A Labour council in London has been ordered to scrap an “unlawful” low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) in West Dulwich, south London, after losing a High Court battle that campaigners say could become a landmark decision for active travel policies across the UK.
The decision, delivered in May and finalised today with the rejection of Lambeth Council’s appeal, marks the first time an LTN has been scrapped by the courts. The council must now pay £35,000 in legal fees and comply with the judge’s order to quash the West Dulwich LTN, The Telegraph reports.
In a scathing ruling, Justice Smith said allowing the council to merely “revoke” the scheme would fail to properly “reflect the reality” of the battle waged by the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG).
“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 wrote.
> Government tried to bury report which found that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are effective and popular
The WDAG, formed by residents who argued that the scheme displaced traffic and worsened air quality on boundary roads, welcomed the decision.
A spokesperson 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.”
They also urged the council not to pursue further appeals. “Doing so would further waste taxpayers’ money and signal that its priority is protecting revenue, not engaging with the community it serves.”
The group 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.”
The ruling comes after a protracted legal battle in which WDAG argued that the council acted “unlawfully” by not consulting residents “genuinely and with an open mind” before implementing the trial, while also failing to follow draft statutory guidance on LTNs introduced by the Conservative government in March 2024, which called for councils to “put local consent first” when devising so-called “anti-driver schemes”.
“It’s a wake-up call to councils everywhere”
In his May ruling, Justice Smith said that the council was guilty of “serious failing”, stating that it had shown a “masterclass in selective partial reporting” and failed to take seriously the concerns raised by residents during consultations. He noted that an “impressive” report warning of increased congestion and pollution on surrounding roads had been ignored.
The judge also rejected the council’s argument that campaigners were only partially successful because they won just one of three legal claims. “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,” he wrote.
The atmosphere of opposition to the LTN was laid bare in a six-hour meeting at West Norwood Library in April 2023, detailed in a High Court hearing in February this year. Some council staff were left “in tears” and offered a “wellbeing” day off after the meeting, which anti-LTN campaigners described as “challenging” but “not in any way abusive.”
Charles Streeten, representing WDAG, told the court that while there was “considerable hostility and anger shown by residents,” the council had simply failed to listen to legitimate concerns.
WDAG argued that the LTN trial, introduced in late 2023 for an 18-month period, forced more traffic onto boundary roads like the A205 South Circular, exacerbating congestion and pollution. The group cited figures showing up to 200 additional vehicles per hour using roads such as Lancaster Avenue, Rosendale Road and Norwood Road — where more than 6,000 school children live or commute.
A spokesperson for the campaigners told The Standard in February: “Throughout this case, Lambeth council has sought to portray us as irrational, whilst it is they who have been consistently obstructive, dismissing legitimate concerns with generic, oversimplified arguments that do not address the realities for West Dulwich.”
The council’s original defence, presented in court by barrister Heather Sargent, argued that while some criticisms were made, they did not prove the consultation was so unfair as to be unlawful. “The consultation was obviously not so unfair as to be unlawful. Indeed, when the process as a whole is considered, the council does not accept that it was unfair at all,” she said.
However, Justice Smith noted that the council had acted irrationally by ignoring significant data and presenting a one-sided picture of public opinion.
WDAG have celebrated this latest ruling as a “powerful precedent”. The 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.”
This latest ruling follows a separate case in 2021 when Lambeth successfully defended its Railton LTN against a High Court challenge from a disabled resident who argued the scheme disproportionately affected car-dependent people.
Justice Kerr at the time dismissed claims that the council had failed its duties under the Equality Act 2010, stating: “The court takes no part in that debate and is wholly neutral on the merits or otherwise of LTNs.”
Anti-LTN campaigners, meanwhile, have taken to social media to hail the ruling as “excellent news” and describing it as a “humiliation” for the council, which sets a dangerous precedent for not just similar cases against low traffic neighbourhoods, but also other active travel and traffic calming measures, like cycle lanes, low-emission zones, and quiet streets.
road.cc has contacted Lambeth Council for a statement.
38 thoughts on “High Court orders Labour council to scrap “unlawful” low traffic neighbourhood as anti-LTN campaigners hail landmark ruling as “wake-up call to councils everywhere””
Excellent – as a general
Excellent – as a general decision – I look forward to seeing my council in court over its decision to implement high traffic neighbourhoods!
People objected but they went ahead anyway. They’ve presided over failings leading to congestion and increased pollution. I hope to see them challenged on their choice to allow more than an extra 200 cars per hour on many roads over the years in areas where many children go to school, posing health risks.
