A public meeting to discuss the introduction of a low traffic neighbourhood became so hostile that councillors were in tears and council staff were offered “wellbeing” leave to recover, the High Court was told on Wednesday. The “drop in” event, at West Norwood library in April 2023, was called by Lambeth council to inform residents of plans for a LTN in West Dulwich. Details of the controversy that was sparked by the proposal – which aimed to prevent residential streets being inundated with “rat running” traffic from the South Circular Road - was detailed in legal papers presented to the court by the council’s legal team.
![[MailOnline Speaks to people on the Boundary of The current ULEZ area about their thoughts on older more polluting vehicles having to pay to drive in the Zones]](https://static.standard.co.uk/2025/02/12/11/42/MailOnline-Speaks-to-people-on-the-Boundary-of-The-current-ULEZ-area-about-their-thoughts-on-older-m.jpeg?quality=75&auto=webp&width=960)
Anti-LTN campaigners are asking the High Court to declare the West Dulwich LTN unlawful on several grounds, including that the Labour council carried out an inadequate consultation. If they are successful, this could be the first time that anti-LTN campaigners win a court battle to force a council to axe a LTN. The so-called “library event” was described by opponents as “a fiasco”, “a debacle” and “shambolic”, but the “difficulties experienced at that event were patently not the fault of the council,” according to the skeleton argument presented to the court by Lambeth’s barrister, Heather Sargent.
She wrote: “The claimant’s own evidence is that ‘there was considerable hostility and anger shown by residents and the council’s plans’, that the criticism from ‘angry’ residents was so ‘relentless’ that some of the councillors ‘were in tears’ and that the council team took a lunch break ‘to get away’. “The experience of officers attending the event for the council (on a Saturday) was so negative that the then head of transport strategy and programmes offered them a day of wellbeing leave.”.
The hearing has been brought by West Dulwich Service Station Ltd on behalf of the West Dulwich Action Group, which says it represents about 1,000 residents opposed to the LTN. About 680 supporters have raised about £50,000 to cover the cost of bringing the challenge. Charles Streeten, for the LTN opponents, told the court: “The consultation itself was not carried out fairly. “The product of the consultation was not conscientiously taken into account as it should have been.”.
Mr Streeten admitted that the three council staff at the library event, which lasted for six hours, had a “horrid time”. He added: “My clients’ position is that they were not in any way abusive, but there were people there whose conduct was bordering on abuse. “We are not disputing the challenging nature of the event.”. Ms Sargent, in her submission to Judge Tim Smith, said the claim was “without foundation and should be dismissed”.
She said that, under the law, proving that a consultation was so unfair to be unlawful faces a “substantial hurdle” that something went “clearly and radically wrong” – but the claimant came nowhere near to surmounting the hurdle. She said the council consultation attracted 1,300 responses. The LTN was introduced about six months ago. She wrote: “At their highest, both grounds of challenge amount to a series of detailed criticisms of the council’s approach. Even if those criticisms were made out, they would not show that anything went clearly and radically wrong.
“Even if all three grounds of challenge were made out (and none of them are), the court would not have the power to quash the [legal orders] because it is plain that neither the interests of the claimant nor those of West Dulwich Action Group have been prejudiced at all, still less substantially. “In the council’s submission… the consultation… was obviously not so unfair as to be unlawful.
“Indeed, when the process as a whole is considered, the council does not accept that it was unfair at all.”. Mr Streeten, in his written submission to the court, said the council’s use of two traffic orders to create the LTN was unlawful because “the council’s approach to consultation was so unfair as to be unlawful ”. He added that the council had “failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, failed to have regard to obviously material considerations and/or acted irrationally.”.
