Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
To be fair, like the OneLambeth demo, it did conflict with an anti-mask anti-vaccine march again
Last edited:
DJWrongspeed
radio eros
Safer Streets for Tulse Hill came round asking for opinions yesterday. These were going to be forwarded onto our Councillors. I tried to give a balanced opinion of our LTN but it's pretty hard because of the pandemic and with the imminent ULEZ coming in there's many factors at play. Certainly our streets are quieter and more pleasant. I no longer have cars idling outside my window but I understand that people on main roads living in blocks may have a come off worse. Disabled badge holders should be exempt.
There still seems this view that to get from A->B you have to drive or take an Uber. I'm not sure the LTNs really alter people's minds on this.
? Our LTN appears to have been cancelled today with black tar over the signs?
There still seems this view that to get from A->B you have to drive or take an Uber. I'm not sure the LTNs really alter people's minds on this.
? Our LTN appears to have been cancelled today with black tar over the signs?
Last edited:
Ol Nick
beer in Brixton
Yesterday was the day of the micro-demo in central London. No sooner had the anti-vaxxers gone past than Extinction Rebellion turned up. Then the LTN guys then who knows what. You had to be very careful not to cheer or boo the wrong thing. Nice day for it though.To be fair, like the OneLambeth demo, it did conflict with an anti-mask anti-vaccine march again
this is a fair point - 2.5 million cars in London are subject to pay ulez from September. This is going to remove even more cars, force people to buy newer cars or just not use them.
I’m starting to think the Telegraph aren’t huge fans of LTNs.
www.telegraph.co.uk
Low traffic neighbourhoods ‘will prevent priests from giving last rites’
Delays caused by green roads schemes will end in tears for the dying and their families, warns north London church leader
www.telegraph.co.uk
I’m starting to think the Telegraph aren’t huge fans of LTNs.
Low traffic neighbourhoods ‘will prevent priests from giving last rites’
Delays caused by green roads schemes will end in tears for the dying and their families, warns north London church leader
If god didn’t want LTNs, why did he let them happen ?
pretty conclusive proof God isn’t a catholic then.
snowy_again
Slush
Christ on a bike etc
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Very good
Or a driver
liquidindian
Hello
That's the devil. But only when needs must. Not even he pops to the shops in an SUV.
More “direct action” over the weekend with black tar like paint including on the benches on Upper Tulse Hill. These are used regularly, mainly by people that might struggle to walk far.
I guess these sort of actions would just put off undecided or neutral people and seem very self defeating.
I guess these sort of actions would just put off undecided or neutral people and seem very self defeating.
sparkybird
ask the bird...
Jeez, I'm sorry but putting that on the benches that's just fucking shit. Have you reported it? lowtrafficneighbourhoods@lambeth.gov.uk
Yes, I’ve reported to there and included the local police email.
DJWrongspeed
radio eros
Saw the vandalism last night and honestly couldn't work out whether it was because the scheme being withdrawn or vandalism. 
Pathetic.
Pathetic.
Last edited:
the ironic thing is that ultimately this is likely to cause Lambeth to replace these with concrete bollards, which are much harder to vandalise, easier to maintain and much more permanent.
But I guess thinking and logic is hard for these people.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
It’s almost as if a lot of the people opposing them are absolute cunts, isn’t it?
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Actual direct action involves directly stopping something you don't think should happen or doing something you think should happen.
Taking out the ANPR cameras is direct action against an LTN, since it effectively removes the blocks.
This is not that. Even if you think the LTNs are such a huge moral injustice that direct action to remove them is justified, this doesn't do that. It just stops people using the bench without achieving anything else. Covering the sign so it only says "open" does not open the roads to motorised vehicles.
Taking out the ANPR cameras is direct action against an LTN, since it effectively removes the blocks.
This is not that. Even if you think the LTNs are such a huge moral injustice that direct action to remove them is justified, this doesn't do that. It just stops people using the bench without achieving anything else. Covering the sign so it only says "open" does not open the roads to motorised vehicles.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
youre making assumptions again - this could be fixed or squirrels or a false flag attack…,
Much like cutting down flowers or ripping out plants this just says we hate the community and don’t want to be part of it - Im not interested in these nice things so I don’t want anyone else to enjoy them either.
