LTNs are and have been put in place to deal with Covid and that alone. That is the legislation that the council is using to implement LTNS. Yes, Covid is very real and very horrible. I've got a close family member who is extremely ill as a result. If you are referring to the issue of pollution then that is not the purpose of LTNs and it is definitely not related to the legislation that they are using. We seriously need to deal with pollution (86% of all CO2 emissions relating to transport come from Cars and Shipping). However, it is vital to ensure that the measures taken have the end result of decreasing pollution. To do this you need to have full consultation, impact assessments and rely on independent academic studies.
You're going to have to help me out here. Can you explain why you think they are illegal and give evidence/factual basis for this assertion?
Well, no they haven't. That's nonsense. Look at the start date of this thread.
madeby.tfl.gov.uk
It's not. The delegated decision which Lambeth has used to implement LTNs was passed as a result of covid. That's the legislation they have used to implement them and the legislation they have quoted as being the basis for their implementation. LTNs were being talked about before Covid, I happy to concede that but the council are relying on or covid based legislation to give them the legislative power to implement then and have consistently pointed to covid as being the reason for their implementation
I should clarify, the legislation being used to implement these was introduced as a result of covid. The council has relied solely on this legislation to implement the LTNs. I'll mainly be focussing my replies on the legal rather than the ideological basis for LTNs and their implementationLow Traffic Neighbourhoods: what, why and where?
Discover everything you need to know about London's Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.
View attachment 271050
That’s really not a good start.
That's not the same thing as "LTNs are and have been put in place to deal with Covid and that alone." The reason for the timing of the implementation is one thing, the intended outcome of the policy is another.
We can have endless tedious arguments about the technicalities of the implementation of legislation. But my initial question was to see if our new poster accepted any of the problems which LTNs and other measures, in a general sense, are aimed at reducing, as real ones.
Right - so is this court case strictly limited to attacking this specific point - lack of consultation - or is it being pursued by people who wouldn't want any form of LTN or similar measures even if all the consultation was done in the way they wanted? I wonder if we'll get a straight answer to that.
Understood. That's why consultation and impact equality assessments are vital.
I accept that there are problems there. Pollution and the environment is the fundamental issue of our time.
That's the case i'm talking about
Yes, lack of consultation and the correct procedures and impact assessments. The people in our group didn't know each other before this. A change was made that when changes of this magnitude are made you must consult and undertake the correct assessments. These aren't a bunch of pr-car people. |Many of them, like me, don't have a car. We're going to court to ask the council to follow legislation which was put in place to protect the rights of those who aren't as able to protect themselves. Whatever the court decides, I'll accept it. This isn't anti-LTN for the sake of it.
Two questions:
The legislation the council is using or have used are Experimental Traffic Orders & Temporary Traffic Orders, nothing to do with COVID.
We have told people that, by going to court, we are asking for the correct procedures to be followed when implementing these changes. We have been very open with everyone that the judge will make a decision and that we can’t control or predict what that decision could be as regards removal on the LTNs.
I mean the legislation which gave the funding to the councils and therefore the pecuniary ability to implement them. The ETO and TTOs are not covid specific you’re right but they piggyback off other legislation
To follow this up, it is worth noting that a deputation was sent to the council some time back with a number of different suggestions as regards exemptions which would help disabled people (amongst other protected groups). The council said that exemptions were not possible, neither were impact assessments or consultation prior to implementation. This is why people are donating. My view is that you should never really have to take a political body to court to ask them just to abide by legislation, if you are in that position then it’s very much a last resort as a result of being ignored.
I still don’t get this. If you can’t describe what you would change how would you respond to a consultation? What “choices” are you hoping for, because presumably the councils “experts” have used the resources they have to come up with the schemes in place.
It’s the fact that full consultation and assessments hasn’t been undertaken. An example would be lack of dropped curbs where there is a cycle lane on the inside. A lane like that means that someone in a wheelchair has to cross a busy cycle Lane to get to the road and hail a taxi. Full consultation would highlight issues such as these. Without that process you end up in a position where these vulnerable people are no longer protected. This is just one small example but the fact that it exists shows the lack of work undertaken to evaluate the impact of the changes.