They’ve also approved new housing developments without first putting in adequate alternatives (like efficient public transport and mobility infra). And they’ve reversed some of the through-traffic reduction measures implemented during the Covid era.
Surely others would also be challenging their councils on similar grounds, if it’s all about the pollution, allowing choice etc., right?
It’s always confounded me
It’s always confounded me that judges have the right to refuse people the right to appeal against their judgements. Why?
To appeal you usually have to
To appeal you usually have to seek permission from the Judge to do so. They may feel that there are no legal points on which such an appeal would succeed: most appeals are heard on legal points and not the actual matter being discussed. Thus, the judge may feel that they got the law right or that any challenge will be without merit, thus will not allow the challenge.
However, this does not mean that the council can not apply directly to the higher court for permission to bring a challenge. This is slightly more complex but can be done and if successful, then an appeal can go ahead.
NOTE: Its over 20 years since I did court work so I might be out of date: although I don’t think there have been much in the way of changes since.
Yes I think you’re right, the
Yes I think you’re right, the decision not to allow an appeal can be appealed. It just seems slightly absurd to me that a judge is permitted to mark their own homework by basically saying I’m so convinced that I’ve got this right that there’s no point in allowing you to appeal because there’s no chance that I’m wrong. This seems to be particularly unfair in the case of a judge like this one who appears to have a very strong bias in favour the anti-council case exemplified by his somewhat intemperate comments in his ruling.
Rendel Harris wrote:
There are 2 routes of appeal.
1. the judge approves the appeal
2. The judge refuses so you can apply to the appeals court and a panel of appeals judges can approve the appeal.
1 is to allow for cases where the judge thinks its marginal, or that is worthy of having case law set (higher court set binding rules on lower courts – the judge accepting that they are setting new law so really should have oversight). It makes the process cheaper; removing the judge authorising an appeal would just mean the more complex, expensive process having to be used in all cases.
My big issue with the whole ruling is ‘experimental traffic order’.
Note the first word.
So part of the purpose is to discover if it actually causes issues with works that are reversible, because traffic flow is extraordinarily complex; IMHO a lot of the claims should be dealt with via monitoring (i.e. does it actually cause the issue claimed and remove it if it does);
So the question should be did the council take appropriate measurements to allow claims to be tested…
Killing children and elderly
Killing children and elderly people with cars is obviously of very little importance to the anti-LTNs people.
kingleo wrote:
Yep, great to see the new troll wetting itself with joy at the prospect of more road deaths, more children growing up with physical and cognitive impairments from pollution, more childhood obesity because it’s not safe to cycle to school anymore and all so that a handful of wealthy people can resume ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods in their SUVs on journeys they could easily make by walking, cycling or using public transport. I live in this area and I know full well that the majority of objections came from the wealthiest demographic who objected to the fact that it was taking longer to take their children to the area’s many private schools. The majority of people who actually live within the LTN welcomed it and the area has seen a massive uptick in walking and cycling to school and to work since its introduction.
Who’s the troll? I’ve been
Who’s the troll? I’ve been fighting the stupid anti-cyclists via the media for more than 40 years now.
kingleo wrote:
I’m pretty sure Rendel meant BC below, not you.
kingleo wrote:
Not you squire! The bridge-dweller below who’s revelling in “a crushing defeat” etc.
Well it’s true that the
Well it’s true that the traffic did get worse on Croxted Rd after the LTNs were introduced. It’s always been bad there. I know several people who life in the road and they were all very unhappy about the LTN. But it’s also true that a considerable portion of the traffic is from people in high end SUVs taking their kids to the local private schools. You can see the drop in peak time traffic during school holidays. The area is well served by public transport and there are some decent cycle routes too (Rosendale Rd plus routes through parks) but some people just have to drive.
As you say, Croxted has
As you say, Croxted has always been bad for traffic; I had friends who lived there who moved out before the LTN because they were fed up with it. There were a number of factors, I believe, at the time the LTN was introduced that exacerbated traffic not directly related to the LTN, particularly works on Norwood Road as I recall with a four way traffic control at the busy crossroads. The drop in rush-hour traffic across the area during the holidays is extraordinary, it’s like living in two different neighbourhoods.
The whole argument really exemplifies the age-old cognitive dissonance of people sitting in traffic jams complaining about the traffic not pausing to think that they are the traffic; in the same way people are complaining about LTNs without apparently giving much thought to what the problem is that makes LTNs necessary in the first place.
My impression is that the
My impression is that the judge has strong views about the substance of the scheme, not just the procedure.
Justice Smith seems to have taken on the decision-making power which belongs to the council, which he is not entitled to do.
