A Labour council faces a High Court challenge for a “flawed” public consultation on a low-traffic neighbourhood, as two-thirds of West Dulwich residents oppose the road closures. The Telegraph has the story.
Legal papers seen by the Telegraph list a series of council “failings” while seeking residents’ views about the West Dulwich LTN, which it is claimed proves the council “erred in law”.
The court documents highlight how Lambeth’s own consultation found 67.5% of those asked “were either unhappy or very unhappy” with the LTN. However, the council is carrying on regardless with its introduction, despite the Government insisting that schemes should not be created if there was widespread opposition.
Despite 63.5% saying they were “very unhappy” with the plans, “the outcome of the consultation resulted in modifications to the scheme not to the principle of a LTN”, the submission says.
It claims the consultation undertaken by the council had been unfair and irrational, in part because some in the council had “refused to engage” with the action group because it was considered simply “anti-LTN”.
The papers say “decisions as to which businesses to consult seem to have been taken on a whim”, with the council then creating a “changing story” on exactly who was contacted.
Many of the tradesmen say controlled parking and road closures could lead to a reduction in footfall with fewer customers coming to shops, while some fear they will be forced to close.
The 23-page legal argument also claims a library “drop-in” meant to address and record local people’s concerns about the LTN ended in near farce.
“Seemingly as a result of the hostility to the proposals, the council members and officers who had attended took an early lunch break and also subsequently concluded the event early such that anyone who arrived during the unadvertised lunch break or towards the end of the advertised time slot was unable to participate.”
It is claimed the council “has sought to avoid using the term” LTN, instead calling it “street improvements”, because of the negative connotations associated with low traffic neighbourhoods.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Consultation exercises” are nothing but box ticking exercises primarily because the implementation decision has already been taken. Even when a consultation is convened a negative finding from those consulted always ensures a few tweaks and a rewording and then the original plan is enacted.
The announcement of a consultation exercise is simply confirmation that the scheme is good to go.
I wonder how many years in the slammer you’d get for not obeying this. Is there anything left in the UK that’s *not* a criminal offence? Well, with the exception of invading the country, which appears to be rewarded as opposed to prosecuted, obviously;
”CONTROL – Lockstep, as the UK government moves to control the entire food supply chain, including your own eggs!
From the 1st October 2024 it will be a criminal offence to own a SINGLE hen without registering with the authorities.
Micromanaging you food chain.”
https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1840405900206489651
YOU WILL OBEY!
Brilliant. Just now I registered my kiwi, cassowary, guinea fowl, psittacines, goose, chicken, and many many more. I want to help.
Exactly right. And the questions asked in these “consultation exercises” are always designed to come up with the required outcome: (“Are you happy with children being killed on our roads or do you support our idea of LTNs?) – OK I exaggerate, but not by much – so it’s good to see that some people have the common sense to say what they really think.
The fact that the response to the overwhelming opposition to the scheme was that “the outcome of the consultation resulted in modifications to the scheme not to the principle of a LTN” tells you all you need to know about these utter bar stewards.
I find this an interesting take.
Will they win this legal challenge? Could it be extended to national policies? We could start with the winter fuel allowance, then with Net Zero….
NO. Traffic legislation that would cover the changes that would introduce an LTN has its own specific non-transferable rules. If they win on failure to observe guidance on not proceeding in the face of mass opposition in would set case law for the future.
To make the legislation in the form of Traffic Orders a public consultation MUST be held in accordance with regulations. It has to be a genuine consultation so if for example equipment to implement the traffic scheme has already been purchased you can argue that it is not. I have never worked on a scheme where there was any expectation of NOT implementing it. Consultations are NOT a popularity contest so the number of responses either way – cycling schemes always got the cyclonutters out in force. It is the content of the responses in the form of objections that is most important as these MUST be answered once the legislation has been made. Honestly it is only really an objection on safety grounds that is likely to be heeded by the council. If objectors point out flaws in the plan that come true it does give them a stick to beat the council with that might get them to reconsider. An action in the High Court can ONLY be made on procedural grounds. That the consultation did not follow regulations or the council did not have he appropriate power. In terms of this one where consultation businesses was patchy, there is a case for going to court on ‘legitimate expectation’. If the scheme would affect your business in any way then you would have a legitimate expectation of being formally consulted. If you were sent some flowery scheme bullshit early on but not the formal consultation you have got them bang to rights. The ruse that is often used with these schemes is an Experimental Traffic Order. This does NOT require prior consultation as comments are made on the operation of the scheme for a period of 6 months. Here the council must indicate that it is an experiment – not a cheat to get a scheme in without consultation – and show what the measurement criteria are for judging the experiment. Case law was set with a challenge to the introduction of the Red Routes in London saying that TfL intended to have them so what was the experiment. TfL were able to show that there were elements of the Red Routes that were uncertain. The requirement that LTNs should not be introduced in the face of a lot of opposition is NOT in the regulations and would appear to just be guidance and not certain to be a successful argument.