Love Lambeth
A High Court judge has rejected a legal challenge to Lambeth’s “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” (LTNs), in a judgement published today (28 June). Below is the council’s response to the ruling.
love.lambeth.gov.uk
Love Lambeth
A High Court judge has rejected a legal challenge to Lambeth’s “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” (LTNs), in a judgement published today (28 June). Below is the council’s response to the ruling.
Obviously this is good news but genuinely concerned what the reaction will be from people that have put a lot of money into this. Average donation is £50 and a lot have put much more then that in.
Also, think OneLambeth are liable for some of the council's costs but not sure if the fundraising covered this.
Also, think OneLambeth are liable for some of the council's costs but not sure if the fundraising covered this.
liquidindian
Hello
Capped at £5,000, according to their Gofundme.
Any good conspiracy theories about how the judge's spouse's cousin's brother-in-law was once spotted near a bike yet?
This is apparently the judges notes:
That the experimental traffic orders are not part of genuine experiments
I do not think there is any merit in these arguments. I am not prepared to draw the inference that the experimental nature of the LTNs and the ETOs made to maintain them, is other than genuine.
Breach of the public sector equality duty
I turn to my reasoning and conclusions on this ground of challenge. I have already accepted that the ETOs were made by way of a genuine experiment. I therefore accept that the function being exercised when the decision of 9 October 2020 was taken was the function of initiating the experiment. It was not a decision to introduce the LTNs on a permanent basis.
Next, I accept Mr Mould’s submission that the duty is not a duty to carry out an assessment. It is a duty to have due regard to what can be called the equality objectives. Assessment is the tool used to create the evidence base to show performance of the duty. It is not the performance of the duty itself. There is no necessary breach of the duty where no formal assessment has been done.
In my judgment, the evidence is clear: 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 and ETOs.
Lambeth responded by adopting the TSP less than a week after the statutory guidance was published. Equality issues were not overlooked; the report to which the TSP was attached noted that the TSIP had been “subject to a full E[Q]IA”; and stated that “[a]ll Traffic Orders required as part of the Response will be subject to E[Q]IA”.
In my judgment, Mr Mould is right to submit that the director incontestably had some regard to the equality objectives and the question is whether the regard he had was sufficient to qualify as due regard. He was not aware of the detailed findings made up to that point but I do not think that unawareness is sufficient to condemn his regard for equality objectives as less than what was due.
In my judgment, there was enough consideration of equality objectives in the October report to qualify as due regard to those objectives. That included, legitimately, consideration of the point that the same equality objectives would be looked at further, in much more detail and with a sharpened focus, at later stages in the statutory process.
For those brief reasons, I prefer Lambeth’s submissions to those of the claimant. She has demonstrated that her particular problem of dependence on car transport with increased journey times and stress, was not identified until after the operative decision in October 2020; but she has not demonstrated that Lambeth thereby, or at all, breached the public sector equality duty.
I therefore dismiss that ground of challenge. If I had found a breach of the duty, I would have considered making a declaration to that effect but I would not, in all the circumstances, have been willing to condemn outright and quash the relevant ETOs. They are not yet set in stone and consideration of them is, or should be, ongoing and subject to further assessment, over and above the EQIAs that have been carried out since the decision in October 2020.
Section 122 of RTRA
On this ground, I found Lambeth’s submissions compelling and unanswerable. While it is possible that an LTN could be introduced without the section 122 factors being properly weighed against each other – for example, if only the pro-neighbourhood amenity factors were considered and the pro-vehicle traffic factors ignored and left out of account – that certainly did not happen here.
There is ample evidence of the balancing exercise being performed, in the passages in the extracts to which I was taken by Mr Mould from the TSIP, the TSP and the October report, the latter two documents responding positively to the strong steer from the Secretary of State to draw the balance in a particular way owing the unusual circumstances of the coronavirus epidemic.
I agree with Mr Mould that it is difficult to have a discussion of the advantages of LTNs at all unless in the course of the discussion you measure their virtues against the interests of motor vehicle users. Thus, for example, the very act of prohibiting rat running is intended to inconvenience the rat runners by keeping them out of the LTN, thereby probably lengthening their journey.