Very interesting analysis
Very interesting analysis here from a consultation expert making a strong case for the judge to have been badly wrong in this ruling: https://consultationguru.co.uk/new-page/posts/west-dulwich-action-v-lb-lambeth–disregarding-submissions-from-ltn-opponents
Essentially points out that WDAG were not a statutory consultee and therefore although it might have been the best practice for Lambeth to take their “very impressive” dossier into consideration, they were under no statutory obligation to do so. Hopefully Lambeth will appeal this as it seems quite clear the judge has made a mistake in law.
Or maybe the judge “forgot”
Or maybe the judge “forgot” to declare their membership of WDAG?
brooksby wrote:
It wouldn’t be at all surprising if he lives in a similar area with similar issues, let’s say that…
He may be an expert in the
He may be an expert in the general field of consultations, but he seems to have overlooked the legislation as it applies to highways consultation.
The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 set out the specified consultees (frequently but erroneously referred to as “statutory consultees”, since it is not statute but regulation that specifies them) in regulation 6.
However, it also requires publication of proposals (the LTN) (regulation 7), provision for any person (in the legal sense) to make an objection in Reg 8, and the duty of the authority making the order to consider all objections duly made under Reg 8 and not withdrawn.
There is also a duty to hold a public inquiry under certain circumstances, and a duty to consider the inspector’s report and recommendations.
There isn’t a credible process by which the LHA could have avoided accepting receipt of the opposition report or by which it could have ignored its contents.
The relevant contents should have been summarised and commented on to demonstrate consideration. In fact, case law provides that, even if an officer’s report had summarised a submission and recommended a course of action, if the decision-maker disagreed and made a different decision, the fact that the report had detailed the submission would have been sufficient to demonstrate consideration of the submission.
Any evidence that conflicts with the LHA’s own evidence can be weighed in terms of its merit, and it should suffice for the authority to show that it has conducted appropriate data gathering, modelling, etc and puts faith in its own process.
But it seems it did not.
So, on the presumption that the dossier was submitted within the timescale specified by Lambeth’s notice, I respectfully disagree with Mr Jones. The 4th Gunning Principle is a broad principle; however there is specific legislation telling the LHA what it needs to do.
Wow! That’s what I call
Wow! That’s what I call informed and knowledgeable: thank you.
eburtthebike wrote:
Of course I could be making that up: IANAL, etc.
Neither am I but I
Neither am I but I wholeheartedly agree with your summary, as that’s how I read the judgement, the council failed to respond to the letter or report in a way that satisfied the legal defined ways of a consultation.
As for the point about the WDAG not being a statutory consultee, whilst totally correct, the judgement highlights they represented a significant body of local opinion and the council could have saved themselves alot of the finer quibbling points on the consultation, had they been made so.
Because the council could then have said but you had a local residents group who were statutory consultants in this process.
In his May ruling, Justice
“In his May ruling, Justice Smith said that the council was guilty of “serious failing”, stating that it had shown a “masterclass in selective partial reporting….”
Hmmm. I’m pretty sure the objectors’ selective partial reporting was an order of magnitude greater than the council’s.
“….and failed to take seriously the concerns raised by residents during consultations.”
Almost certainly because those concerns weren’t realistic, were greatly exaggerated by the opponents, and were disproved by the hundreds of successful LTNs.
“He noted that an “impressive” report warning of increased congestion and pollution on surrounding roads had been ignored.”
Ooooh, an “impressive” report. Who paid for it? If it was the protestors, then they got what they paid for and the report undoubtedly used “selective partial reporting” but that’s “impressive” when the protestors do it.
As Rendel points out, money talks, and the rich drivers using those roads as rat runs can buy the decision they want.
eburtthebike wrote:
But what I took from the ruling detail is they’re saying you can’t have a consultation and just ignore some of the consulted feedback or some of the consultees because theyre clearly anti it, you have to show you responded to their feedback, especially if it ends up challenged in court.
So literally you could respond to a consultation saying this LTN will impact wildebeest migrations, the council have to then respond to it and say something like there are no known wildebeest migrations in this area affected. And that would pass the legal fairness test they cite about how consultations are supposed to work.
The council can’t just go wildebeest don’t be daft we’ll just ignore your obvious attempt to delay us.
Because then you get this situation like where the council demonstrably ignored the residents association letter, who were arguably worthy of formal consultee status as well.
Basically the council dropped the ball on how they’re supposed to consult, had they done it by the book, the LTN would still be there because and they make this point in the judgement too, consultations are not referendum, simply objecting in great numbers to something doesn’t determine whether the planned thing happens or not.
