Rockets

@Dogkennelhillbilly I think the judge and the high court didn't think so. If you read the ruling the judge was critical of many parts of the consultation process but said the issues raised did not reach the high-bar required to make them unlawful in his court. Whatever anyone thinks about this I think we can all agree that Lambeth council have let themselves down, let their residents down and ultimately done harm to the broader active travel cause by implementing something that was, ultimately, unlawful. As I have said numerous times before the way councils are going about their implementation of active travel schemes could well be doing long-term harm to the fight against climate change. The West Dulwich case and the removal of the LTN is a very local example of it and I suspect the first of many as other local resident groups learn from the WDAG victory as there are so many similarities between the gripes about the way the councils have been behaving.

Sounds like Lambeth are finally having to be accountable for their (unlawful) actions. What a diabolical waste of tax-payers money and well done for WDAG for keeping up the fight and not giving in. All of those spouting the "this is all a nonsense judgement based on an admin oversight" must be pretty upset right now - oh how they were happy to come on here to impart their wisdom on how the LTN would not have to be removed....well I guess they might be feeling a little daft right now. Now I love how the narrative is "well the other LTNs aren't going anywhere" when surely the narrative should be how have we ended up at this point and can we trust our elected officials to do anything right? Maybe instead of cheer-leading the unlawful actions of a local council many should be trying to hold them to account (as many of us are) - for too long there have been way too many blinkered council-apologists who are helping prop up and defend councils who have been engaging in awful, and now in Lambeth's case unlawful, behaviour, often against the very people they are supposed to represent. Turning a blind eye because you agree with what they are doing is not a defence. Lambeth have helped open a tinder box for other fights against LTNs and I suspect you will read more about successful challenges where there has been unlawfulness. That statement from Lambeth Council is everything you would expect from a council that has been humiliated by a judge for their downright brazenness....one wonders if they might also be heading for a slap down from the High Court judge in the Brockwell Park case too...they are going to have to learn they aren't above the law nor are the above being accountable to residents. Maybe there might be a vacancy in the leadership of Lambeth council in the not too distant future too..... No wonder so many are so disillusioned by politics and politicians now. It's this type of wanton abuse of power that is giving rise to the likes of Reform but, a bit like the statement from Lambeth for many politicians sorry seems to be the hardest word.

https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/06/west-dulwich-ltn-overturned-by-high-court-with-lambeth-council-denied-permission-to-appeal/ Ouch....Lambeth got a telling off from the judge too......pretty clear now.... Deputy High Court Judge Tim Smith firmly rejected Lambeth’s attempt to delay removal of the LTN and to avoid the ETOs from being quashed: “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 also refused Lambeth’s request to appeal, confirming there was no realistic prospect of success, and stated in relation to Lambeth’s attempt to avoid paying a full costs award to WDAG: “The Claimant came to court seeking a quashing of the Orders. It has gone away having achieved that objective. It has therefore been completely successful.” A spokesperson for the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG) said:

The frustrating thing is when you get an email saying they couldn't deliver as no-one was in when you have been in all day and no postie has been anywhere near the house...

Apologies @Dulwich Born And Bred this is all so confusing - I had no idea EDF now has a Facebook page.

I wonder if someone can prove that East Dulwich Mums is also a proxy for the group pretending to be East Dulwich Forum. Is someone able to name the cleaning company involved as this is pretty underhand stuff and I am not sure I would want to engage them in cleaning services.....

Looks like McAsh got his chance to make a run on the leadership - the cut-throat world of internal party politics playing out before us....

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/kieron-williams-to-stand-down-as-leader-of-southwark-council/

You cycled? A303?

It seems to be the actual works get completed but there is always a delay for the new traffic signals - the DV/Red Post Hill junction was the same.

I don't think it is time restricted...the Southwark noise team's website says....(oh and look at the very first item on the list....;-)) Noise issues and nuisances that we can deal with We can help if you're being disturbed by noise coming from: amplified music TV parties nightclubs and pubs including people outside making noise DIY home renovation some construction sites barking dogs alarms / car alarms odours and fumes from commercial properties smoke commercial venues and events dust or noise from some works or equipment in the street fireworks at night from 11pm to 7am - extensions exist for the following festivals: first day of Chinese New Year until 1am the following day on the day of Diwali until 1am the following day New Year's Eve until 1am on New Year's Day 05 November until midnight

Errr could it be because of the noise pollution coming from it perhaps? You may not be able to hear it where you live but anyone on the Dulwich Village side of Lordship Lane all the way to beyond Brockwell Park is being disturbed by it - the sound wash from it is huge and that's a lot of people. As I said before we know people who live nearer to Brockwell Park to us and they say it is unbearable. To be fair the Emirates moved to a piece of wasteland between railway tracks so it actually in a less densely populated area now and the council actually goes out of their way to try to mitigate the impact on local residents and yes, other than the concerts, you could hear a pin drop on matchdays! 😉

But Alice, most football stadiums in London have been in the areas they are in for around 100 years - so there aren't any people who can say they were surprised to find a stadium dropped into their midsts. And it's actually the noise pollution that is the biggest concern not the people flocking to the festivals (that's a pain for those in the most immediate vicinity). We don't live close enough to Brockwell or Peckham Rye to be impacted by the people attending but we are impacted by the noise from both - that is the real problem here and why densely populated inner areas within crowded cities are no place for music festivals. As I said before if I set-up a sound system in my garden that disrupted as many people as Brockwell and Peckham Rye does trust me, the council would be round in a jiffy to shut it down....

