Latest news with #WestDulwich
BBC News
6 days 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
6 days 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
6 days 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.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The London residents that fought back against LTNs
When Lambeth council announced it planned to introduce a controversial Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) in West Dulwich, south London, residents got a little more than they bargained for. They did get an LTN – a network of traffic calming measures that include road closures, planters and bollards, introduced early last year – but they also ended up embroiled in a High Court battle and a bitter neighbourhood row. Now, the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG) has become the first local campaign group of its kind to take a council to court over an LTN and win. The ruling means that the Labour-run council could be forced to scrap the scheme entirely, potentially setting a precedent for LTNs throughout the country, although it has said it will remain in place while it 'carefully considers the implications of this judgment'. 'It feels fantastic,' says Almira Mohamed, a founding WDAG member, in the wake of the victory. 'You often feel like you're talking to a brick wall, and the council makes you feel like you're being irresponsible, that you hate the planet and love pollution, and that you don't want to do any good for the community. All we wanted was for them to listen to our genuine concerns about how the LTN is actually going to cause more damage – and they didn't listen.' The ruling, delivered by Judge Tim Smith on Friday, ruled in favour of WDAG on its claim that Lambeth Council's consultation on the traffic measures was inadequate. Throughout the consultation process, WDAG had made 'numerous' attempts to engage with the council, which they say went ignored. This culminated in an intimidating 53-page dossier of evidence, concerns and questions submitted to the council by the group, which Judge Smith ruled Lambeth should have considered, saying there had been a 'serious failing' by authorities. The WDAG campaigned to ask the High Court to declare the LTN unlawful, ploughing thousands of pounds out of their own pockets into the battle. Around 680 supporters who opposed the LTN raised £50,000 to help cover the cost of the legal fees, which came to £60,000 in total. Judge Smith allowed one of three claims brought by the campaign group but dismissed the other two, which also related to how the council had carried out the consultation on the scheme. 'I did not harbour any significant concerns about the conduct of the consultation and engagement as a whole,' he said. Still, those involved say their success sets a national precedent. '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 following the High Court ruling. The council, for its part, argues LTNs such as the one in West Dulwich 'make it safer and easier to walk, wheel, scoot and cycle by stopping cars, vans and other vehicles from using quiet streets as shortcuts'. 'Over time, LTNs can encourage people to switch from driving to more sustainable ways of travelling, like walking, public transport and cycling,' it says, adding such schemes help 'tackle the climate emergency'. It was 2pm on a Wednesday when I travelled to West Dulwich to interview the group in person, but at the top of Rosendale Road, on the border of the LTN, it might as well have been rush hour – traffic sat bumper to bumper. It is 'the words the council uses' that Mohamed finds most frustrating, she says. 'Like 'traffic evaporation'. The traffic evaporates here,' – she motions in the direction of the leafy streets surrounding Rosendale Road, now closed to traffic – 'but if you look behind you, it's over there.' This forms the basis of their argument against the measures – that while the leafy interior streets of Dulwich are quieter, all the traffic has been pushed to the boundary roads at the edges of the LTN, most of which were already highly polluted and home to some of the borough's poorest residents. 'Councils are putting in LTNs all over the country that are very, very unpopular. [But] I don't think they thought we would actually do it, actually go to court,' Mohamed says. 'One of the biggest reasons I'm involved is that it's an injustice. All of the boundary road traffic [on the edges of the LTN] goes towards… the poorer communities and the vulnerable groups.' This is hardly a David and Goliath battle; it has been fought by West Dulwich's well-heeled residents, a local lawyer, GP and data analyst among them. But more broadly, the LTN was opposed by the majority – 67.5 per cent – of those who live in the area, according to a council survey. The point they won on, in the end, is that the council hadn't taken residents' concerns into consideration in the consultation period. One meeting in particular has become notorious. In April 2023, a drop-in at West Norwood library was so disastrous it has been branded a 'six hour fiasco'. The High Court was told that the council employees present were met with such hostility from residents that they were granted a day's wellbeing leave to recover. One was reduced to tears. Mohamed points out that although the WDAG has been blamed for this outcome, the meeting took place a year before the group was formed, and cites the incident as an example of Lambeth's inadequate communication on the subject. She claims no one in a position of authority attended the meeting and, moreover, that throughout the consultation process, residents have been 'treated with contempt'. 'They staffed the drop-in with three engineers – one lady was in charge of designing the parking, and of course everyone was asking her questions: Why are these plans being put in place? She wasn't able to answer that,' Mohamed says. 