Latest news with #LambethCouncil
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lambeth LTN to be removed immediately, court rules
A low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme in south London must be removed with immediate effect, following an order by the High Court. Lambeth Council was told in May that the imposition of the LTN in West Dulwich was unlawful, and has been denied permission to appeal against the decision. LTNs aim to reduce motor traffic in residential areas by using either cameras, planters or lockable bollards, but opponents have criticised their effectiveness. The West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), which brought the legal challenge, described the ruling as " a wake-up call to councils everywhere". Low-traffic neighbourhood unlawful - High Court Lambeth Council must also pay £35,000 towards the legal costs incurred by WDAG. The action group said questions must now be asked about the revenue raised by penalising motorists contravening the LTN rules - and whether the more-than £1m total raised in penalty notices will have to be repaid. A WDAG spokesperson said the group had called upon Lambeth Council to clarify whether it would issue refunds. "This is not just about legality — it's about fairness and public trust. If the law was broken, the money should be paid back. "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." In response to the decision, Lambeth Council said it "remained committed to delivering our programme to reduce road danger for those most at risk and make our streets calmer, more community-friendly places. "The High Court has ordered the removal of West Dulwich street improvements. No further fines will be issued, and we are removing the scheme as soon as it can be done safely." Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
West Dulwich LTN must be removed immediately, court rules
A low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme in south London must be removed with immediate effect, following an order by the High Council was told in May that the imposition of the LTN in West Dulwich was unlawful, and has been denied permission to appeal against the aim to reduce motor traffic in residential areas by using either cameras, planters or lockable bollards, but opponents have criticised their West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), which brought the legal challenge, described the ruling as " a wake-up call to councils everywhere". Lambeth Council must also pay £35,000 towards the legal costs incurred by WDAG. The action group said questions must now be asked about the revenue raised by penalising motorists contravening the LTN rules - and whether the more-than £1m total raised in penalty notices will have to be repaid.A WDAG spokesperson said the group had called upon Lambeth Council to clarify whether it would issue refunds. "This is not just about legality — it's about fairness and public trust. If the law was broken, the money should be paid back."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." In response to the decision, Lambeth Council said it "remained committed to delivering our programme to reduce road danger for those most at risk and make our streets calmer, more community-friendly places."The High Court has ordered the removal of West Dulwich street improvements. No further fines will be issued, and we are removing the scheme as soon as it can be done safely."
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Fightback against hated LTN that made Labour-run council £1million in fines as it is ordered by High Court to scrap 'unlawful' low-traffic neighbourhood in first case of its kind
A Labour run-council has been ordered by the High Court to scrap a hated LTN which earned £1million in fines. An 'unlawful' low-traffic neighbourhood in West Dulwich, south London will become the first in the UK to be axed after a judge rejected an appeal from Lambeth council. The council will now have to pay out £35,000 in legal fees to the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), which brought the case, but campaigners are calling for this to be increased to include the £1,080,580 taken in penalties. Nonetheless, the body welcomed the decision to close the LTN which they argued had increased pollution and traffic on bordering roads. A spokesman for 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 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.' The group has also pleaded with the council to avoid taking the case any further via another appeal, adding that it would waste yet more public funds. The 'unlawful' low-traffic neighbourhood, pictured, in West Dulwich, south London will become the first in the UK to be axed They said: '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, chose to defend litigation over listening – and the public has paid for it. 'It's a wake-up call to councils everywhere: to not impose blanket schemes ignoring genuine concerns and issues, and to work with your communities. 'We again invite Lambeth to return to the table and help co-create fairer, smarter approaches to car use, pollution, road safety, and sustainable travel – with data, community support, and clear success measures at the heart of every decision.' Mr Justice Smith warned council bosses not to 'revoke' the LTN, which was introduced last year, instead of it being 'quashed' by a court ruling. He wrote: '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.' The judge also ordered the council to implement the ruling immediately, calling on them not to defer removing the LTN, as it had 'known of the need to instruct these works to take place since May 9' when it initially lost the High Court case. He rejected the local authority's bid to avoid paying WDAG's legal costs on the grounds that they had won only one of three legal challenges, branding the attempt 'misconceived' due to the fact that residents had been 'wholly successful'. Mr Justice Smith added: 'Here the claimant came to court seeking a quashing of the [traffic] orders. It has gone away having achieved that objective. It has therefore been completely successful. 