- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Railton LTN (Sarah Berry)High Court judge rejects challenge to Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
A High Court judge has today rejected a legal challenge to low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) introduced last year in the London Borough of Lambeth, ruling that the council acted in line with regulations governing their implementation and that they did not discriminate against people with disabilities.
The case had been brought, with the backing of the anti-LTN group One Lambeth, by a disabled resident of the borough, Sofia Shaekh, who lives close to the boundary of the Railton LTN in Brixton, and who relies heavily on using her car for transport.
She had claimed that such interventions, aimed at restricting through traffic in residential areas while allowing access to people who live there, had disproportionately affected people who are dependent on cars to get around, saying that displacement of traffic to roads outside LTNs increased journey times, caused additional stress, and impaired quality of life.
> 130 groups unite in open letter supporting Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
Ms Sheakh, who spent a month in a coma last year after contracting COVID-19, claimed that the traffic orders under which the council had created a number of LTNs were unlawful and should be quashed, and that its officers had not followed the duties imposed on them under the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, she also said that the council had not carried out adequate consultation.
While LTNs have been in existence for decades, many have been installed in a number of London boroughs and in towns and cities outside the capital as a response to the coronavirus pandemic and with the help of funding from the government, which sees encouraging active travel and reducing travel by car as a key part of its plans for recovery from COVID-19.
In the case of Lambeth, the borough revealed plans in 2019 to install permanent LTNs, and accelerated those last year as part of its response to the pandemic.
A number of legal challenges have been launched to try and have LTNs removed, with the most high-profile case involving Mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s Streetspace programme, including guidance to boroughs on LTns, where Transport for London won an appeal earlier this month against an earlier decision that had ruled the programme unlawful.
> Transport for London wins appeal over Streetspace active travel programme
In his decision, handed down this morning, Mr Justice Kerr acknowledged that “Opinion is divided on whether they [LTNs] are, on balance, a good thing or not,” adding, “The court takes no part in that debate and is wholly neutral on the merits or otherwise of LTNs.”
The judge rejected a claim that the experimental traffic orders [ETOs] creating the LTNs were not lawful because they were claimed to be permanent rather than experimental, and also that the council had not complied with the requirements of the Equality Act.
“In my judgment, the evidence is clear,” the judge said. Referring to the fact that Lambeth already had plans to introduce LTNs prior to the pandemic, he said: “It was the coronavirus epidemic and the resulting statutory guidance that led to abandonment of that conventional and leisurely approach to introducing LTNs.
“The Secretary of State urged local authorities to take radical and almost immediate measures to enhance walking and cycling and pointed to their power to do so using TTOs [temporary traffic orders] and ETOs.”
Dismissing the claim that the council had not adequately taken account of the needs of people who rely on cars for transport, he said that “The claimant is wrong to say there is no evidence of the balance being struck; there is plenty of evidence of it being struck; and the unusual circumstances in which these LTNs came into being makes that not in the least surprising.”
Another claim was that the council had been “irrational” in selecting which organisations to consult.
“The claimant says it was irrational to consult Wheels for Wellbeing but not groups such as ‘dasl’ (which stands for Disability Advice Service Lambeth) specifically representing disabled people in Lambeth,” the judge noted.
Finding that ground of challenge “without merit,” he said: “There is nothing irrational about consulting a cycling organisation about measures to encourage cycling. ‘
“The omission to consult the charity dasl is not actionable; there was no obligation to consult that organisation and it was not irrational to omit it from the list; it can contribute to the debate via the objections procedure if it wishes to do so.”
Reacting to the decision, Councillor Claire Holland, leader of Lambeth Council, said: “We welcome the judge’s decisive ruling today, dismissing the claims on all counts.
“Lambeth has been clear from the start that we had to act swiftly and urgently in the face of the huge challenges that the coronavirus pandemic posed to our borough, and in particular the immediate risk of it making existing inequalities on our streets and in our neighbourhoods worse.
“The council has set out from the outset that implementing measures to make our streets safer and healthier was fully in line with statutory guidance and national policy objectives. We rejected any suggestion that these schemes are discriminatory in any way or were installed illegally.
“We’re glad that the judgement is clear on that, and particularly that considerations of equality were accounted for at the earliest stage of the LTN.
“The judgment also reinforces our approach of continuing to consider those objectives using data collected throughout the experimental period, ensuring that the impacts on those most at-risk remains front and centre of our approach,” Councillor Holland continued.
“The start of the Covid-19 pandemic saw capacity on public transport reduced by up to 80 per cent to accommodate social distancing.
“With around 60 per cent of households in Lambeth not having access to a car, and with access typically lower for women, Black and disabled residents in particular, we needed to make our streets safer to enable them to walk, cycle, scoot or wheel safely in their local area and access local facilities during the pandemic.
“The council’s response was an emergency transport plan, produced last summer for the benefit of all Lambeth’s residents but primarily focused at tackling the acute inequalities that we envisaged the pandemic would exacerbate in our borough.
