It’s worth challenging Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) if you object to them. They generally cause more traffic congestion and enormous inconvenience to residents. Lambeth Council recently lost a legal challenge to an LTN in West Dulwich, primarily because the council ignored well argued responses to a public consultation.
There are rules about public consultations but some councils think they can ignore them and push through their desired changes regardless of public opinion or the likely impact. Lambeth is one of the worst councils for ignoring the residents because they think they know best. But they will now have to reconsider their proposals.
You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.
The new Transport Secretary, Louise Haigh, has said the Labour Government will invest “unprecedented levels of funding” in cycling and walking as a way to improve health and inequality. She apparently thinks this could cut GP appointments “by hundreds of thousands, if not millions a year”. This is delusional.
The general population is fitter than it has been for a long time with increases in cycling and other forms of exercise. But the number of GP appointments and demand for medical services is rising. Why? Because the population is ageing, a minority of people are too fat because of addiction to junk food and people also have higher expectations of the NHS.
She also said: ““We’re in a climate crisis. We’re in a public health crisis; getting people walking and cycling and moving more are essential to solving both of those in the immediate term and in the long term”.
She is also quoted in the Independent as saying “Ms Haigh dubbed the last government’s approach to 20mph speed limits, cycle lanes and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods “ridiculous” after it launched criticism of so-called “anti-motorist” policies. She apparently does not want central Government interfering in what should be local decisions. But we’ll surely end up with lunatic schemes as we have seen in Wales, in several London boroughs and in the policies of TfL and Sadiq Khan. For example, this comes despite a recent YouGov survey indicating that 70 per cent of people in Wales – which last year imposed a 20mph speed limit in built up areas – opposed the policy. Meanwhile, 40 per cent admitted to regularly breaking it.
I suggest Ms Haigh needs to reconsider but this is the kind of dogma we see from socialist politicians who think they know better than the public and like to impose their views on others. Labour is rapidly losing popularity since the General Election and this is the kind of reason why. Practical considerations and scientific evidence are ignored – for example 20 mph limits have not improved road safety figures.
Throwing money at new cycle lanes will not solve the underlying health problems of a minority of the population and claims about tackling a “climate crisis” are simply ludicrous. But is seems the war on the motorist is going to be escalated.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Your responses will be anonymous. A summary of responses will be published on the Parliament website. It will also be shared with MPs and may be referred to in the debate or within other parliamentary documents. Please don’t share anything that may identify you.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The change in policy is supported by a report on LTNs and these comments: “While the review showed only a quarter of people understood the benefits of LTNs, it also flagged concerns over the impact on disabled residents, high numbers of penalty charge notices, the cost of LTN schemes and even concerns from emergency services that delays to crews caught up in LTNs could “potentially risk lives”. The new guidance aims to prevent councils having to reverse poorly-implemented or locally unpopular schemes – as with recently removed LTNs at Jesmond, Newcastle and Streatham Wells, London”. For the report see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/low-traffic-neighbourhood-review .
A consultation will also be launched this summer on measures including the removal of local authorities’ access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data to enforce such schemes by camera. This would put a stop to councils generating income from camera enforced schemes and is surely to be welcomed.
The DfT have also published new guidance on setting local speed limits – see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits/setting-local-speed-limits . This looks quite reasonable but will TfL or local councils actually pay attention to it? That seems unlikely as they have recently introduced 20 limits on quite inappropriate roads in the name of road safety without any evidence to support their views.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Ian Armstrong has posted the following article on a public Facebook Group:
Six petitions you should support to put pressure on Parliament to prevent motorists being used as a cash cow by the Local Councils/London Mayor/London Assembly/TFL – click, sign and share with family/friends/neighbours/etc
1. Prevent local authorities implementing road charging schemes by repealing part 3 of the Transport Act 2000 – local authority should not be permitted to generate revenue from motorists to fund other policies
4. Independent review of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) – these are the stepping stones to 15-minute cities and must be challenged as they are being imposed against the will of the majority using cherry picked and flawed assessment or modelling data as a justification
6. Require public referendums on 15-minute town and city policies – this is what we might end up being imposed upon us if we don’t register our dissatisfaction to all of these petitions
These are all U.K. parliament petitions – they take a minute or two each to sign – you can click on the map link on the petition page to see your constituency
Please sign all 6 to try and get them all to 100k ASAP.
Note that the Sunday Times published a good article recently on Why Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a Policy Disaster by Andrew Ellson. To quote from it: “How have we got into this mess? The answer is complex but it boils down to cycling enthusiasts such as Boris Johnson and Andrew Gilligan being in charge of policy at national level and well-funded cycling lobbyists capturing policy at local level”.
These policies were promoted by people who knew little about traffic engineering and the history of misguided road safety initiatives with the unintended consequences that we now suffer from.
Hopefully with Boris Johnson retiring in disgrace we may see less of him and his enthusiasms. Let us hope he does not put himself forward as a candidate for Mayor of London next year which would split the Conservative vote!