'The fact that the claimant has succeeded in only one of its three grounds of claim does not alter the fact that it has been wholly successful in its aims.' In his May ruling, he found Lambeth council guilty of a 'serious falling' following its deicision to ignore an 'impressive' report suggesting street closures could cause a spike in pollution and congestion in the surrounding area. Mr Justice Smith also described a council document ignoring 'hostility' expressed towards the LTN in a public consultation as a 'masterclass in selective partial reporting'. It emerged in February that staff working for the local authority had been handed a 'wellbeing day' off having been 'left in tears' in the wake of residents making their 'anger' known at a 2023 meeting at West Norwood Library. The barrister for Lambeth Council, Heather Sargeant, wrote that the meeting brought councillors to tears and forced council staff to take a lunch break to 'get away' from the hostility from angry residents. She wrote: 'The experience of officers attending the event for the council (on a Saturday) was so negative that the then head of transport strategy and programmes offered them a day of wellbeing leave.' The opponents to the LTN criticised the council for a lack of public consultation and argued this made the proposal unlawful. Lambeth council spokesman said: 'We implemented the West Dulwich street improvements to reduce road danger and create a safer and healthier neighbourhood. 'We remain committed to delivering our programme to reduce road danger for those most at-risk and make our streets calmer, more community-friendly places. 'The High Court has ordered the removal of West Dulwich street improvements. No further fines will be issued, and we are removing the scheme as soon as it can be done safely.' The spokesman did not acknowledge WDAG's demands for more than £1m in fines to be reimbursed.
Telegraph
13 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Labour council forced to axe LTN that raked in £1m
A Labour council has been ordered to immediately scrap an 'unlawful' low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) after losing a High Court battle. It comes after Mr Justice Smith ruled in May that Lambeth council had ignored residents' 'legitimate concerns' about the zone in West Dulwich, south London. The judge has now rejected an appeal by the authority against the ruling, while ordering the scheme to be axed and the council to pay £35,000 in legal fees. It is the first time that an LTN, a zone where traffic is restricted in residential roads and fines are issued to unauthorised vehicles that enter the area, has been shut down by the courts. 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. The campaigners also said it set 'a powerful precedent' for residents locked in similar battles nationwide. A WDAG spokesman 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 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.' The group also urged the council not to squander any more public funds by pursuing the case further at 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,' they added. '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.' 'Wake-up call to councils everywhere' The WDAG statement added: 'It's a wake-up call to councils everywhere: to not impose blanket schemes ignoring genuine concerns and issues, and to work with your communities. 'We again invite Lambeth to return to the table and help co-create fairer, smarter approaches to car use, pollution, road safety, and sustainable travel – with data, community support, and clear success measures at the heart of every decision.' In a thinly veiled criticism of town hall bosses, Mr Justice Smith said in his ruling that allowing the council to 'revoke' the LTN rather than having it 'quashed' by a court ruling would fail to properly 'reflect the reality' of the battle waged by local campaigners. He wrote: '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.' The judge also rejected the council's attempt to defer scrapping the LTN because the local authority had 'known of the need to instruct these works to take place since May 9' when it lost the High Court case. He said an attempt by Lambeth to avoid paying all of WDAG's legal costs because the campaigners only won one of the three legal challenges was 'misconceived' because the residents had been 'wholly successful.' Legal battle 'completely successful' Mr Justice Smith wrote: 'Here the claimant came to court seeking a quashing of the [traffic] orders. It has gone away having achieved that objective. It has therefore been completely successful. 'The fact that the claimant has succeeded in only one of its three grounds of claim does not alter the fact that it has been wholly successful in its aims.' In his initial ruling in May, Mr Justice Smith found that the council was guilty of a 'serious failing' after it ignored an 'impressive' report which warned that the street closures could lead to increased congestion and pollution elsewhere in the borough.