“This plan included pavement widening, temporary walking and cycling infrastructure and low traffic neighbourhoods.
“The council is carrying out regular, detailed, open and transparent monitoring of the programme and has already taken on board feedback from local people to make improvements where necessary.
“We will now redouble our efforts to involve all of our communities in a conversation about how we rebalance our streets so that they are more equal, safer and put people first,” she concluded.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- dubwise 2 sec ago
Israel thanks you for the continuing support of their genocide of women and children.
- Bungle_52 29 min 26 sec ago
I was born in Southport which was in Lancashire at the time. I couldn't remember when it became part of Mersyside so I googled it and came up with...
- marmotte27 48 min 1 sec ago
Yes, 29" is just a marketing term. P.S.: Note that in Germany 700C is sometimes called 28"...
- HKR 1 hour 32 min ago
Not sure the Cycliq Fly 6 is particularly exciting at the moment. Not because this model had a problem in the rain. But more because Cycliq has...
- Bmblbzzz 8 hours 49 min ago
First I've heard of that. Goes off to investigate...
- David9694 9 hours 50 min ago
For real?
- mattw 9 hours 52 min ago
Nothing suitabel innthe range at my small local Halfords. Next stop JE James in Chesterfield, or a larger Halfords.
- chrisonabike 10 hours 37 min ago
I always wondered why they had PSI ops units* ... clearly it's to exert pressure on the popular imagination....
- Rendel Harris 11 hours 16 min ago
I don't actually agree with de Vlaeminck's comments, let's wait until the end of a career to see where people are, Pogacar isn't that far off in...
Add new comment
65 comments
Utter rubbish. They are low traffic neighbourhoods, not no traffic neighbourhoods. Vehicles can still access them, they are not "barred". All they're doing is discouraging parasitic traffic, people who neither originate there or have a destination there. If you have to drive a different route to access them, everybody is in the same position and it is not discriminatory against the disabled.
What you and others don't understand (or choose to ignore so you can use the disabled as your excuse) is the disabled are not entitled to preferential treatment. The requirement is that they not be unfairly disadvantaged. Nothing about an LTN prevents the disabled from using a car just as anyone else would.
No particular appeal "should" be heard. They can be lodged and will be heard on their merits.
On the basis that around 60% of households in Lambeth don't have access to a car, and that number is higher for women, black and disabled residents, it would seem that cars are not a particularly good mode of transport for the urban masses, particular the differently abled, and so should not be forefront or "go-to" in transport policy.
There are solutions available other than "more cars"
if you mean
“It is vital that the needs of disabled people are properly considered prior to making such fundamental changes to our roads and neighbourhoods.”
I actually do agree with it wholeheartedly. However of course just because some anti's may have cynically used it, and differently-abled folk in general, as a strapline to further their own unrelated agenda (of the continued limiting of transport and access options to anyone not owning a car), does not mean that that exercise hasn't already been conducted. In fact, Lambeth are stating the very opposite, that indeed it has.
Thanks for the heads up, I'll bear that in mind
so are you saying that the defacto policy of automobile primacy is in itself discrimanatory and should be challenged in the courts? Possibly accelerating the introduction of more cycle routes and LTNs?
I would say so.
There's quite a number of medical complaints that preclude someone from being able to drive and that's assuming that they have the time, money and inclination to get a license in the first place.
Oh gosh, that could be seen as the implication couldn't it...;)
"No particular appeal "should" be heard. They can be lodged and will be heard on their merits."
Nonsense. Judges are free to recommend that an issue be readdressed by a higher court. If the quote above is accurate, the judge has recommended, not just permitted, an appeal - presumably because he felt his hands were tied by precedential issues.
Fortunately, LTNs are not about stopping people from getting anywhere by motor vehicle, but about limiting through-routes (rat-running) in quieter areas. People can still access their home by car, although their route might change. When they get there, it will be safer getting to and from their car, thanks to the LTNs.
I'm broadly in favour of LTNs and measures to reduce car use.
If an LTN produces a change in route to access your house by car then it may also produce a significant change in journey time.
For able-bodied people this will encourage them to walk or cycle for short journeys. For people who rely on a car for their mobility it will be a huge inconvenience and may make some essential journeys very difficult.
This can be overcome with technology and shouldn't be a barrier to the implementation of LTNs in the long run but we must ensure that the concerns of disabled residents are not simply dismissed out of hand.
The current situation makes many essential journeys very difficult. The biggest cause of congestion is traffic and a large proportion of traffic is unecessary. If the anti-LTN lobby were truly concerned for those who rely on a car for their mobility, they would surely be infavour of reducing unnecessary vehicle usage and in providing alternatives for those who <b>currently</b> rely on their cars. I don't see the anti-LTN lobby demanding that only those whose usage is provable essential be allowed to drive.
