West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 hours ago, Glemham said:

Romeo Jones, one of the last independent businesses in the Village will close on Saturday

Romeo Jones isn't by the junction. It's opposite Gail's which is constantly packed. It's sad that it's closed, but not sure one can blame a 'drop in footfall' caused by the changes to road layout introduced half a decade ago.

A lot of new businesses have opened in the last few years, yes, some of them chains. The trend for chains is very unlikely to be related to reduced footfall though (often chains set up where footfall is highest, something they will research). It's to do with wider consumer trends and as you say, increasing rents / business rates / costs.

Honestly, I can't remember the last time I went into Romeo Jones, but it was not because I couldn't cut through calton avenue to get there by car, saving maybe 2 mins; did many of their customers really arrive by car and in a terrible hurry - parking where?. 

Edited May 23 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Now come on Earl, you know full well that until people were literally forced out of their cars by the council closing off roads, many were always popping out just a minute down the road to get a latte. This was a regular line used by some on here;)

There used to be quite of lot of parking in DV, actually.

[Kathleen Olander]

D Village is also now permanently closed.  The pop up art gallery is going.  The long promised greengrocer never appeared.

The Post Office is struggling, as well as the dry cleaners. 

[ab29]

On 23/05/2025 at 19:43, Kathleen Olander said:

D Village is also now permanently closed.  The pop up art gallery is going.  The long promised greengrocer never appeared.

The Post Office is struggling, as well as the dry cleaners. 

as long as THEY can cycle - is fine

Edited May 31 by ab29

[Spartacus]

According to an article in the Telegraph this morning, Lambeth had their appeal rejected and according to the article 

"A Labour council has been ordered to immediately scrap an “unlawful” low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) after losing a High Court battle." 

Later the article goes on to say 

"The West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), which brought the case after claiming the street closures had increased traffic and pollution on roads bordering the zone, welcomed the ruling and called for the council to repay the £1,080,580 in fines raised through the scheme." 

As yet not seen anything to collaborate this article so taking it with a pinch of road salt 

[Rockets]

https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/06/west-dulwich-ltn-overturned-by-high-court-with-lambeth-council-denied-permission-to-appeal/

Ouch....Lambeth got a telling off from the judge too......pretty clear now....

 

Deputy High Court Judge Tim Smith firmly rejected Lambeth’s attempt to delay removal of the LTN and to avoid the ETOs from being quashed:

“Revoking the Orders after I have made a finding of unlawfulness leaves the same impression as would an attempt to resign immediately after one has been fired.”

He also refused Lambeth’s request to appeal, confirming there was no realistic prospect of success, and stated in relation to Lambeth’s attempt to avoid paying a full costs award to WDAG:

“The Claimant came to court seeking a quashing of the Orders. It has gone away having achieved that objective. It has therefore been completely successful.”

A spokesperson for the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG) said:

“This ruling is definitive — the LTN was unlawful. The Council has lost, has been denied permission to appeal, and must now face the consequences of what that means. At the top of that list is the £1 million-plus in fines it issued while the unlawful scheme was in place.”

 

“We now call on Lambeth Council to clarify whether it will refund those fines. This is not just about legality — it’s about fairness and public trust. If the law was broken, the money should be paid back.”

 

“We also urge the Council not to attempt to pursue a second appeal via the Court of Appeal. Doing so would further waste taxpayers’ money and signal that its priority is protecting revenue, not engaging with the community it serves.”

 

“Let’s be clear: this case should never have gone to court. It could have been resolved through proper, respectful dialogue. Instead, Lambeth chose to defend litigation over listening — and the public has paid for it.”

[LordshipPain]

Where are our resident pro-regime astroturfers to tell us all the court's decision was completely what they wanted?

Edited Wednesday at 16:36 by LordshipPain

[first mate]

"The Court’s Order follows the Court’s 9 May 2025 Judgment, which found that Lambeth acted unlawfully by failing to consider critical community-submitted evidence before introducing the Experimental Traffic Orders (ETOs) which put the LTN in place."

According to some on here the community-submitted evidence was a load of "bollocks". 