The Guardian
24-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Those who object to music events shutting off parks are branded nimbys. But this time, I'm on their side
A grassy south London oasis erupted into a turf war this week. From Monday, visitors to Brockwell Park would have seen calling cards left by both sides. The provocation? A sturdy 3-metre-high boundary fence, encircling large swathes of the 50-hectare (125-acre) stretch that has been designated for music festivals this summer. Daubed on the structure were signs of discord: graffitied messages in stark white lettering. 'You fucked our park,' read one. 'We fucked your wall.' Brockwell is now the hottest front in a conflict that has started to rear its head in the capital every summer. A week ago, it made the front pages in the form of a bombshell high court ruling against Lambeth council. The authority responsible for the park lost a case brought by Protect Brockwell Park (PBP), a group of local residents and park users who argued that the council had not obtained the proper planning permissions for the back-to-back run of events scheduled to take place behind the boundary fence. It had used permitted development rules to rubber-stamp the events quickly, on the basis that they would only block off a substantial section of the park for 28 days. In reality, this wasn't true, the residents argued. Factoring in erecting and dismantling festival infrastructure, it was actually more like 37 days where public park access would be restricted. The council should have been subjecting these events to a full planning application process – including public consultation – before granting approval. The judge found in PBP's favour. Yet the festivals remained on the park's summer schedule. As the date of the first event – Wide Awake, an alternative music shindig headlined by the rappers Kneecap – approached, Lambeth rushed through a certificate of lawfulness, allowing for public comment, and on Friday the festival opened its gates. The clash has captured public imagination, igniting a now well-worn narrative of nimbys versus nightlife. The PBP campaigners are being cast by some as meddling, out-of-touch 'gentrifiers', akin to affluent folk moving into a buzzy area and immediately lobbying for a beloved local pub or scrappy independent music venue to shut down because they want to retire to bed by 10pm. As a left-leaning millennial, I'd normally be inclined to side with the festivals. After all, we must protect our endangered cultural sphere from further attacks. Except what is happening here isn't so clear-cut. Over the past few years, the city's parks have become increasingly available for hire. The London summer day festival, as in other cities, is now an institution and there has been a proliferation of commercial events concentrated in certain large parks: Victoria, Finsbury and Brockwell are top of the list. Behind every 'summer series' of festivals is an unhappy residents' group. People who live near to and rely on these green spaces feel they are being shut out of public land that should be for all of us to benefit from, in favour of what they perceive to be commercial interests. Many of the large events being objected to are not even remotely close to resembling the accessible, community space of a local pub. The heart of this issue seems to be how cash-strapped councils are becoming increasingly beholden to commercial interests to the detriment of the public. A weekend festival that welcomes 50,000 people can expect to raise about £500,000 for local authorities. Councils argue that this money goes back in the public purse, allowing them to continue funding free community events such as Lambeth's beloved Country Show, though there doesn't seem to be much transparency over exactly how much cash is raised or where it is allocated. But when you strip away the jargon, what is essentially happening is the privatisation of local parks. As well as concerns about the long-term impact on ecology, campaigners point out this often takes place in boroughs where many don't have access to private green space. In Lambeth, with its many flats, this counts for 60% of households. Adding salt to the wound for residents is the lack of opportunity for public interjection. In the neighbouring borough of Southwark, the council conducts consultations for events proposed for local parks. Residents have their say, and recently indicated their approval for a music festival in Southwark Park. No high court battles there. As for arguments about gentrifiers shutting down fun, they seem rather misplaced. The objectors are local people; the festivals are the interlopers, attracting tens of thousands of mostly young revellers who swoop in for the day (with daily ticket prices for the events starting from about £80), have their fun, then leave again. Complaints about such events may have once been the preserve of the nimby contingent, but the movement has grown in line with the increasing length and impact of the park takeovers. That's not to say the festivals have no benefit. They provide secure summer work in an increasingly unstable industry. Small businesses – such as food trucks serving attenders – obviously do well out of them. And they are undoubtedly popular – there's a reason big companies have snaffled up events such as Field Day and Mighty Hoopla. But the involvement of such corporations has kicked an existential threat into high gear. The ultimate issue is the way that private interests have managed to successfully position themselves as the gatekeepers of possibility. That cultural events can only happen if we sell off public space. That we can't maintain local services without money from private equity. That we should just accept the routine privatisation of taxpayer-funded assets as the price of having a good time. Is this a model we want to entrench? London may be ground zero, but what is happening here is likely to be the bellwether for cities across the UK in the coming years. Very few want to see the festivals scrapped altogether. But a worrying precedent is being set. One long-term Brixton resident, himself a dedicated organiser of parties, reluctantly conceded to me recently: 'I'd welcome smaller, better-managed events that don't disrupt access or damage the park and that benefit the borough. But this current situation has become unbearable.' Moya Lothian-McLean is associate editor at Mill Media