We also should not forget the many people who have conditions which prevent them from having the luxury of being able to drive.
I absolutely agree that the current situation is neither desirable nor sustainable.
The aim should be to design the LTNs in such a way as to minimise disruption to those who rely on their cars whilst simultaneously encouraging those with other options to drive less.
Tose two goals seem mutually exclusive, only be disincentivising motorised transport will you increase the model share for alternative forms of transport. As long as it is just as easy as it has alwys been to drive in these areas, the level of traffic in these areas will not reduce, and therefore they will by high traffic neighbourhoods as peviously and not suitable for active transport as intended.
They're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Consider an ANPR activated bollard that allows blue badge holders through as an example.
Blue Badges attach to the person, not any number plate (the badge holder might not even have a car), so ANPR would serve no purpose.
Hardly an insurmountable problem is it.
Just register a particular number plate or two to your blue badge.
But there is no "number plate" associated with a Blue Badge. The badge is used by the individual, it has no relationship to any vehicle. They can travel in any car they want, even a taxi, and make use of the badge. It's the person who is disabled, not the car.
At a push I suppose you could suggest there was some Web portal where a badge holder could link their badge to a given number plate for a duration, together with a camera system to verify the presence of the badge on the dashboard. Or maybe even a machine distance-readable badge?
Yeah a simple portal where you can associate your vehicle(s) with your blue badge.
Obviously open to some abuse but so is the blue badge system as a whole.
Wouldn't be difficult to set up and could probably be easily added to the residents parking system so would barely be any extra admin.
Sounds like a tax would work better in all honesty, though at the same time I have idiots racing around me every night, and a LTN here might stop that.
Bullshit. Go and read the judgment. This case was not about whether LTNs are legal. It was about whether the decision-making process was so egregious that there was a prospect of successfully overturning it via JR. It is all-but impossible to overturn a council decision on JR, absent clear evidence of (e.g.) deliberate and major discrimination.
That the (or any) decision was not so blatantly and massively wrong that it was instantly overturned on JR does not mean it was right, merely that the council's decision-making process successfully covered their arse.
The judgement was absolutely clear on this. There is every prospect of a better constructed case winning the argument about discrimination.
"The judge rejected a claim that the experimental traffic orders [ETOs] creating the LTNs were not lawful."
The case was exactly about whether it was legal for Lambeth Council to introduce LTNs and the judge ruled that it was. I think it's you who needs to do a bit of reading without your Tory-cycle-hating glasses on.
Surely this isn't the same Rendel Harris who was lecturing me about bringing politics into discussions the other day?
The judgement found that a temporary LTN satisfies the criteria needed for a council to use an ETO.
It, as far as I can see, gives no guidance on whether a permanent LTN would be lawful or not.
No, it's the one who asked you to stop bringing irrelevant political points into discussions on cycling. As the discussion here is about decision-making by local councils, which is inherently a political matter, it's rather different.
I've found rich_cb to be generally a responder not an initiator.
I find his comments about the site's stance 'fair comment' even if initiated. I guess I am more likely to disagree with him than agree, but he is polite and makes his points well. I'd rather save my powder for the wums and trolls !
So it was relevant to say "Tory-cycle-hating" in a discussion about a court ruling?
Nice try Rendel.
That was a completely unnecessary comment especially given the fact that the recent proliferation of LTNs using ETOs has been encouraged by the Conservative government.
Yes, because in all his other comments Dave Dave has shown himself to be a dyed-in-the-wool Tory who despises what he regards as "Liberal snowflake" measures to promote cycling, as his entirely erroneous and false interpretation of this judgement shows. LTNs may have been encouraged by the government but this case was against Lambeth Council, a well-known bête noire for davey and his ilk.
As long as it's based on your own insinuations and assumptions then it's just fine.
My apologies.
In a comment over the page Dave Dave has just described Extinction Rebellion as loony Jew haters who advocate genocide. Not too many assumptions needed, I feel.
I'm late on this (been living an actual life for a few days) but Nigel, that article details utterances of one of the founders of quite a large movement, so doesn't really back up Dave2 in his assertion that all of them are anti-Semitic genocide enthusiasts.
There needs to be a non contentious way of saying that the Holocaust is the pinnacle of an awful lot of inhumanity, which we as a species are still quite capable of. If we do not recognise that genocide has happened before and since, we are doomed to see it again.
And there is merit in the suggestion that we in the rich economies have used up the planet's ability to absorb the pollutants caused by our consumption, and have therefore buggered it up both for ourselves and those who didn't share in the fun of all that consumption, many of whom will suffer far worse. I would not call this genocide, because no one takes a transatlantic flight purely to make people suffer in the Maldives, but the effects are disproportionate.
I would be interested to see a source for Dave2's assertion.
So that makes Dave Dave a 'cycle hating Tory'?
I'm failing to grasp your train of thought there.
Pages