A campaign group has won a High Court ruling that Lambeth council’s consultation a low traffic neighbourhood was unlawful and “unfair and/or that the council had regard to immaterial considerations when deciding to make the orders”.
The council said the LTN will remain in place while it waits for directions from the court.
West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), which has more than 1,000 supporters, had challenged the orders on three grounds:
- Ground 1: that the council’s consultation on the orders was unfair and/or that the council had regard to immaterial considerations when deciding to make the orders
- Ground 2: that the council’s decision to make the orders failed to have regard to material considerations, and/or was irrational in that it concluded that due regard was had to statutory guidance published by the Department for Transport relating to the orders, and/or was inadequately reasoned, and
- Ground 3: that the council failed to comply with its duties of consultation under regulation 6 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2489) and/or that it had unlawfully fettered its discretion in how it approached its decision to make the orders.
Judge Tim Smith allowed the WDAG claim in ground 1, but dismissed it on grounds 2 and 3.
He said: “Some of the elements of consultation could undoubtedly have been improved upon”.
Shortcomings ranged from the inconvenient (for instance printing the code needed to respond to a consultation exercise on envelopes only and not on the letters they contained) through to the more significant (for instance, errors in the hand delivery of some printed material).
“But,” he said, “the question always is whether something has gone so ‘clearly and radically wrong’ as to render the consultation process unlawful.
“This asks a question about the overall impression left by the consultation when viewed as a whole. Was it so seriously deficient as to clear the high hurdle applicable to it? In my judgement the answer is clearly not.”
However, much of the case revolved around a detailed, 53-page document submitted to the council by objectors to the council’s plans for traffic in the West Dulwich area.
“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,” said Judge Smith.
“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.”
Judge Smith directed both sides to make brief written submissions on “relief” for the claimants and connected issues.
WDAG urged the council to “engage collaboratively and constructively” with the local community, with “clear objectives, transparent communication and a genuine willingness to listen”.
Rezina Chowdhury, deputy leader of the council for sustainable Lambeth and clean air, said: “We implemented the West Dulwich street improvements to reduce road danger and create a neighbourhood where residents can live safer, happier and healthier lives.
“The court has allowed the claim against the West Dulwich street improvements on one of the three grounds of challenge, and dismissed the other two.
“We acknowledge the court’s decision and are carefully considering the implications of this judgement; we will provide further updates in due course.
“The current trial scheme in West Dulwich will remain in place in the meantime, while we await further directions from the court.
‘We remain fully committed to working with local communities to transform streets across the borough and getting on with our programme to deliver benefits for everyone.”