[malumbu]

In deed it was.  Personally not sure why the judge based the decision on draft guidance from the dying days of a failing government.

Lambeth have published the outcome

https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/statement-west-dulwich-street-improvements-ruling/

You can read it yourself

And whilst you are at it details of all the other LTNs in Lambeth, they aren't going away nor are the numerous ones across the country.  A battle has been won by the 'pro-car, anti healthy and sustainable transport,  with no answers to addressing poor air quality and reducing carbon emissions' but not their war.

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/streets-roads-transport/low-traffic-neighbourhoods 

[first mate]

Sounds like the "as soon as we can do it safely" statement by Lambeth Council in response to the judgement directing removal of the LTN, may be a wheeze to keep it in place for as long as possible? Nobody wants anything to be done unsafely, but I am interested to learn what actioning the removal "safely" actually involves or means? Others may be able to enlighten us?

I had thought that community concerns about this LTN were to do with lack of fairness and inequality, especially about pollution. They felt air quality was being made worse on some roads as a result of the LTN. And round we go.

Edited Wednesday at 18:01 by first mate

[Rockets]

Sounds like Lambeth are finally having to be accountable for their (unlawful) actions. What a diabolical waste of tax-payers money and well done for WDAG for keeping up the fight and not giving in.

All of those spouting the "this is all a nonsense judgement based on an admin oversight" must be pretty upset right now - oh how they were happy to come on here to impart their wisdom on how the LTN would not have to be removed....well I guess they might be feeling a little daft right now.

Now I love how the narrative is "well the other LTNs aren't going anywhere" when surely the narrative should be how have we ended up at this point and can we trust our elected officials to do anything right? Maybe instead of cheer-leading the unlawful actions of a local council many should be trying to hold them to account (as many of us are) - for too long there have been way too many blinkered council-apologists who are helping prop up and defend councils who have been engaging in awful, and now in Lambeth's case unlawful, behaviour, often against the very people they are supposed to represent. Turning a blind eye because you agree with what they are doing is not a defence.

Lambeth have helped open a tinder box for other fights against LTNs and I suspect you will read more about successful challenges where there has been unlawfulness.

That statement from Lambeth Council is everything you would expect from a council that has been humiliated by a judge for their downright brazenness....one wonders if they might also be heading for a slap down from the High Court judge in the Brockwell Park case too...they are going to have to learn they aren't above the law nor are the above being accountable to residents. Maybe there might be a vacancy in the leadership of Lambeth council in the not too distant future too.....

No wonder so many are so disillusioned by politics and politicians now. It's this type of wanton abuse of power that is giving rise to the likes of Reform but, a bit like the statement from Lambeth for many politicians sorry seems to be the hardest word.

 

 

 

[pebs]

Marvellous 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

9 hours ago, first mate said:

"The Court’s Order follows the Court’s 9 May 2025 Judgment, which found that Lambeth acted unlawfully by failing to consider critical community-submitted evidence before introducing the Experimental Traffic Orders (ETOs) which put the LTN in place."

According to some on here the community-submitted evidence was a load of "bollocks". 

It is true that the Council must give due consideration to WDAG's submissions. But once you do, it's quickly obvious that they're bollocks.

Edited Thursday at 02:39 by Dogkennelhillbilly

[Rockets]

@Dogkennelhillbilly I think the judge and the high court didn't think so. If you read the ruling the judge was critical of many parts of the consultation process but said the issues raised did not reach the high-bar required to make them unlawful in his court.

Whatever anyone thinks about this I think we can all agree that Lambeth council have let themselves down, let their residents down and ultimately done harm to the broader active travel cause by implementing something that was, ultimately, unlawful. As I have said numerous times before the way councils are going about their implementation of active travel schemes could well be doing long-term harm to the fight against climate change.

The West Dulwich case and the removal of the LTN is a very local example of it and I suspect the first of many as other local resident groups learn from the WDAG victory as there are so many similarities between the gripes about the way the councils have been behaving.

[Earl Aelfheah]

31 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Whatever anyone thinks about this I think we can all agree that Lambeth council have let themselves down, let their residents down and ultimately done harm to the broader active travel cause by implementing something that was, ultimately, unlawful.