He may have been a great promoter of Brexit, which I wholeheartedly supported, but in other regards he was a divisive personality and clearly untrustworthy.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), so called “clean air zones” and new, underused cycle lanes are all deeply unpopular. So much so that a new petition has recently appeared on the UK Parliament website (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/633504 ) demanding a revision to the statutory guidance that brought them in. Instead of there being a presumption they remain, local authorities (which would include the Mayor of London) should be required to remove them, unless, within three months, they can show there is more than 50% public support, using broad, unbiased, independent, local opinion research.
The petition expresses deep frustration that many recently introduced traffic schemes, often justified by bogus green claims, have, by reducing road space, caused gridlock, increased pollution on busy roads, generated £ millions in fines and charges and been implemented with little or no local approval.
Exacerbated by failure properly to consult residents, they have also caused bitterness and division in local communities; increased response times of emergency vehicles and disadvantaged the most vulnerable in society, who can’t walk or cycle. Where consultation has taken place, there have been instances when the methodology has been biased, which is why the petition calls for unbiased, independent research to validate the retention of new traffic schemes.
David Tarsh, the petition promoter (pictured above) said: “These traffic schemes are the worst kind of greenwash, reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984; there’s a “safer cycle pathway” that is more dangerous, low traffic neighbourhoods that increase congestion, and extension of a clean air zone that will make a negligible improvement in air quality. The hidden agenda is an extortion racket based on demonising motorists and exploiting them for cash, under the cover of claiming to save the planet. The consequences are social division, economic damage, removal of liberty and discrimination against the least fortunate. They are counterproductive and the way they have been introduced is deeply corrupt.”
Sections 16-18 of the Traffic Management Act, place a duty on local authorities to secure the expeditious movement of traffic on their road networks. However, in May 2020, during the pandemic, the then Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, launched a £250m active travel fund to promote walking and cycling. It was justified on the basis that with a 2m social distancing rule, public transport could only accommodate 10% of its usual capacity on many parts of the network; so, people would need to be encouraged to walk and cycle. New statutory guidance, conflicting with sections 16-18 of the Act, told local authorities to reallocate road space to walking and cycling, with a view to making the new schemes permanent. Furthermore, the assumption should be that they will be retained unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
Just five months later, the Daily Mail ran a headline saying. “Transport Secretary Grant Shapps admits too many new cycle lanes are ‘unused’ leaving streets ‘backed up’ with traffic as he warns councils over increase in road closures… even though the routes were built using £250m fund HE unveiled”. Subsequently, some cycle lanes were dismantled. However, others remained, as did the statutory guidance.
Last October, The Times reported that councils, which implemented low-traffic neighbourhoods during the pandemic, had seen bigger increases in car use than boroughs that did not. While this is compelling evidence that LTNs have contributed to congestion, they have not been dismantled.
Earlier this month, the Telegraph revealed that the new cycleway through Hammersmith, which the local council claims to be “safer”, is actually more dangerous, with the rate of cycle accidents increasing more than three-fold since it was built!
Many LTNs and other pandemic traffic schemes were introduced as “temporary” under Experimental Traffic Orders but despite those orders expiring and social distancing measures no longer being in force, the schemes they approved have not been removed.
All over the UK, there is widespread anger at LTNs and other traffic schemes, with many attracting thousands of signatures objecting to them. Anti LTN petitions online include Ealing, over 12,000; Enfield, over 7,000; Haringey, over 7,000; Islington, over 11,000; Lewisham, over 13,000; Oxford, over 15,000; Birmingham, over 5,000; South Fulham, over 9,000; Tooting, over 12,000.
The most unpopular LTN in the UK is London’s ultra low emission zone (ULEZ), which the mayor, Sadiq Khan, wants to extend from the North Circular Road to the M25. His plan has attracted over 240,000 objections on Change.org and a judicial review backed by five London councils. The mayor’s own impact assessment says that there would be no health benefits from the expansion and almost no air quality benefits, yet he is keen to press ahead anyway, in the face of substantial public opposition. Around two thirds of respondents to Transport for London’s (TFL’s) own consultation were against the expansion and the degree of opposition was much higher amongst those in outer London.
The full text of the petition is below:
Require councils remove LTNs and underused bike lanes that lack public support
Require local authorities (LAs) remove low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) and underused bike lanes that lack public support. Change guidance from assuming they remain to requiring removal, unless, in 3 months, the LA can show > 50% approval, using broad, unbiased, independent, local opinion research.
There’s widespread anger at LTNs and other congesting traffic schemes but LAs are not removing them due to statutory guidance and the money they make.
Many were built with no proper consultation as a pandemic measure; but it is over.
We believe these schemes, often justified by doubtful green claims, undermine the law obliging LAs to expedite traffic flow; and create social division, ghettos, gridlock and local economic damage.
The attack on liberty and persecution of motorists is unfair and must stop. If the petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the government will respond to it. If it reaches 100,000 it is considered for a debate in Parliament.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
An article in The Times today (24/10/2022) showed LTNs don’t work under the headline “London LTNs: Councils that closed rat runs now have even more cars on the road”. It said “Councils that implemented low-traffic neighbourhoods during the pandemic have seen bigger increases in car use than boroughs that did not, according to government driving statistics”.
