Latest news with #lowtrafficneighbourhood
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.
Times
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Times
When locals say no to LTNs, councils have a duty to listen
It should not take expensive legal action and a court ruling to force a Labour council to pay heed to the legitimate concerns of residents about a low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. A High Court judge concluded that Lambeth was guilty of a 'serious failing' and acted 'unlawfully' in dismissing local objections to the West Dulwich LTN in south London. It could force other local authorities to show that they have taken the views of critics seriously, or risk having their LTNs torn down. The West Dulwich scheme was implemented in September last year despite overwhelming local opposition. A residents' campaign group raised close to £50,000 to help pay for a detailed analysis of the intended LTN. • Labour council acted unlawfully over low traffic neighbourhood
The Independent
09-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Low-traffic neighbourhood scheme ruled unlawful in landmark decision
A High Court judge has ruled in favour of a group of residents and businesses challenging a proposed low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme in West Dulwich, South London. The West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG) launched legal action against Lambeth Council, successfully halting the experimental scheme. The residents and businesses argued that the council had disregarded their concerns and unfairly excluded local businesses from the consultation process. Their legal challenge asserted that the council's approach was "so unfair as to be unlawful." The court's decision marks a significant victory for the WDAG, who had voiced strong opposition to the LTN proposal. Further details regarding the judge's ruling and the future of the LTN scheme are expected to be released soon. At a hearing in February, lawyers for WDAG told the High Court in London that some areas which clearly would be affected were excluded from the scope of targeted consultation. Lawyers for the council said the claim is 'without foundation' and should be dismissed, telling the court that areas selected had been picked based on the council's assessment of the likely impacted areas, with proposals changing over time. In a judgment on Friday, Judge Tim Smith, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, ruled in WDAG's favour. The judge said that the council's consultation process was lawful, though said some elements 'could undoubtedly have been improved upon'. However, he said that the way the council considered input from engagement with the public was unlawful. WDAG had delivered a 'detailed' 53-page presentation outlining its concerns about the scheme to a councillor, but Judge Smith said it was not clear whether it was then shared with officers making decisions over the scheme. He said: 'On the evidence, I am forced to conclude that, despite assurances to the contrary given to the claimant, the 53-page presentation did not form part of the council's considerations in its decision to make the orders. 'It should have done. Its content was highly relevant to the issues being deliberated upon and thus it was a material consideration. 'The failure to have regard to it was a serious failing, rendering the decision to make the orders unlawful.' At the end of his 34-page judgment, Judge Smith said that written submissions over what should happen next will be considered. During the hearing earlier this year, the court was told that Lambeth Council workers were offered a wellbeing day after 'hostility and anger' at a meeting over the proposed scheme. WDAG's lawyers described the meeting at West Norwood Library on April 22 2023 as a 'fiasco' that lasted six hours, after which council workers were only able to record 21 responses because of the difficulties. In Friday's ruling, Judge Smith said: 'Plainly it was a difficult situation for the council's officers to find themselves in. 'Feelings were evidently running high, and the general sense of hostility together with the volume of people in attendance wanting to express their views meant that the event was not as effective as was intended.'
Times
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Times
Labour council acted unlawfully over low traffic neighbourhood
A Labour council acted unlawfully when implementing its latest low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) by ignoring residents' legitimate concerns, a court has ruled. In what could prove to be a significant case, the High Court has concluded that Lambeth council's dismissive approach to locals amounted to a 'serious failing'. Judge Smith, who presided over the case, will now rule on what must happen to the West Dulwich LTN in south London, and he is expected to order that it be removed. The LTN was implemented in September last year despite overwhelming local opposition. A consultation found that 67.5 per cent of residents objected to the scheme, citing its damaging effects on local businesses, pollution, safety, and vulnerable groups. After residents' efforts to engage the council failed