I think we can all agree that Lambeth failed to follow a lawful consultation process. The fact that you see all and any attempts to improve road safety, reduce traffic, pollution and increase active travel as part of a single cause / project is a big part of the problem. This scheme and the way the consultation has been undertaken tells us nothing about the many successful schemes elsewhere, or ULEZ, or bus lanes (which help move people more efficiently), or the increase in bike lanes (which have led to a huge increase in the numbers commuting into central London by bike), or any of the other broad range of things you regularly rail against.

Edited Thursday at 08:08 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

and increase active travel

Actually, I don't think this is the job of a council. That's up to, (should be up to) personal choice. I would agree that removing impediments to active travel, should there be any, may be a nice to, but not a need to, option - but let's not be naive about this - the council is interested primarily in revenue generation, and the £1m of fines here would certainly support this hypothesis. The disruption to bus services which shifting traffic on to only a few routes is clear evidence, in  my mind, that the council has little actually interest in active travel, save maybe that which the bike lobby shouts about, but for very many of us walking to use public transport is our only option, if we are elderly or frail. Make the public transport less accessible or slower and it decreases its value. And TFL trying to withdraw routes doesn't help! 'Active travel' is simply a dog whistle here - and has no relevance to what councils are actually doing or their motivations to do it.

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah the challenge facing many councils now is that so many of the tactics that Lambeth have used (and the judge had issues with) are the same that others councils have been using to force these measures in and to suppress legitimate concerns raised by local residents.

Unfortunately for councils it is not the cycle/active travel lobby or posters on forums who are deciding whether claims made by residents in opposition to the way councils have implemented these are B*****S or not it is now high court judges and they actually properly assess what happened on a point of law.

Lambeth have opened the floodgates. 

Yes there are lots of great, and effective, active travel interventions that have a clear ROI but there are also many that are local ideologically driven vanity projects that actually are doing more harm than good. This is the problem when politicians (of any kind) only listen to lobby groups - things get forced through that then have to be taken out because the proper process was not followed.

How much time and money has Lambeth wasted on this?

It is not that many messages ago that people were coming on here saying that the West Dulwich LTN would not be removed and saying the same for more local ones too. Trust me, there will now likely be a number of very nervous councils getting their legal departments to go on a discovery exercise to determine what happened during the implementation of their LTNs - whether they were installed one year ago or 5 years ago and determining what their defence will be if people come after them.

Bottom line is if councils have cheated the system they will get found out as Lambeth have found to their cost and ultimately this is no longer about just the LTN process but also political reputation particularly timely for Southwark given one of the favourites to take over from Cllr Williams is the councillor responsible for oversight of the Southwark LTNs.

[Earl Aelfheah]

50 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Actually, I don't think this is the job of a council. That's up to, (should be up to) personal choice.

It's a legitimate policy aim. There is a social cost to private car transport and to inactivity, the cost of which is borne by the public purse. Also, public bodies have responsibility for maintaining roads, for transport, infrastructure and the public realm. That means deciding how public space is allocated, maintained and improved.

Edited Thursday at 10:30 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Actually, I don't think this is the job of a council. That's up to, (should be up to) personal choice. I would agree that removing impediments to active travel, should there be any, may be a nice to, but not a need to, option - but let's not be naive about this - the council is interested primarily in revenue generation, and the £1m of fines here would certainly support this hypothesis. The disruption to bus services which shifting traffic on to only a few routes is clear evidence, in  my mind, that the council has little actually interest in active travel, save maybe that which the bike lobby shouts about, but for very many of us walking to use public transport is our only option, if we are elderly or frail. Make the public transport less accessible or slower and it decreases its value. And TFL trying to withdraw routes doesn't help! 'Active travel' is simply a dog whistle here - and has no relevance to what councils are actually doing or their motivations to do it.

We have an obesity and type 2 diabetes time bomb, yet you are saying this is a personal choice.  It's not my personal choice for the taxes that I pay towards the NHS and social care to be heavily weighted in supporting this growing cohort.  It is right that the authorities to encourage all of us to get off our arses.