The explanation is probably that when roads are closed off the displaced traffic simply takes longer routes and hence does more miles.
But the Council is fighting back with plans to divide the city into six districts from next August with strict rules on how often motorists can drive outside their neighbourhood. Everybody who owns a car would need a permit and if they drive into an adjacent district more than a few times per year they would get fined.
This must be one of the most extreme anti-car measures implemented anywhere. A YouGov poll suggests that most people support these measures. But like all such polls the questions posed are misleading. Most people, including car drivers, would like less traffic but they are opposed to closing roads, particularly the ones they use.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
It’s in the name of creating “Clean Air Neighbourhoods”, but it includes such nonsense as “It will repurpose street space to be used by the community for play streets, community theatre and resident-led events such as street parties”. Roads are for transporting people and goods, not for playing in.
The report claims that “Long term exposure to man-made air pollution in the UK has an estimated annual effect equivalent to 28,000-36,000 deaths”. This is simply a lie. In addition decisions are being delegated on this to council officers so there will be no democratic input on the details or prior consultation before they are imposed. The crucial words “traffic access restrictions” are buried in a list of measures under the totally misleading title of “Clean Air Neighbourhoods Programme”. It is gridlock by stealth and every ward is affected.
Lambeth Council will make an investment of over £16 million to encourage residents to give up their cars and make sustainable travel choices. This is part of an “Air Quality Action Plan” (see https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/draft-aqap-consultation/ ).
It includes a comment that “Each year in Lambeth air pollution kills more than 100 Lambeth residents and causes hundreds of hospital admissions”. How do they know? There is no link between deaths from respiratory diseases or hospital admissions and background air pollution from man-made sources or any others.
The plans include protected cycle lanes, more bike storage facilities, new walking routes, more electric vehicle charge points and implementation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs).
Make sure you respond to the above consultation and oppose LTNs.
Islington has already implemented similar policies to the anger of many locals. It is reported that someone who lives there and had a simple journey to take her elderly mother to regular medical treatment now takes an hour, when it used to take 10 minutes! After school activities are rendered impossible. Cab drivers won’t go there and established local businesses have been forced to close.
It’s worth pointing out that all these LTN schemes typically enable the local councils to generate cash from fines on infringements. They are mainly about profit generation and hence the incredible claims made about the impacts of air pollution.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
A Judicial Review is a legal process that enables you to challenge decisions by central or local Government bodies or where the law may have been applied incorrectly by tribunals or other courts. It has been widely used of late by environmental lobbyists to challenge planning decisions but it can also be helpful on motoring issues. For example applications for judicial reviews have been made over Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes claiming they are in breach of the Equality Act, breach other legislation or failed to apply the Regulations correctly. There can also be challenges over the failure to consult fairly when consultation is legally required on proposals before implementation. See this blog post written last year for some examples and possible legal grounds over LTNs: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/01/27/legal-actions-against-ltns-escalating/
But they are not always easy cases to pursue because they are not judged on moral principles but simply on the legal technicalities. Cases can be thrown out before they are even heard by judges if they are not handled correctly and do not meet certain criteria. For example cases need to be raised as soon as possible after the issue comes to the attention of litigants or at least within 3 months.
A recent publication by the Courts and Judicial Tribunal entitled “Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide” is exceedingly helpful in explaining what is required and the process that must be followed – see link below. It even explains how “litigants in person” are supported if you do not wish to pay for professional legal representation yourself. And it covers the issue of costs which must be taken into account which litigants may need to pay (and the defendants costs if you lose the case).
Costs can vary wildly. For example this writer has been involved in two judicial reviews. The first was a challenge to the suspension of a hearing in a magistrate’s court on an alleged motoring offence when a key prosecution witness failed to turn up. This cost me less than £2,000 in court fees and my own solicitor’s fees. The case was referred back to the magistrate’s court when the witness again failed to appear so the case was abandoned.
The other was the challenge to the Government’s nationalisation of Northern Rock where legal costs of both sides were several million pounds. The court refused to overturn the decision in parliament by Labour MPs to force nil compensation to shareholders.
One can apply for a “cost cap” to stop the defendants running up enormous bills which Government bodies and Councils can otherwise easily do. And note that if a claim is over an environmental issue then the Arhaus Convention can be invoked to limit costs further. See the Guide in Section 25 for more details.
Although it is possible to pursue a judicial review without legal representation I would recommend that people contemplating a judicial review do take some advice from solicitors familiar with the process. It is particularly worth noting this statement in the Guide: “In judicial review proceedings, the Court’s function is to determine whether the decision or conduct challenged was a lawful exercise of a public function, not to assess the merits of the decision or conduct under challenge. It is therefore seldom necessary or appropriate to consider any evidence going beyond what was before the decision-maker and evidence about the process by which the decision was taken – let alone any expert evidence”.
In summary judicial reviews can be a useful tool for those challenging decisions of a public body but you need to adhere to the rules laid down by the courts including the timescales. The Guide is very helpful in that regard.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
