top of page
Search

West Dulwich LTN High Court Ruling: A Watershed Moment for Active Travel Policy

  • Writer: Rory
    Rory
  • 8 hours ago
  • 4 min read

West Dulwich Action Group
West Dulwich Action Group

In a landmark decision, campaigners in West Dulwich, London, have won a High Court victory against Lambeth Council over the controversial Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. The court ruled that the council's consultation process was “unfair,” a judgment that has significant implications not just for Lambeth but for local authorities across the UK, including Wirral Council and its contentious Core Active Travel Network (CATN).

This ruling is not just a local skirmish in South London. It is a nationwide precedent, one that exposes how councils can be held accountable when they bypass genuine community engagement in the rush to implement policies. For those of us campaigning for a better, community-focused cycling strategy on Wirral, this is a game-changing development.


What Happened in West Dulwich?


The West Dulwich Action Group, representing over 1,000 residents, took Lambeth Council to court over its LTN scheme, which they argued had been implemented without proper consultation. Judge Tim Smith ruled in favour of the residents on one of three legal grounds, specifically criticising the council for “selective partial reporting” in its consultation process.


The judge noted that Lambeth Council failed to properly consider the impacts of the LTN on local residents and businesses and had presented a misleading summary of public feedback. This lack of transparency and meaningful engagement was deemed a breach of the principles of fair consultation.


Why This Matters for Wirral’s CATN


Wirral Council’s CATN has been plagued by similar issues, with widespread criticism of how it has been planned, consulted, and implemented:


  • Flawed Consultation: Our analysis of Wirral’s CATN consultation revealed that 63.9% of respondents opposed the network, citing concerns over cost, congestion, and a lack of demand. Yet the council has proceeded regardless.

  • Misleading Reporting: Just as in Lambeth, there are clear examples of Wirral Council presenting a selective view of public feedback, framing negative comments as minority opinions.

  • Disregard for Public Input: The consultation report itself noted a significant proportion of residents against the CATN, but this was not reflected in the council’s approach to delivery.


Legal Implications: The Power of Judicial Review


The West Dulwich case highlights the power of Judicial Review (JR) as a legal tool for holding councils accountable. Judicial Review allows individuals or groups to challenge public bodies when they act unlawfully or irrationally.


Key Legal Grounds for Judicial Review:


  • Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow proper procedures or a flawed consultation process, as seen in Lambeth.

  • Illegality: Acting beyond the powers given to the council or using powers for an improper purpose.

  • Irrationality: Making decisions that are so unreasonable that no sensible authority would have made them.


How This Applies to Wirral:


  • The consultation process was heavily criticised for being misleading and poorly communicated, which could be challenged as a breach of procedural fairness.

  • The decision to move forward with the CATN despite overwhelming opposition could be seen as irrational, especially if the council failed to properly consider the public feedback.

  • Budget transparency is another legal angle. If the council has not properly allocated or reported spending on the CATN, this could be challenged as a breach of financial accountability.


The Financial Dimension: Public Money Wasted


Lambeth Council was criticised for spending public funds to defend an unpopular and poorly consulted LTN. In Wirral, we are witnessing the same reckless spending:


  • Over £181,000 was redirected to fund the Bayswater Road scheme despite clear public opposition.

  • Public money is being used to push through a network that lacks a clear mandate and is seen by many as a waste of resources.

  • Transparency in budgeting for active travel has been questionable, with no clear public accounting of how much has been spent on consultations or route planning.


The Environmental Fallacy


Councils frequently justify these schemes under the guise of environmental improvement. Yet the experience in West Dulwich, where the LTN displaced traffic to boundary roads, worsening air quality, is being echoed here:


  • Wirral’s CATN has been criticised for increasing congestion and pollution, particularly on major roads now bearing the brunt of displaced traffic.

  • Residents are rightly asking for independent environmental impact assessments, which have so far been ignored.


The Case for Change: Our White Paper Vision


We have consistently argued for a better, community-led approach to active travel in Wirral, outlined in our white paper “The Future of Cycling on Wirral.” Our strategy is based on three core principles:


  1. Genuine Community Engagement: We advocate for a true dialogue between the council and residents, not box-ticking exercises.

  2. A Connected, Practical Network: Our vision is for a cycling network that actually serves the needs of residents, integrating with public transport and providing safe, efficient routes.

  3. Transparent Decision-Making: All future cycling schemes should be subject to clear, independent reviews with full public input.



A Turning Point We Must Seize


The High Court has spoken, and the message is clear: community voices matter. For Wirral, this is an opportunity to reset the conversation on active travel and to develop a strategy that genuinely benefits everyone. We will continue to fight for a better future for cycling in Wirral—one that is genuinely democratic, transparent, and community-driven.


Further Reading & Resources


Legal Context & Judicial Review



Wirral CATN Consultation & Strategy



Community Action & Advocacy


Comments

bottom of page