'When people were saying these ideas are preposterous, and they don't make sense, she became overwhelmed. The meeting was under-resourced, not enough of the right people were there, and they left the engineers to explain it to the community, who were upset.' A barrister acting for Lambeth council told the High Court that the WDAG was 'extensively involved' in the consultation process. He said the local authority had exchanged 54 emails with the group between April 2023 and August last year. According to its members, however, this was a one-sided conversation, and the majority of those emails were WDAG members chasing for a follow-up. The group hotly contests that LTNs work in the first place. They are fast being adopted borough-wide: there are five permanent Low Traffic Neighbourhoods already in place in the borough of Lambeth, two trials (including West Dulwich) and two schemes at the start of 'engagement'. Lambeth, which declared a 'climate emergency' in 2019, published data at the end of last year which demonstrated these schemes have been successful. It said the LTN in Brixton, south London, has had a 'transformative effect' on air quality, pollution, and rates of cycling: traffic within the LTN decreased by 58 per cent, overall traffic reduced by 4 per cent, and cycling increased by 27 per cent across the area. Another LTN trial, however, this time in Streatham, was delayed after lengthy bus delays over a period of months. Buses were taking up to two hours to travel less than three miles. And LTNs are often unpopular among residents: in 2023, it was revealed that Lambeth had spent more than £310,000 over a three-year period repairing vandalised LTN infrastructure. In West Dulwich, it has proved particularly divisive. 'I've always wondered, why are they doing this?' says Robbie Owen, another WDAG member. 'If you look at the effect of the LTN, it's making the nice parts of West Dulwich nicer, and the not so nice parts less nice. It also seems to be completely fanciful that this will play any meaningful part in [the Council's] self-declared climate agenda.' He describes the traffic-calming measures as 'tokenistic policies' that have no real impact. The group also alleges that the scheme is based on 'thin, oversimplified' research, and that it has already had a devastating impact on local businesses. 'The dry-cleaners were saying their takings have gone down, because a lot of the shops rely on passing trade,' says Owen. 'That just isn't factored into the council's thinking… it seems extraordinary that they are making a very nice middle-class area even nicer, and producing damaging effects [elsewhere].' A third member, Jonathan, puts this in even stronger terms: 'LTNs actually makes things worse… if you dig into it, we firmly believe it actually increases pollution, because it forces the majority of traffic to drive longer distances and for a longer time. It's nonsense.' On Feb 12, the WDAG finally had their day in court. It has been a tense wait to hear if they had been successful, but now, in a victory for community campaigners – the more cynical might call them NIMBYs – everywhere, they have taken the council to task. In a statement, Lambeth Council said it had implemented the West Dulwich Street Improvements to 'reduce road danger and create a neighbourhood where residents can live safer, happier and healthier lives'. 'This was part of our overall ambition to reduce road danger, encourage more active and sustainable travel, and improve air quality for communities across our borough,' it continued. '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 judgement; we will provide further updates in due course.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The London residents who fought back against LTNs
When Lambeth council announced it planned to introduce a controversial Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) in West Dulwich, south London, residents got a little more than they bargained for. They did get an LTN – a network of traffic calming measures that include road closures, planters and bollards, introduced early last year – but they also ended up embroiled in a High Court battle and a bitter neighbourhood row. Now, the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG) has become the first local campaign group of its kind to take a council to court over an LTN and win. The ruling means that the Labour-run council could be forced to scrap the scheme entirely, potentially setting a precedent for LTNs throughout the country, although it has said it will remain in place while it 'carefully considers the implications of this judgment'. 'It feels fantastic,' says Almira Mohamed, a founding WDAG member, in the wake of the victory. 'You often feel like you're talking to a brick wall, and the council makes you feel like you're being irresponsible, that you hate the planet and love pollution, and that you don't want to do any good for the community. All we wanted was for them to listen to our genuine concerns about how the LTN is actually going to cause more damage – and they didn't listen.' The ruling, delivered by Judge Tim Smith on Friday, ruled in favour of WDAG on its claim that Lambeth Council's consultation on the traffic measures was inadequate. Throughout the consultation process, WDAG had made 'numerous' attempts to engage with the council, which they say went ignored. This culminated in an intimidating 53-page dossier of evidence, concerns and questions submitted to the council by the group, which Judge Smith ruled Lambeth should have considered, saying there had been a 'serious failing' by authorities. The WDAG campaigned to ask the High Court to declare the LTN unlawful, ploughing thousands of pounds out of their own pockets into the battle. Around 680 supporters who opposed the LTN raised £50,000 to help cover the cost of the legal fees, which came to £60,000 in total. Judge Smith allowed one of three claims brought by the campaign group but dismissed the other two, which also related to how the council had carried out the consultation on the scheme. 'I did not harbour any significant concerns about the conduct of the consultation and engagement as a whole,' he said. Still, those involved say their success sets a national precedent. '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 following the High Court ruling. The council, for its part, argues LTNs such as the one in West Dulwich 'make it safer and easier to walk, wheel, scoot and cycle by stopping cars, vans and other vehicles from using quiet streets as shortcuts'. 'Over time, LTNs can encourage people to switch from driving to more sustainable ways of travelling, like walking, public transport and cycling,' it says, adding such schemes help 'tackle the climate emergency'. 