Rivercourt LTN council information

In the six months since the temporary Rivercourt Road LTN was put in place, we’ve received messages nearly every week – vanishingly few positive – and it’s still regularly our most read article on the website.  Messages fall into the following categories, with more than one correspondent questioning legality:

• Implementation problems:
  • I’ve received a fine, I don’t know why.
  • The signage / wording is poor – I had no idea I wasn’t supposed to go down there.
  • I paid for a visitor by RingGo who still got fined.
  • I witnessed someone reversing into the A4 – the ‘turning circle’ is dangerous – or – I witnessed an accident caused by someone slowing down/stopping to read the signs and being hit from behind, creating a multi-vehicle shunt – example images below.
• The LTN is damaging my business, I’m leaving the borough.

Rivercourt crash front

Rivercourt crash rear-end

The “local access only” wording and cacophony of messy signage is considered deceptive by many correspondents – this and many of the other are points were raised in our original article.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that when challenged on a PCN fine, the council may back down, rather than attend a tribunal, however there’s rather more to this story, when considered in the light of the recent High Court case.

The West Dulwich case

Last month, the legality of the way in which an LTN was implemented by Lambeth Council in West Dulwich was tested in the High Court, and found to be unlawful.  It wasn’t the legalities of the LTN itself, but the poor way in which consultation was carried out, and the way in which the council failed to take due consideration of well researched and detailed evidence provided by local people in a 53-page submission.

The judgment demonstrates that councils cannot treat public engagement as a mere procedural formality, particularly when introducing potentially divisive schemes such as LTNs, even when using Experimental Traffic Orders (ETOs), they must genuinely consider such submissions. Furthermore, the ruling challenges any possible “council knows best” culture – the description of a council officer’s report being “masterclass in selective partial reporting”.

Our AI summary of the court’s 34-page judgement is provided below; there has also been significant coverage in the press. While LBHF still refuses to refer to these restrictions as “LTN’s”, the judge had no such qualms.

Not only are we interested in the specifics of this case, and it’s relevance to the Rivercourt Road LTN, but also in the more general points raised about failure of public bodies to consult fairly in general, taking heed of what residents say, especially when detailed and highly relevant. As the judge says, the test is whether something has gone “clearly and radically wrong”. The fact that the LTN was created by an ETO, appears to be no defence.

Rivercourt Road received a very limited consultation involving only a handful of the road’s residents, missing the large number affected (4000 a day according to the council), with a consultation seemingly much less detailed than the various ones ruled inadequate in West Dulwich, leaving Rivercourt also open to challenge.

It will come as no surprise that we’ve become concerned about the increasing number of high-handed actions of public bodies, including Mayoral overreach, overriding local people – and in some cases councils – often in planning decisions – but more recently in policies covering whole areas. The most obvious example of this is Oxford Street, which seems to have has been taken out of Westminster’s hands.

The 2011 Localism Act was supposed to address such issues, yet the Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently being debated in Parliament proposes to further limit the public’s say on the specious premise that ‘planning is the problem’.  According to the ONS to Dec 2024, in LBHF, 92% of planning applications are approved and 98% of those sail through under the ‘delegated authority’ of planning officers. There must surely be better things for government to do?

AI summary of High Court Judgement

High Court Rules Against Lambeth Council: A Wake-Up Call for Local Authority Transparency

The High Court has ruled that Lambeth Council acted unlawfully in its decision to impose a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) in West Dulwich, setting an important legal precedent for how councils must handle public consultation. In short: if you ask for views, you must genuinely consider them—especially when they’re backed by substantial, relevant evidence.

This landmark ruling underscores what many communities have long suspected: that public feedback on traffic schemes can too easily become a formality rather than a meaningful part of the process. It is not enough to hold consultations and reply to early letters—submissions must be properly reviewed throughout, especially when new and significant information emerges.

A Judgement Rooted in Process, Not Politics

The ruling (West Dulwich Action Group v. London Borough of Lambeth, May 2025) wasn’t about whether LTNs are good or bad in principle. It was about whether the council followed a fair, lawful process. The court concluded that it did not.

The case turned on a 53-page presentation submitted during consultation by the West Dulwich Action Group. This well-evidenced document—which included new survey data and detailed analysis—was completely ignored in the key officer report that underpinned the council’s decision. The judge found this to be a serious procedural failing.

To quote the court: “Its content was highly relevant… The failure to have regard to it was a serious failing, rendering the decision to make the Orders unlawful.”

The Bigger Picture: What This Means for Councils—and Communities

This ruling sends a clear message to local authorities across London and beyond:

• Proper process matters. Community submissions can’t be brushed aside, particularly when they add new and material information.
• Documentation is critical. Authorities must maintain a clear audit trail showing how evidence was reviewed and considered.
• “Experimental” doesn’t mean exempt. The use of Experimental Traffic Orders (ETOs) doesn’t allow a council to shortcut proper procedures at the outset.

Even though other parts of the claim were dismissed, the single upheld ground was significant enough to invalidate the Orders. The LTN, as implemented, was declared unlawful.

Plain English Takeaway

This case affirms a simple principle: if councils seek public views, they must genuinely engage with them. Going through the motions won’t suffice—and if they fail to do so, the courts can intervene.

For residents and civic groups, it’s also a reminder: clear, evidence-based feedback matters. And when it’s not taken seriously, you may have legal recourse.