Court of Appeal throws out bid to have traffic scheme halted

A bid to have Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN) scheme halted has been thrown out by the Court of Appeal.

The judgment, made on Tuesday, re-confirmed the High Court’s verdict that the council had taken due regard of the impacts of the experimental low traffic schemes when it made the decision to implement them and that proper considerations were taken into account.

The decision related to traffic orders for three LTNs in Lambeth – at Oval Triangle, Streatham Hill and Railton and St Matthew’s.

Mounting the legal challenge was disabled resident Sofia Sheakh, who argued that her reliance on a car to get around was being compromised by the scheme, which was introduced in October 2020.

The effect of the orders, broadly, was to restrict the movement of vehicles in those parts of the borough and to promote walking and cycling.

In response to the verdict, a Lambeth council spokesman said: “The Low Traffic Neighbourhoods that the council has implemented are just one part of our holistic approach to making Lambeth’s roads and neighbourhoods healthier, safer and more equal.

“The majority of Lambeth residents do not have access to a car and that is particularly the case for many communities which are disproportionately impacted by collisions or toxic air pollution.

“Therefore, to make Lambeth a more equal place, we need to enable more journeys to be made by active and sustainable methods and fewer by motor vehicles so those effects lessen.

“Throughout the trial scheme, we have engaged with residents and businesses thoroughly and have changed and improved them off the back of this feedback.

“We have also introduced dispensations for Blue Badge holders to make it easier for Lambeth residents who are reliant on their cars to get around.”

In June last year claims relating to the borough’s LTNs were rejected by the High Court.

The Court of Appeal examined if the council had discharged the “public sector

equality duty” in introducing the scheme.

The Court of Appeal agrees with the earlier High Court judgment that the council had indeed done its duty.