But Mal, if someone is playing incessant music loudly in their garden and it is causing a nuisance then the council will send around a noise officer and they will have words with said person. The council, on the other hand, is happy to allow events that cause incessant noise disruption for thousands and thousands of people over multiple days over multiple weekends and are actively encouraging it. Does that not seem slightly hypocritical? Or does hypocrisy not count when there is revenue to be had? Perhaps this is the route those impacted need to take, just keep reporting the council-mandated events to the council's noise team over and over and over again during the duration of the disruption.....

Absolutely agree - there is a place for multi-staged music festivals and densely populated residential areas in a crowded city are not it, especially not over multiple weekends.

Surely a very simple: "how much does the council receive from the organisers of the Gala festival for payment for use of Peckham Rye" would smoke out a response. The "commercial sensitivity" could be because the council are giving it away or it could be because Gala don't want others to know how much they are paying - it is really tough to make money from any type of festival these days and Wide Awake in Brockwell, for example, sent out a plea for people to buy tickets via a reduced price "Tell a Friend" special offer because (they said much of it linked to the problems Lambeth were having with the High Court) things were entering "squeaky bum time" and they were struggling to hit their break-even point. It does make me wonder whether expansion is baked-in to the agreements the council has with the organisers for events like Gala as the organisers have to be able to scale the size of the event each year to try to make money. I do also how much of the "revenue" from these events might be swallowed up by the provision of the "free community" event element of them. The comment piece in the Guardian sums it up quite nicely: The heart of this issue seems to be how cash-strapped councils are becoming increasingly beholden to commercial interests to the detriment of the public. A weekend festival that welcomes 50,000 people can expect to raise about £500,000 for local authorities. Councils argue that this money goes back in the public purse, allowing them to continue funding free community events such as Lambeth’s beloved Country Show, though there doesn’t seem to be much transparency over exactly how much cash is raised or where it is allocated. The issue for councils may well be that if people found out how much was actually being raised by these events that the community would say the disruption is not worth it and I do wonder how much of the revenue is being swallowed up by the provision of the "free event" using the same infrastructure. Any time a council doesn't want to share something openly very much suggests that it is because they think constituents won't like the answer.

I think you have to question to whom it is "commercially sensitive" - the council or the Gala organisers? That rational for not sharing the detail can very easily be construed as a bit of a smokescreen for someone.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/24/music-festivals-parks-brockwell-london-debate

Other local constituents are likely to be less keen on having an increase in noise pollution. Must be a change in wind direction but Brockwell sounds even louder today on the village side of Lordship Lane.

@melbournemarcus are you feeling parking pressure on that part of Melbourne Grove, do you have challenges parking your car and did those problems get worse when the council imposed the other CPZs in the vicinity?

I can assure you I am neither a DJ or toff but have always referred to it as Glasto...do you have an issue with that? In fact I was doing Glasto long before the toffs started going but haven't done it in a while because the last one I went to felt all a bit Coachella (which is by far the worst "festival" I have ever had the pleasure of attending). The point remains that festivals have no place in densely populated urban areas and I do worry that the monetisation of our public spaces means we can expect more and more in future and our councils ignoring the input of local residents and they go chasing the filthy lucre!

But that's the point isn't it Mal, if you go to Glastonbury you are with a hundred thousand other people in the wilds of the country and you cannot complain about noise disruption - you can be selective about where you camp of course. The Glasto organisers and local council go out of their way to keep the locals onside - friends of mine used to live in a village some miles from Worthy Farm and would be offered free tickets. But there are a lot of people in Dulwich and Herne Hill and Brixton who have huge amounts of disruption thrust upon them because this is, after all, a densely populated urban area and not deepest Somerset. Councils want to monetise our public spaces as much as they can but this is often in conflict with the needs and wants of their constituents who live nearby. What is happening in Brockwell is a warning as Southwark will want to try and monetise Peckham Rye to the same extent if they can.

You can hear the Brockwell one really loudly in the Dulwich Park area already - and this is before the volume ramps for the headliners. A friend of ours lives much closer to Brockwell Park and says the noise there is unbearable. It seems like this weekend at least Dulwich is at the epi-centre of battling sound systems - like that awful spot in a festival field where you are getting the reverb from one stage interfering with the sound from the one you are trying to watch!

I think it demonstrates the lengths councils will go to to appease commercial stakeholders and prioritise them over local residents and their own constituents. Councils appear to become very myopic once revenue is involved....

I suspect Lambeth's legal team have decided that it is far better to potentially upset a High Court judge (maybe beg for forgiveness) than face the wrath of the legal teams of event organisers, promoters, service providers who would come after them for a lot of money if the event had to be cancelled. Clearly the original error was on the part of the council so I suspect that would make them liable for any losses/reputation damage incurred due cancellation/disruption.