The LTN was a controversial scheme, the effect of which was to prevent vehicular traffic from entering, passing through, or waiting within a significant area of Dulwich.

The Claimant, the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), was an association formed to represent the interests of local residents and businesses affected by the street improvements, including a number of Residents’ Associations.

During a process of both formal and informal consultation, WDAG’s members had sought repeatedly to engage with the London Borough of Lambeth regarding the LTN which, on Lambeth’s own evidence, had generated significant opposition, with 63.5% of respondents strongly opposed to the proposals and 67.5% opposing them. Prior to Lambeth’s decision Council WDAG had produced a 53 page document identifying in detail its particular concerns, described by the Judge described as “impressive”, which was provided to officers of the Council at an online meeting on 3 June 2024. That presentation was not, however, taken into account in determining whether or not to make the ETO.

Following the making of the ETO, WDAG challenged the decision on 3 grounds: (1) That the Council’s consultation on the ETO was unfair; (2) That the Council had failed properly to take into account draft statutory guidance published by the Department for Transport; and/or (3) that the Council had acted in breach of regulation 6 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

In a judgment handed down on 9 May 2025, Tim Smith (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) allowed appeal on Ground 1 (J125-126).

In doing so, he divided the Claimant’s submissions in two categories: substantive and procedural (J93). The former relating to the manner in which the Consultation was conducted, and the latter the extent to which the product of consultation was considered and assessed.

Despite accepting various other criticisms of the Council’s conduct, describing one of a report of one consultation event as “a masterclass in selective partial reporting” (J100(e)), the judge overall rejected the Claimant’s procedural criticisms of the Council’s consultation, finding that whilst the “consultation could undoubtedly have been improved upon” with “shortcomings” ranging from the “the inconvenient” to “the more significant” it was not “so seriously deficient as to clear the high hurdle applicable to it” (J111).

On the Claimant’s substantive issue, however, concerning “whether and how the Council considered the product of its engagement when reaching a decision” the Judge found the “absence of any clues that the presentation material was in the minds of officers who contributed to the drafting of OR2 – still less that the issues were engaged with” “troubling” especially given its relevance to the decision to be taken (J122). He held that it was no answer for the Council to maintain that the commencement of the experimental period of the orders provides another opportunity for statutory consultation before any decision is taken to make the Orders permanent (J123) and on that basis (but not Grounds 2 or 3) the judge allowed the claim and invited submissions on relief.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Charles Streeten acted for the successful Claimant instructed by Richard Langley and Emma Watson of Broadfield Law UK LLP (formerly BDB Pitmans LLP)

Press Coverage

BBC
London Evening Standard
The Times (paywall)
The Telegraph (paywall)