[march46]

It’s so important in fact that the World Health Organisation is running a series of great Facebook ads on the importance of active travel and safer streets. 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AZse8McEU/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Aj4BadBcc/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Edited Thursday at 11:41 by march46
Add photos for anyone not on facebook

[Rockets]

Does anyone think Lambeth has helped, or hindered, the goal by what they have done?

From day one of these debates I said councils risked doing long-term harm to the active travel cause by behaving in the way they were - by forcing measures on a lot of residents (often by bending the rules) without engaging them or getting them on the journey risked alienating the very people who councils needed to get support from.  Lambeth have done exactly that and now the LTN will need to be removed and they have turned a lot of people against the measures - of course they are also likely going to have to repay the huge number of fines generated by the LTNs and fund that from (likely) allocated budget after spending tax-payers money on defending the case their constituents had to bring against them.

They have created one hell of a mess which may have long term negative impacts - and this is what I feared from the outset - it's well and good pandering to the active travel lobbyists and the small number of people directly benefiting from the measures but if you're not convincing the majority then you are digging a deep hole for yourself. Lambeth find themselves at the bottom of said hole.

[Glemham]

Oh come on Malumbu don’t be so disingenuous! There are many causes of obesity and LTNs are a minute part of the solution. If active travel is so important to you why not start using your undoubted energy to campaign for it in the form of improved public transport and access to it; to and from, and in and around Dulwich. It’s not too late, although it might have been more sensible to make improvements to public transport before closing roads. Certainly most of our elected representatives don’t appear to have had much interest in doing so.

Some facts:
Going to Beckenham and Bromley from East Dulwich by public transport - which many people would like to do necessitates two bus journeys, whereas there’s a direct bus to Lewisham. Easier to take the car.

Getting across  Dulwich from East to West is almost impossible by public transport. There is a single decker but that goes via a congested South Circular.

You might say take the train, and indeed in the area covered by Dulwich and West Norwood constituency there are 10 rail stations. BUT only three of these have step free access, Herne Hill - the only one with a lift, West Norwood and East Dulwich. There is one step free northbound platform at Tulse Hill and Gipsy Hill. But the remaining five are problematic.
If you are a parent with a buggy, disabled, elderly with heart or breathing problems, have a heavy suitcase and cycling is not an option, then your active rail travel options are somewhat limited.

So Malumbu are you willing to try and make difference?

 

 

[Rockets]

@march46 sorry I have to laugh that even the WHO poster shows what looks like a cyclist speeding towards a pedestrian crossing with clearly no intention to stop.....;-) Not the best clip art selection by the WHO there....

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's a legitimate policy aim. There is a social cost to private car transport and to inactivity, the cost of which is borne by the public purse. Also, public bodies have responsibility for maintaining roads, for transport, infrastructure and the public realm. That means deciding how public space is allocated, maintained and improved.

It's interesting (and instructive) that people think that allocating vast amounts of space to private motor vehicles for both transport and storage is not a choice. But that (much smaller) allocations of space for pedestrians and those travelling on bicycle, is a choice. Both are a choice and both involve trade offs.  

To suggest that it's not the role of government to think about it, betrays an assumption that the dominance of most public spaces by motor vehicles is simply the 'natural order'. It is not. 

...and a reminder that the majority of households in our borough don't own / have access to a car. I think it's perfectly right for our representatives to allocate a greater proportion of space to people getting around by foot, bike and bus. 

[Penguin68]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's a legitimate policy aim. There is a social cost to private car transport and to inactivity, the cost of which is borne by the public purse

And these costs are not funded by Councils, in the main. We also have issues to do with Defence responsibilities - should the Council be picking those up to?

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

We have an obesity and type 2 diabetes time bomb, yet you are saying this is a personal choice. 

And the day that Lambeth or Southwark council picks up the responsibility for managing and funding the NHS I will agree that this too becomes their issue. 

Because you are cycling mavens (but many people can't cycle for perfectly good reasons, including inclination) you are delighted by such Council mission creep. 

Yet you resist so strongly any attempts to control cyclists as regards speed or responsibilities to other road users arguing your personal choice and those of other cyclists trump the concerns of others... hey ho!