Locals opposed to the introduction of a low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) in leafy Dulwich have taken their complaints to the High Court.
The West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), comprised of resident groups and businesses, argue Lambeth Council acted unfairly by not properly consulting locals about the LTN.
However, lawyers for Labour-run Lambeth Council argued they conducted “extensive” consultation using a variety of methods, and say the claims are baseless.
The WDAG is calling for the traffic orders to be quashed at the High Court, claiming more than two thirds of residents who responded to a survey opposed the traffic restrictions, which came into effect last year.
But councillors argue the LTN will reduce traffic and accidents in the area.
LTNs are enforced to reduce traffic in residential areas by using cameras and fining drivers who don’t comply or installing obstacles such as large flower beds and bollards.
But critics say they worsen air quality and funnel congestion to boundary roads of the zones.
As well as the introduction of the LTN – currently on an initial 18-month trial – Lambeth Council is also introducing a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) that will see more than ten high street businesses forced to share just three parking spots between them, it is said.
The council is also planning a ‘healthy route’ cycle lane – ironically on one of the busy boundary roads of the LTN – branded ‘dangerous’ by many residents.
The High Court heard residents were so infuriated with the council’s proposed traffic restrictions that councillors were reduced to tears after a “relentless” barrage of “hostility and anger” during a meeting in a library in 2023.
In documents submitted to the court, Heather Sargent, acting on behalf of Lambeth Council, explained that during an in-person meeting at West Norwood Library in April 2022, residents enraged at plans for the LTN became hostile.
The ‘drop-in’ event was described as a “shambolic fiasco” and a “debacle”.
Charles Streeten, acting on behalf of the WDAG, told the court there was no method for recording feedback during the fiery session, adding that responses were “scribbled down on scraps of paper if they were recorded at all”.
Mr Streeten claimed that just 21 responses were recorded by the council during the “six-hour” event – with more than three-quarters of these arguing against the LTN.
An email from the council’s former head of transport strategy and programmes following the event described offered attending officers a “free day of wellbeing leave” due to the “unpleasantness” of the meeting.
The email read: “Following Saturday’s event and the horrid time that was had by all I wanted to offer you all a free day of wellbeing leave (on top of the TOIL [time off instead of leave]).
“I know this won’t make up for the unpleasantness of the day but I wanted to do something to show how much we appreciate your commitment and time.”
Mr Streeten added that the council went ahead with its plans for the West Dulwich LTN despite “the clear sense of opposition” to the proposals, which was “vigorously expressed” at the library event.
He told the court that the council’s approach to consultation was “so unfair as to be unlawful” and failed to consider the vehement opposition of local residents and businesses.
“The interests of businesses who are members of WDAG and who WDAG represents, including those on the western side of Norwood Road (such as Floral Hall), were not properly considered in reaching the decision to make the Orders,” Mr Streeten said.
Ms Sargent, however, argued that the council had extensively consulted locals “over a lengthy period of time and using numerous methods”.
On the difficult library meeting, she said: “The Claimant’s own evidence is that ‘there was considerable hostility and anger shown by residents at 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.”
Almira Mohamed is a mum-of-two who has lived in Dulwich for over 14 years and is part of the WDAG.
The 54-year-old was at the meeting and claims that more than a hundred locals had gone to the library to attend the session to vent their opposition to the LTN plans.
Speaking outside of court, she claimed: “[The council] just wanted to talk about the plans but people wanted to talk about the street ‘improvements’.
“People were like, ‘Who’s responsible for this? Do any of you live in the [Dulwich] area? Who’s going to take our notes?’.
“People were frustrated because there was no one of authority there and no one was taking notes.
“[The Council] only sent out papers to people’s houses after that fracas.
“The consultation was a fiasco. That day was just the epitome of how it was run.”
Judge Tim Smith reserved his judgement in the case for later this year, believed to be around March.