'It's an injustice' It was 2pm on a Wednesday when I travelled to West Dulwich to interview the group in person, but at the top of Rosendale Road, on the border of the LTN, it might as well have been rush hour – traffic sat bumper to bumper. It is 'the words the council uses' that Mohamed finds most frustrating, she says. 'Like 'traffic evaporation'. The traffic evaporates here,' – she motions in the direction of the leafy streets surrounding Rosendale Road, now closed to traffic – 'but if you look behind you, it's over there.' This forms the basis of their argument against the measures – that while the leafy interior streets of Dulwich are quieter, all the traffic has been pushed to the boundary roads at the edges of the LTN, most of which were already highly polluted and home to some of the borough's poorest residents. 'Councils are putting in LTNs all over the country that are very, very unpopular. [But] I don't think they thought we would actually do it, actually go to court,' Mohamed says. 'One of the biggest reasons I'm involved is that it's an injustice. All of the boundary road traffic [on the edges of the LTN] goes towards… the poorer communities and the vulnerable groups.' This is hardly a David and Goliath battle; it has been fought by West Dulwich's well-heeled residents, a local lawyer, GP and data analyst among them. But more broadly, the LTN was opposed by the majority – 67.5 per cent – of those who live in the area, according to a council survey. The point they won on, in the end, is that the council hadn't taken residents' concerns into consideration in the consultation period. One meeting in particular has become notorious. In April 2023, a drop-in at West Norwood library was so disastrous it has been branded a 'six hour fiasco'. The High Court was told that the council employees present were met with such hostility from residents that they were granted a day's wellbeing leave to recover. One was reduced to tears. Mohamed points out that although the WDAG has been blamed for this outcome, the meeting took place a year before the group was formed, and cites the incident as an example of Lambeth's inadequate communication on the subject. She claims no one in a position of authority attended the meeting and, moreover, that throughout the consultation process, residents have been 'treated with contempt'. 'They staffed the drop-in with three engineers – one lady was in charge of designing the parking, and of course everyone was asking her questions: Why are these plans being put in place? She wasn't able to answer that,' Mohamed says. 'When people were saying these ideas are preposterous, and they don't make sense, she became overwhelmed. The meeting was under-resourced, not enough of the right people were there, and they left the engineers to explain it to the community, who were upset.' A barrister acting for Lambeth council told the High Court that the WDAG was 'extensively involved' in the consultation process. He said the local authority had exchanged 54 emails with the group between April 2023 and August last year. According to its members, however, this was a one-sided conversation, and the majority of those emails were WDAG members chasing for a follow-up. The group hotly contests that LTNs work in the first place. They are fast being adopted borough-wide: there are five permanent Low Traffic Neighbourhoods already in place in the borough of Lambeth, two trials (including West Dulwich) and two schemes at the start of 'engagement'. Lambeth, which declared a 'climate emergency' in 2019, published data at the end of last year which demonstrated these schemes have been successful. It said the LTN in Brixton, south London, has had a 'transformative effect' on air quality, pollution, and rates of cycling: traffic within the LTN decreased by 58 per cent, overall traffic reduced by 4 per cent, and cycling increased by 27 per cent across the area. Another LTN trial, however, this time in Streatham, was delayed after lengthy bus delays over a period of months. Buses were taking up to two hours to travel less than three miles. And LTNs are often unpopular among residents: in 2023, it was revealed that Lambeth had spent more than £310,000 over a three-year period repairing vandalised LTN infrastructure. 'Tokenistic policies' In West Dulwich, it has proved particularly divisive. 'I've always wondered, why are they doing this?' says Robbie Owen, another WDAG member. 'If you look at the effect of the LTN, it's making the nice parts of West Dulwich nicer, and the not so nice parts less nice. It also seems to be completely fanciful that this will play any meaningful part in [the Council's] self-declared climate agenda.' He describes the traffic-calming measures as 'tokenistic policies' that have no real impact. The group also alleges that the scheme is based on 'thin, oversimplified' research, and that it has already had a devastating impact on local businesses. 'The dry-cleaners were saying their takings have gone down, because a lot of the shops rely on passing trade,' says Owen. 'That just isn't factored into the council's thinking… it seems extraordinary that they are making a very nice middle-class area even nicer, and producing damaging effects [elsewhere].' A third member, Jonathan, puts this in even stronger terms: 'LTNs actually makes things worse… if you dig into it, we firmly believe it actually increases pollution, because it forces the majority of traffic to drive longer distances and for a longer time. It's nonsense.' On Feb 12, the WDAG finally had their day in court. It has been a tense wait to hear if they had been successful, but now, in a victory for community campaigners – the more cynical might call them NIMBYs – everywhere, they have taken the council to task. In a statement, Lambeth Council said it had implemented the West Dulwich Street Improvements to 'reduce road danger and create a neighbourhood where residents can live safer, happier and healthier lives'. 'This was part of our overall ambition to reduce road danger, encourage more active and sustainable travel, and improve air quality for communities across our borough,' it continued. '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 judgement; we will provide further updates in due course.'
