Rockets

It's been a bad couple of weeks for the week for the LTN lobby - first the high-court ruling on the unlawful West Dulwich LTN and now the Guardian publishing that - surely there must be an LTN "exclusive" in the wings waiting to be posted.....

Has the Guardian been hacked - that's the best LTN piece I have ever seen in the Guardian. I may have to frame it ;-)? Clearly they are trying to re-balance their coverage after years of LTN "exclusives" trying to convince everyone they are great and working. One wonders if there was some frostiness in the Guardian canteen between Peter and Joseph this morning! 😉 Come on @Earl Aelfheah you love the Guardian's coverage of LTNs so surely you must lap this one up too? Anyone else think the worm is turning when even the Guardian goes in two-footed on a council and their LTN debacles..... This sums it all up: Ultimately, the main problem with the LTNs is that they are all stick, no carrot. For all the restrictions and the penalty notices, there has been almost zero improvement in public transport. There are no new bus routes to make travel easier; no extra trains; and in most of south London there is still no underground, a lack of investment that creates millions of unnecessary car journeys across the capital. Many people will, of course, have little sympathy with drivers, especially if they don’t own a car. Yet there’s a hypocrisy here. Because I can’t think of anyone, car owner or not, who doesn’t regularly depend on a personal driver: be that the Uber driver, the person who delivers the online shopping, or the local plumber or electrician. The time wasted in queues, the frustration and the extra fuel consumption are all outsourced to the little guy. There should be a way around this, but the first step would be to listen. Lambeth has been exposed for ignoring its residents. Those who oppose LTNs are not rabid petrol-headed rightwingers who want to burn up the planet: they’re mostly just ordinary people trying to go about their daily business whose life has been made miserable. They have a right to be heard. And those in power should remember: car ownership is not a crime. Drivers are not evil.

The perspective is very clear @malumbu - there are three crossings within about 100 yards of each other on a single stretch of road. I said that the new location makes perfect sense from a footfall perspective but that it probably makes one of the other two redundant - do you not think that is the case - if so what is the rational for your argument - perhaps you would like to share?

Surely a 100 yard walk would be better for active travel purposes.....! Gotta love the responses to my message but then when your world revolves around trying to turn every road into a permanent pedestrian crossing then what can you expect...........;-) Three crossings in such a short space is ludicrous and utterly unnecessary - I can't think of three crossings in such short succession even on streets like Oxford Street! I wonder if the same people would be so keen to see a pedestrian crossing put in on Dulwich Square across the cycle track which is clearly urgently needed - I doubt it as they would say it would hinder active travel growth!!!

And close to the controlled crossing at Oglander too - that's a lot of crossings in a short stretch of road - the new one does make a lot of sense in terms of location but will the council need to remove one of the others?

@Earl Aelfheah the Turney Road closure was the one Southwark asked TFL £1.8m for and TFL said….go away. So that had nothing to do with the consultation or listening to their constituents. Do you have any others where you think the council made significant changes based on consultation feedback? And I can assure you Southwark councillors masquerading as members of the public to pour scorn on those who dare oppose their plans is not a conspiracy theory…https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/exclusive-former-southwark-housing-chief-leo-pollak-broke-councils-code-of-conduct-but-no-action-to-be-taken/

Southwark councillors do have a history of masquerading as members of the public so I wouldn't put it passed them! 😉 Because it was clearly said with my tongue clearly in my cheek......!!!! Ha ha, they didn't propose the changes though did they - the original plans were so expensive they got laughed out of the room.....

Which schemes did they scrap - are you referring to the area-wide CPZ? Can you give us examples where changes made truly reflected the feedback gathered from the residents because if you the classic "we listened to you, ahem, on the basis of a consultation that was designed not to allow you to say no but forced you to choose between a variety of A, B, C, D options - none of which you actually agreed with. " No but they do treat it like they are the only ones with a vote so ultimately it is a referendum of sorts! Look at the Townley CPZ - no-one wanted it, no-one needed it and I suspect the only impact assessment they did was assessing how much parking pressure it would create on surrounding roads and how quickly they could get another CPZ in on the basis of it.....as part of their revised area-wide (street-by-street) CPZ plan......that's not listening to the consultation.... A lot of councils do seem to be....they're utterly terrified that constituents won't think their ideas are good ones so they run consultations where they have been able to run rough-shod over the view of constituents. And now one of them has been caught red-handed and a group of residents had to raise money to challenge the council in the High Court to force them to do what they are expected to do. That's no democracy - that's a shameful abuse of power.