I conclude 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. I dismiss this ground of challenge.
Failure to consult properly/inadequate consultation
I agree with Lambeth that this ground of challenge is without merit. The claimant cannot fashion from a supposed legitimate expectation an obligation to consult going above and beyond the limited obligations imposed under the 1996 Regulations. The two communications from the Secretary of State do not begin to support such an expectation.
Nor do I accept that the claimant can complain of an irrational choice of organisations with which to consult. 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.
That the experimental traffic orders are not part of genuine experiments
I do not think there is any merit in these arguments. I am not prepared to draw the inference that the experimental nature of the LTNs and the ETOs made to maintain them, is other than genuine.
Breach of the public sector equality duty
I turn to my reasoning and conclusions on this ground of challenge. I have already accepted that the ETOs were made by way of a genuine experiment. I therefore accept that the function being exercised when the decision of 9 October 2020 was taken was the function of initiating the experiment. It was not a decision to introduce the LTNs on a permanent basis.
Next, I accept Mr Mould’s submission that the duty is not a duty to carry out an assessment. It is a duty to have due regard to what can be called the equality objectives. Assessment is the tool used to create the evidence base to show performance of the duty. It is not the performance of the duty itself. There is no necessary breach of the duty where no formal assessment has been done.
In my judgment, the evidence is clear: 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 and ETOs.
Lambeth responded by adopting the TSP less than a week after the statutory guidance was published. Equality issues were not overlooked; the report to which the TSP was attached noted that the TSIP had been “subject to a full E[Q]IA”; and stated that “[a]ll Traffic Orders required as part of the Response will be subject to E[Q]IA”.
In my judgment, Mr Mould is right to submit that the director incontestably had some regard to the equality objectives and the question is whether the regard he had was sufficient to qualify as due regard. He was not aware of the detailed findings made up to that point but I do not think that unawareness is sufficient to condemn his regard for equality objectives as less than what was due.
In my judgment, there was enough consideration of equality objectives in the October report to qualify as due regard to those objectives. That included, legitimately, consideration of the point that the same equality objectives would be looked at further, in much more detail and with a sharpened focus, at later stages in the statutory process.
For those brief reasons, I prefer Lambeth’s submissions to those of the claimant. She has demonstrated that her particular problem of dependence on car transport with increased journey times and stress, was not identified until after the operative decision in October 2020; but she has not demonstrated that Lambeth thereby, or at all, breached the public sector equality duty.
I therefore dismiss that ground of challenge. If I had found a breach of the duty, I would have considered making a declaration to that effect but I would not, in all the circumstances, have been willing to condemn outright and quash the relevant ETOs. They are not yet set in stone and consideration of them is, or should be, ongoing and subject to further assessment, over and above the EQIAs that have been carried out since the decision in October 2020.
Section 122 of RTRA
On this ground, I found Lambeth’s submissions compelling and unanswerable. While it is possible that an LTN could be introduced without the section 122 factors being properly weighed against each other – for example, if only the pro-neighbourhood amenity factors were considered and the pro-vehicle traffic factors ignored and left out of account – that certainly did not happen here.
There is ample evidence of the balancing exercise being performed, in the passages in the extracts to which I was taken by Mr Mould from the TSIP, the TSP and the October report, the latter two documents responding positively to the strong steer from the Secretary of State to draw the balance in a particular way owing the unusual circumstances of the coronavirus epidemic.
I agree with Mr Mould that it is difficult to have a discussion of the advantages of LTNs at all unless in the course of the discussion you measure their virtues against the interests of motor vehicle users. Thus, for example, the very act of prohibiting rat running is intended to inconvenience the rat runners by keeping them out of the LTN, thereby probably lengthening their journey.
I conclude 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. I dismiss this ground of challenge.
Failure to consult properly/inadequate consultation
I agree with Lambeth that this ground of challenge is without merit. The claimant cannot fashion from a supposed legitimate expectation an obligation to consult going above and beyond the limited obligations imposed under the 1996 Regulations. The two communications from the Secretary of State do not begin to support such an expectation.
Nor do I accept that the claimant can complain of an irrational choice of organisations with which to consult. 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.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Similar threads
