3. Lambeth LTN illegal
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Lambeth LTN illegal  (Read 7747 times)

0 Members and 74 Guests are viewing this topic.

Lambeth LTN illegal
« on: »
From
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/09/labour-council-could-be-forced-to-axe-ltn-lambeth/



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.”



© Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited 2025


The Judgment:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/west-dulwich-action-group-v-the-london-borough-of-lambeth/
« Last Edit: May 11, 2025, 10:36:18 am by John U.K. »
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #1 on: »
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.
Logged
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #2 on: »
Logged
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #3 on: »
Logged
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #4 on: »
They have been removed end of last week
Logged
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #5 on: »
Is the High Court decision retroactive ? Could I/we get a refund for a PCN paid a few months ago ?
Logged
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #6 on: »
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".

Logged
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #7 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on May 13, 2025, 12:17:03 pm
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.
And you say that having attended the hearing and having heard and read all the evidence and all the submissions the judge considered?
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #8 on: »
Others are thinking along the lines the of the West Dulwich residents:
see
https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-ltn-and-the-west-dulwich-case/

which link I posted on another thread earlier today.
Logged
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #9 on: »
Quote from: cp8759 on June 21, 2025, 03:04:13 pm
Quote from: stamfordman on May 13, 2025, 12:17:03 pm
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.
And you say that having attended the hearing and having heard and read all the evidence and all the submissions the judge considered?

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
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/West-Dulwich-Action-Group-v-London-Borough-of-Lambeth.pdf

Lambeth decision details
https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=8618

West Dulwich Action Group presentation
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xxb6ilYIB-bquEmDXwkLKUOXzHcabljv/view

Better Streets West Dulwich - rebuttal of claims by West Dulwich Action Group
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iib6gez1hjGUubUdmPeSrwUrowL0Vunoti6dVN9OlWg/edit?tab=t.0

Relief decision
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z0NktxPq-J41OXU1EwEt69Br6ioGPOB2/view
Logged
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #10 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on June 23, 2025, 06:36:20 pm
I expect Lambeth will see this off.

Have they appealed?

Quote
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).

You seem personally invested in this.
Logged
I am not qualified to give legal advice in the UK. While I will do my best to help you, you should not rely on my advice as if it was given by a lawyer qualified in the UK.
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #11 on: »
Quote from: Southpaw82 on June 23, 2025, 07:17:59 pm
Have they appealed?

You seem personally invested in this.

See the relief judgement above - permission to appeal was denied.

I have no connections with anyone regarding this. Unlike the judge it seems.
Logged
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #12 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on June 23, 2025, 08:31:08 pm
Quote from: Southpaw82 on June 23, 2025, 07:17:59 pm
Have they appealed?
See the relief judgement above - permission to appeal was denied.

That does not answer the question.
Logged
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #13 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on June 23, 2025, 06:36:20 pm
Did you go?
I'm not the one saying that the decision of a High Court judge is nonsense, what I do know is that the judge is in a better position to make a decision than you are because presumably he did go to the hearing and he had the benefit of hearing full arguments.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: Lambeth LTN illegal
« Reply #14 on: »
Quote from: cp8759 on June 23, 2025, 10:55:56 pm
Quote from: stamfordman on June 23, 2025, 06:36:20 pm
Did you go?
I'm not the one saying that the decision of a High Court judge is nonsense, what I do know is that the judge is in a better position to make a decision than you are because presumably he did go to the hearing and he had the benefit of hearing full arguments.

The judge didn't find much wrong with Lambeth's process and found only that a presentation by a lobby group - not from the statutory consultation - should have been considered and said this lobby material was 'impressive' and 'highly relevant' - how did he determine this? It's mostly the same old evidence-free junk the pro-rat run folk always say about low traffic schemes and the lobbyists have made little effort themselves to stand up their material.

There are several commentaries worth noting in the links below.

If this judgment holds, (and one respected firm of solicitors has already cast doubt on this - see here), there are significant implications for those running consultations. It might mean that – in addition to analysing the output data emerging from a consultation, it might be necessary to monitor what else may have been submitted to the potential decision-makers around the same time … and ensure they have been considered. Maybe let's call them 'peripheral submissions'. In these days of extensive social media, this is potentially a huge open-ended commitment, and I feel sure it would be limited in some way or another.

https://consultationguru.co.uk/new-page/posts/west-dulwich-action-v-lb-lambeth--disregarding-submissions-from-ltn-opponents

A claimant alleging unfairness will need to establish that something has gone clearly and radically wrong, and the courts will be slow to reach such a conclusion.

The decision also provides a useful reminder for public authorities (and in particular local authorities) who frequently engage with interest groups on proposals of public interest.

Where an authority actively engages with interest groups, and receives information from them on the proposals, it will likely have to consider the information provided in its decision-making.

However, we question whether the guidance in Stannard (quoted above) should apply in every case to require decision-makers to consider all written representations that “make a reasoned case”.

For example, where an authority decides to run a targeted consultation only, and only consults certain classes of people, or people within a certain area, we do not think the Stannard guidance would necessarily apply to require the authority to consider representations made by people who were not captured by the targeted consultation.

https://www.sharpepritchard.co.uk/latest-news/lessons-learned-high-court-finds-failures-in-local-authoritys-public-consultation-responses/#_ftn6
 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
  3. Lambeth LTN illegal