But no doubt we’ll spend the next decade battling people who think LTNs are unlawful
Yeah, this is about the
Yeah, this is about the council not doing the consultation in the way they were supposed to, making the headlines like “LTN judged unlawful” a little bit ridiculous.
What I find weird is the comment below. Winning one out of their three challenges means the claimants were partially successful. It’s odd for the judge to describe them as being completely successful. I assume this comment was around the refusal to appeal?
I suppose he’s trying to just
I suppose he’s trying to just say they achieved their aim, remove the LTN, so it was successful in that, even if not completely in terms of the case.
eburtthebike wrote:
Almost certainly, but unless a report demonstrates the consideration the council gave to the dossier, we can’t be sure that the it decided that the concerns were not realistic.
It is my reading of the reporting that the problem here is not that the design or effect of the LTN was faulty, but that the council failed its duty under Reg 13 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
It would only have taken a comprehensive officer’s report to the contrary, if the LHA had its own data.
I wonder if the judge looked
I wonder if the judge looked at this impressive report?
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/safe-speeds
Key findings – compare scheme roads to background trends across borough roads:
40% reduction in people killed (from 15 to 9) compared to 7% fewer fatalities
34% reduction in people killed or seriously injured (from 395 to 260) compared to a 15% fall in people killed or seriously injured
75% reduction in children killed (from 4 to 1) compared to no change
35% reduction in collisions and 36% reduction in casualties compared to 12% fewer collisions and casualties
Well, I tried to find their
Well, I tried to find their report which so impressed the judge. I didn’t but I did find their feed and some other “around the subject” things. (I’m very much not a local).
Apparently this was opposed by 67.5% of residents (according to WDAG) which under draft guidelines (?) means that it can’t be done.
Some of their facts are contested by … Better Streets West Dulwich!
https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/05/better-streets-west-dulwich-campaign-group-urges-people-to-focus-on-facts-not-fear/
And there seems to be mixed opinion on them here:
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/350461-west-dulwich-ltn-action-group-needs-your-support/page/2/
Looking at their feed they’re claiming (again – can’t find report) that:
“Data proves the West Dulwich LTN will:
Create more pollution on roads that are already over UK / WHO legal limits
Increase the changes of residents and visitors being in a collision by over +1000%”
The last sounds rather unlikely – where has that come from? They also say (as always) it will hugely damage business.
They do have some specific
They do have some specific issues which might be looked at (aside from the “10 x more likely to become a KSI” assertion):
The road around Chatsworth Baptist Church was “specially designed so hearses could pull up” (do they mean here?) but now there’s a planter / parklet in the way(?). (Would seem possible to work round this – and did the Baptists not make representation?)
And apparently there’s a “safeguarding issue” because there’s a parklet is across from a nursury. (Is this a thing?)
There seems to be space to
There seems to be space to pull u[ on the double yellow, and unloading is allowed there …
Aside from that – we have
Aside from that – we have lots of “but congestion – look at the lines of traffic and it is / isn’t a schoolday”. Lots of “council lied / acted illegally because incorrect procedure”, “David vs. Goliath trying to do the work the council should have done themselves” and – (although not often mentioned perhaps a bigger one) – “Who fancies paying more for less parking?”
On the council it wouldn’t surprise me if there were mistakes (and even some “managing of the narrative”). Could believe that around things like wrong dates on paperwork, then not correcting stuff or even denying there was a mistake. And different parts of the council (or their contractors) not being aware of issues elsewhere – yup, that’s a thing.
There’s the narrative of “they’re ignoring us and now they don’t want to let us have our say e.g. at meetings” which is understandable.
And they keep saying they want the authorities to work with them. What are their suggestions? Those I can find seem perhaps “out of scope”. They do ask about step-free access at two local rail stations (probably a good idea but also perhaps not going to be in a LTN project – not sure?)
But then … perhaps a product of “you asked for comment…” on the feed it becomes “here are dozens of things the council / councillors do we’re not happy with” e.g. AirBnB issues, stuff about money being wasted, why aren’t they tackling crime, their contractors are doing bad things and bins…
This does all seem very familiar having read a little of some other consultations.
I’ve noticed some people (inc
I’ve noticed some people (inc. a poster here) suggest they don’t have a position on LTNs – it merely depends on the merits of the specific LTN.
This sounds reasonable until you realise that’s either trivially true but banal or actually means “I’m not in favour of this idea”.
Why banal – consider: “they want to put an LTN in the middle of ‘War and Peace’! Ludicrous – it’s a category mistake!” Or “they want one in the middle of the M1! Ridiculous – it’s a contradiction in terms!” Or “Putting an LTN outside the entrances to a busy major A&E facility is dangerous nonsense!”
