Dossier used in Lambeth LTN case reflects ‘narrow view’, say campaigners

Campaigners supporting a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) in Lambeth have called into question the data used to build a case against scheme in the High Court.

In the case, brought by West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), Deputy High Court Judge Tim Smith found that Lambeth Council’s consultation on Experimental Traffic Orders (ETOs) was unfair and had not taken into account all material considerations. However, he dismissed two other grounds put forward by the campaign group (LTT916).

A 53-page dossier of concerns and questions compiled by WDAG was described as “impressive” by the judge. He said that Lambeth Council was wrong to not take into account the dossier when drawing up the ETOs.

Pro-LTN group Better Streets West Dulwich said the dossier was being “treated by some as a definitive account of the LTN’s impact”. However, it actually “reflects a narrow view, shaped by anecdote and selective interpretation, and ignores the lived experience of many local people - particularly those who don’t or can’t drive”, said the group.

Key concerns raised in the dossier included: displacement of traffic onto boundary roads; incremental traffic being diverted onto already illegally polluted roads; and increasing rather than decreasing pollution.

“Overwhelming public opposition” was also ignored, said WDAG, pointing out that 67.5% of residents were against the scheme.

However, Better Streets West Dulwich argued there was “no good basis” for this figure. “The number comes from a council engagement exercise in which 67% of comments left on the map self-described as ‘unhappy’”, the group said. “But these comments were very often unhappy about the unacceptable status quo, rather than unhappy about the LTN.”

Better Streets West Dulwich also challenged WDAG’s view that the LTN has displaced traffic onto boundary roads. “Studies of similar schemes across London show a different picture: overall traffic levels tend to fall due to ‘traffic evaporation’”, i.e. people start making fewer car trips,” said Better Streets. “Air quality monitoring by Imperial College London found air quality improvements inside LTNs, and no increase on the boundary roads. WDAG’s alarmist claims are not supported by peer-reviewed evidence.”

WDAG’s suggestion that the LTN has made streets more dangerous is unfounded, Better Streets believes. “Studies of LTNs elsewhere in London have found that collisions typically fall sharply within LTNs, with no increase on the boundary roads. This reflects what many local families have experienced in West Dulwich: safer crossings, quieter streets, and greater confidence walking or cycling with children.”

The dossier also contained concerns raised by businesses in West Dulwich. “But broader economic studies tell a more encouraging story,” said Better Streets.

“Research by the University of Westminster shows most businesses adapt and many benefit from increased footfall and improved local environment over time. We recall that businesses raised similar concerns when the road outside Herne Hill station was closed to traffic in 2010 - but now that area is thriving, better than ever.”

Perhaps most telling is what WDAG leaves out, Better Streets said. “There is almost no mention of the 42% of West Dulwich households that don’t own a car. No recognition of the benefits to disabled people, children, or those who rely on walking, wheeling or public transport. No serious acknowledgement of the wider community value of quieter, safer streets.”

Judge Tim Smith has given both sides the opportunity to make “further submissions” on what should happen with the ETOs for the LTN.

“As the council prepares its response to the court, it is critical that any decisions are based on the full range of evidence - not just the loudest opposition,” said Better Streets. “Experimental traffic orders exist precisely to allow councils to test new approaches and respond to real-world outcomes. The West Dulwich LTN was part of this evidence-led process.”