May 11 by ab29
.

[Rockets]

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