Obviously nobody is asking for any of those. The point of these is to apply some measures to ensure there is less through-traffic in residential neighbourhoods. Explaining why you would oppose that (apart from for pretty selfish reasons or because some pro-more-motoring ideology / conspiracy about “them”) seems to be a fairly tall order.
Sure, people might have particular objections to the details of particular scheme – but I’m not sure anyone says “I am neither for or against pedestrian crossings” because you need to leave yourself room in case someone designs a less than perfect one…
Perhaps underlying this (apart from local selfish interest) is an ideology of “we oppose any changes imposed by e.g. council / government”?
Of course the bigger issue is that the UK has very many “multiple-function street/roads” due to organic growth. We’re so used to them they’re perhaps not obvious – unlike the US-style giant “stroad”. But in fact lots of places are like this. Illustration (UK vs. Copenhagen vs. NL) here.
Problem is that means that we’ve built in contradictory goals e.g. a residential street (it should be a quiet place for people to live in, where their children / old people should feel safe) which is also a distributor road (needs efficient through traffic flow and higher traffic volumes – and often speeds). Or a distributor road which is a “shopping street” (so lots of people stopping and starting, often trying to park on the street, plus people who’ve got out of their cars then wanting to stroll about and cross the road).
This was the Lambeth
This was the Lambeth Statement:
“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.”
https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/06/lambeth-council-issue-extremely-short-statement-in-response-to-their-high-court-defeat-on-west-dulwich-ltn/
Why on earth is there a
Why on earth is there a requirement to follow “draft” statutory guidance, which by definition cannot yet be in place?
And the equivalance of “disabled” with “car dependent” is irrational – 40% of disabled adults to not have a driving licence, and the Equality Act requires equal treatment of users of all modes. Rat-running prevents such equal treatment.
To me complaining about a smidge of extra traffic on the South Circular sounds self-satirical.
I’m not spending time diving into the detail on this one, since it’s basically on a technicality of consultation process.
Here is the Judgement:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/West-Dulwich-Action-Group-v-London-Borough-of-Lambeth.pdf
mattw wrote:
Because published draft guidance has material weight.
AFAIK, it’s not a requirement, for the obvious reason that it is not implemented. But it has been published with a view to implementation, which gives a clear policy steer. Therefore it has weight as guidance.
Usually, if you choose not to follow it, you might have to show that the existing policy/guidance/legislation was sufficient or more appropriate in the circumstances.
In this case, it presuably comes back to the council not showing its working out (which is the single point of agreement I have with the person over ‘whose’ bridge he would like to think a number of us are trip-trapping).
Thoughtful discussion on LTNs
Thoughtful discussion on LTNs in general as that’s where this discussion has gone (not surprised).
“why” from Living Streets:
https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/blog/the-growth-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/
Some good discussions from developers in the comments on this article:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/people-choose-to-live-on-quiet-streets-so-why-is-it-so-hard-to-close-residential-to-through-traffic/
On how “fix the congestion” and “faster car journeys” aren’t the obvious good they sound like to most:
https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2020/04/16/where-is-the-best-place-for-congestion/
More on how traffic is *not* like water, and how “but shorter car journey times” is a bit of a mirage (inc. links to studies):
https://thecityfix.com/blog/traffic-evaporation-what-really-happens-when-road-space-is-reallocated-from-cars/
A slightly different perspective from the US – where of course “everyone drives” is a given and grid street plans are very common: why not just distribute the traffic more widely. I can think of some issues with this scheme and don’t think it transfers well to a UK context but perhaps an interesting analysis of what the actual problems are (again – in the absence of “provide alternatives to driving”…):
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/1/30/the-neighborhood-traffic-trade-off
… and in fact you can find even something like this in NL – but of course with crucial differences eg. they have a grid of not-as-busy-as-UK distributors around blocks of “streets” which function as LTNs, and they have separate cycle infra on those. Plus they still try to keep traffic out of towns by diverting to ring road on the edges:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2025/01/08/when-is-there-no-need-for-protected-cycling-infrastructure/
I notice that mdavidford
I notice that mdavidford considers the residents to be the “priviledged few” not the parents who can afford to send their children to private schools or the rat runners who can afford to live in more affluent area’s
I think you have me confused
I think you have me confused with someone else. Either that, or you’ve completely misread something somewhere, but I can’t work out what.
Gus T wrote:
He’s said nothing of the sort, on this thread or elsewhere. Are you confusing him with Brent Trollson?