The High Court has ruled in favour of the immediate removal of the West Dulwich Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) on Rosendale Road – with Lambeth Council having ‘no right to appeal’ – as reported by the BBC here.
Hardly unexpected, it has sparked significant discussion across our local SE24 community.
As someone deeply invested in the well-being and sustainability of Herne Hill and its environs, I find this moment both reflective and instructive.
The court's judgment was focussed on the manner in which the Lambeth Council implemented the LTN – not on the effectiveness of the LTN itself, which has been a polarising issue for our local community.
Despite a consultation where two-thirds of respondents opposed the scheme, the council proceeded without adequately addressing the concerns raised. A detailed 53-page dossier from the West Dulwich Action Group, highlighting potential safety risks and increased traffic near schools, was reportedly overlooked.
Consequently, following a legal battle, the High Court has deemed the LTN unlawful and mandated its ‘immediate removal’.
Not only that, Lambeth Council has been ordered to pay £35,000 in costs – but it has led to a much bigger question, from opponents: if the LTN has been ruled as unlawful, what of the over-£1million in penalty fines that have been made thus far? Many are arguing that these should be repaid – something that cash-strapped Lambeth Council will struggle to do if that argument is won, no doubt.
I wholeheartedly support initiatives aimed at reducing car usage, lowering pollution, and enhancing our collective health. LTNs, thoughtfully designed and implemented in consultation with an with the blessing of local communities can of course contribute significantly to these objectives.
However, it's imperative that such schemes are introduced with comprehensive planning and that genuine community engagement I’m referring to.
The West Dulwich LTN, as implemented, led to consequences that the council and proponents for might call ‘unintended’, but which sceptics and opponents might well call ‘easy to predict’. Increased congestion on boundary roads resulted in idling vehicles, potentially exacerbating pollution levels – in fact, as a local, I can’t believe that this wasn’t the case. Traffic on Croxted Road sometimes felt more like a car park.
Moreover, the displacement of traffic raised safety concerns, particularly around schools and pedestrian areas – exactly as had been raised during the initial phase of public consultation. Why was no effort made to mitigate this? An issue that has surely played its part in this week’s court decision.
This ruling underscores the necessity for transparent and inclusive dialogue between councils and residents. Effective traffic management solutions should emerge from collaborative discussions, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered and addressed.
In Herne Hill, we're fortunate to have robust public transport options. Encouraging their use, alongside promoting cycling and walking, can be more effective when communities feel heard and involved in the decision-making process.
The aspiration to create safer, cleaner, and more sustainable neighbourhoods is an honourable one. I’m local, it’s what I want too! But I am also realistic. Achieving this, and noble as the aim might well be, requires a really fine balance between environmental objectives and the practical realities of daily life for residents here – in one of the world’s major cities, of course.
By fostering open communication and prioritizing community input, however, I am sure we can develop solutions that are both effective and equitable. But as with all these things, I am a believer that there has to be both carrot and stick, and as locals we need to feel far more carrot, but essentially got given a load of stick by the council. And it has been their undoing, ultimately.
Let's not use this moment as an opportunity to beat back though; I hope we can come together and use the chance we now have to re-evaluate our approaches, ensuring that future initiatives are rooted in collaboration, transparency, and mutual respect.
We are required by law to conduct anti-money laundering checks on all those selling or buying a property. Whilst we retain responsibility for ensuring checks and any ongoing monitoring are carried out correctly, the initial checks are carried out on our behalf by Lifetime Legal who will contact you once you have agreed to instruct us in your sale or had an offer accepted on a property you wish to buy. The cost of these checks is £60 (incl. VAT), which covers the cost of obtaining relevant data and any manual checks and monitoring which might be required. This fee will need to be paid by you in advance of us publishing your property (in the case of a vendor) or issuing a memorandum of sale (in the case of a buyer), directly to Lifetime Legal, and is non-refundable. We will receive some of the fee taken by Lifetime Legal to compensate for its role in the provision of these checks.