No, it's clear what I am asking you and clear why you don't want to answer.....

But given the weight of over-whelming and compelling negative consultation feedback from local people have they really engaged in the spirit of the guidance on consultations? Have they really "listened to" and "learned from" the consultations?

But @Earl Aelfheah hand on heart, can you say that Southwark has been "listening to, and learning from" the results of their various LTN and CPZ consultations?

No I am not. It is clear from guidance given to local authorities on what a consultation should be and it is clear that councils have been able to manipulate the process. https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/communications-and-community-engagement/resident-communications/understanding-views-2 What is consultation? Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set. Lambeth fell foul of this because they did not listen to or learn from local people. Southwark have been doing exactly the same. For too long councils have been treating it as nothing more than a box ticking exercise. Perhaps now they will be forced to engage more and do more listening and learning.

But I think we can all agree the current consultation method is so flawed that it has basically become a pointless exercise. The problem for councils is that for decades they have been able to manipulate the process (if they needed to) because no-one really cared and there was no scrutiny. Then they continue that process for active travel which has massive impacts on people's lives and suddenly a lot of people go...huh, that's not a democratic process. And then councils like Lambeth do what they do and people, quite rightly say, see...we told you they were gaming the system - and that narrative sticks. And Lambeth were gaming the system - just as Southwark were (just that Southwark have yet to get caught). They know it and everyone else, no matter what side they are on, know that councils have been using and gaming the system to their advantage. Councils are finally reaping what they sowed.

Which is exactly why the High Court judge has ruled the West Dulwich LTN unlawful.

Ha ha...are Healthy Neighbourhoods the new name for LTNs.....like renaming a night club that has an awful reputation? And is Lambeth now using an "engagement" as the new watered-down "consultation"? Correct me if I am wrong but Lambeth distinguishes between the two don't they and an engagement requires less detail - ahem, one wonders why they might be choosing that path..... Let's see if Lambeth can make these ones lawful hey!!! 😉 Really? The High Court Judge doesn't seem to agree with you on that one.... He said that the dossier created by WDAG, which argued traffic would be pushed on to heavily congested boundary roads affecting thousands of school and nursery children, was "highly relevant to the decision confronting officers". He said: "The 53-page presentation did not form part of the council's considerations in its decision to make the [LTN] orders. It should have done. "The failure to have regard to it was a serious failing, rendering the decision to make the orders unlawful."

BBC News - West Dulwich low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) unlawful, High Court rules - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg4178plvdo Hmmm, might be wishful thinking on your parts there folks....

But the point I am making is they treat the decision they make as if it were a a referendum - except they are the only ones who have a vote! Do you see the point I am making: we the council embark on a democratic consultation. The people say they don't want it so we say - well we're the only ones with the vote that matters, we are going to ignore the weight of evidence against us and are going to do whatever we want whether you want it or not....this is the whole basis of why the High Court Judge ruled the West Dulwich one unlawful. The judge is actually saying the consultation should have been run more like a referendum.

One Dulwich Campaign Update | 12 May West Dulwich Action Group wins LTN legal battle Congratulations to the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), the first campaign group in the UK to win a legal battle over an LTN. Last week, a High Court judge ruled that Lambeth Council’s consultation was unfair and the West Dulwich LTN unlawful. The LTN was implemented last September after a consultation in which 67.5 per cent of residents objected (a similar percentage objected to the Dulwich Village and East Dulwich LTNs). It will remain in place pending further direction from the judge, who may order its removal. The judgment has given hope to our fellow campaigners in Croydon and Greenwich. Challenging councils over consultations has always been hard, firstly because the time window for legal action is so small, but also because the courts have previously seemed reluctant to rule against trial schemes, especially those introduced during Covid (listen to the report at 1:34:59 on BBC Radio 4 Today). But now, in 2025, the tide may be turning. WDAG’s win was widely reported – see The Times, The Telegraph, and BBC London. Now WDAG are calling on Lambeth to refund more than £1 million in fines issued since last September. Southwark News calls for the Council to work with Dulwich residents Cllr Richard Leeming’s comment at last week’s meeting on the Future of Dulwich made front page headlines in this week’s Southwark News: “Ward councillor asserts that Southwark’s most controversial LTN will not be lifted whilst there is a Labour Council.” The newspaper also devotes its entire editorial to the meeting, highlighting local anger and frustration, and the “vital importance in politics of bringing people with you.” “Going forward,” the editorial says, “the council should explore ways it can work with local residents to address some of their concerns – only then might we see a system that works for everyone.” We couldn’t agree more. Our councillors have our contact details – we look forward to hearing from them. Thank you for your support.

Because it's not in their interests.....any council, no matter the political leaning, likes the idea that they can manipulate the outcome....we are repeatedly told by the council and their supporters that "consultations are not referendum's" but the council actually treats them as if they are by making binding decisions on the basis of the outcome (nee the decision they decide that is right whether residents support it or not during the consultation). Ahem and then loose-lipped councillors like Cllr Leeming say silly things like they will stay whilst there is a Labour administration which makes them look even more entrenched and stubborn and utterly at odds with the local mood board. The whole consultation process is a farce and only works if the result the community gives is the result the council wants - they're about as democratic as Russian elections.....;-)

But folks remember, it's not the constituent dissenting voices who are the problem here. It is the people who are running the consultations who are trying to skew things to their advantage. All of these dissenting voice groups are only in existence because the councils tried to railroad their plans through undemocratically. The West Dulwich group had to raise £50,000 to challenge the council after the council refused to entertain any of their concerns - that is shameful and shows the lengths constituents have to go to to be heard and the lengths councils will go to to silence them. There is a similar pattern of behaviour between all of the councils locally.

It might be irritating for you Mal but it is a victory. It is a victory for all of those who said the council/s have been manipulating the process of forcing these measures on local residents. As I said a long, long time ago the way councils were going about is ultimately doing long-term harm to the climate change debate as they fixated on idealogical rather than pragmatic measures - and measures that actually did nothing to help the very cause they were trying to influence - in some cases making it worse. I sense your irritation is because that one decision vindicates much of what some of us have been saying for a long time and I suspect you also realise this will have a knock-on effect in other areas as the template and legal precedent has been set for more challenges on the basis of councils installing them unlawfully. Actually Earl, the problem is that they are skewed towards councils being able to manipulate the process to install things, in the case of West Dulwich unlawfully - this is the crux of this but I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be wholesale change to what is clearly not a democratic consultation process and one that is being manipulated. This is why I think this is a watershed moment because if you look back on how Southwark council behaved in relation to LTN and CPZ consultations in our area it was a woefully poor and biased process. Just think back to consultations where you could not say a simple "no" but were forced to agree to some sort of measure - it's utterly shameful how local politicians have manipulated to the process - with the help of many of the aforementioned groups. I do hope that those politicians will one day be held accountable for their role in all of this. Lambeth clearly have a big issue based solely on the number of fines issued unlawfully (is it supposed to be £1,000,000 worth?) - that sounds like the mother of all legal battles and now you may see the ambulance chasers going after Lambeth on behalf of the thousands of people who have been incorrectly issued tickets - more tax-payers money being wasted in defending them. It's going to get really messy and they only have themselves to blame - I suspect a lot of other councils are having cold sweats right now.

Perhaps Richard was there to glean info on how to prove the ones this side of Dulwich are unlawful as well....;-)

I am heartened because many of the laughter emoji trolls laughed at the prospect of a High Court Challenge to the West Dulwich LTN. What's the saying: he who laughs last laughs longest....;-) Ha ha! 🙂

Bravo to everyone involved. Delusional seems so apt to describe how some councillors and their active travel lobbyist friends have become. For every laughing emoji they leave on forums like this or for every attempt to smear anyone who dares question them by accusing them of being a facist you know deep down they know that we are right - that many councils have been acting unlawfully and undemocratically when it comes to LTNs. I do hope you all have a celebratory street party within the LTN! The worm is starting to turn and lets hope those responsible take full accountability for their actions.

I very much suspect that the Southwark legal team will be calling urgent meetings with councillors to determine if, or perhaps more likely how much, the council is exposed in terms of the lawfulness of their LTNs and given the issues Southwark had with the consultations I suspect there will be some nervous folks at Southwark HQ. The house of cards may be about to come tumbling down but at least Southwark can now look for favourable support from central government - unless of course Labour HQ is happy to hang some of their harder-left administrations out to dry - Southwark Labour has always been a thorn in the side of more moderate Labour leadership. Grab your popcorn this is going to get interesting.