Over the last 4 years the issue of LTN’s and CPZ’s proposed by Lambeth council for our ‘patch’ has been an ever present conversation and controversy with differing viewpoints on all sides.

We at NAG strive to remain neutral in our responses to all such measures but we do try to reflect what our members tell us and look for.

These issues raise very strong feelings both for and against and we try to represent these to the best of our abilities. Obviously those of us on the committee have our own opinions but we put these to one side when discussing these contentious issues, and on taking any actions we are guided by our members.

West Dulwich LTN

The West Dulwich LTN was a key part of Lambeth’s 2022 West Dulwich Improvements Scheme.  A trial scheme was introduced in 2024 that curtailed car rat runs through the area, with traffic filters put in place on Eastmearn Road, Tulsemere Road, Ardlui Road and Chatsworth Road.

West Dulwich Action Group pursued legal action against Lambeth Council in respect of the LTN. They raised over £55,000 to take their case to court which was heard on Feb 12th 2025. Ultimately the judge agreed that Lambeth Council should remove the LTN on the basis that a number of procedural errors were made by the council, which rendered parts of the scheme illegal. 

The LTN was a controversial scheme, the effect of which was to prevent vehicular traffic from entering, passing through, or waiting within a significant area of Dulwich.

The West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), was an association formed to represent the interests of local residents and businesses affected by the street improvements, including a number of Residents’ Associations.

During a process of both formal and informal consultation, WDAG’s members had sought repeatedly to engage with the London Borough of Lambeth regarding the LTN which, on Lambeth’s own evidence, had generated significant opposition, with 63.5% of respondents strongly opposed to the proposals and 67.5% opposing them. Prior to Lambeth’s decision Council WDAG had produced a 53 page document identifying in detail its particular concerns, described by the Judge described as “impressive”, which was provided to officers of the Council at an online meeting on 3 June 2024. That presentation was not, however, taken into account in determining whether or not to make the ETO.

Following the making of the ETO, WDAG challenged the decision on 3 grounds: (1) That the Council’s consultation on the ETO was unfair; (2) That the Council had failed properly to take into account draft statutory guidance published by the Department for Transport; and/or (3) that the Council had acted in breach of regulation 6 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

In a judgment handed down on 9 May 2025, Tim Smith (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) allowed appeal on Ground 1 (J125-126).

In doing so, he divided the Claimant’s submissions in two categories: substantive and procedural (J93). The former relating to the manner in which the Consultation was conducted, and the latter the extent to which the product of consultation was considered and assessed.

Despite accepting various other criticisms of the Council’s conduct, describing one of a report of one consultation event as “a masterclass in selective partial reporting” (J100(e)), the judge overall rejected the Claimant’s procedural criticisms of the Council’s consultation, finding that whilst the “consultation could undoubtedly have been improved upon” with “shortcomings” ranging from the “the inconvenient” to “the more significant” it was not “so seriously deficient as to clear the high hurdle applicable to it” (J111).

On the Claimant’s substantive issue, however, concerning “whether and how the Council considered the product of its engagement when reaching a decision” the Judge found the “absence of any clues that the presentation material was in the minds of officers who contributed to the drafting of OR2 – still less that the issues were engaged with” “troubling” especially given its relevance to the decision to be taken (J122). He held that it was no answer for the Council to maintain that the commencement of the experimental period of the orders provides another opportunity for statutory consultation before any decision is taken to make the Orders permanent (J123) and on that basis (but not Grounds 2 or 3) the judge allowed the claim and invited submissions on relief.

If you have been issued a Penalty Charge Notice for the West Dulwich LTN, you are eligible for a refund.

Better Streets West Dulwich

Better Streets West Dulwich is a pro LTN group who responded to the quashing of the LTN.

‘At Better Streets West Dulwich we call on Lambeth to fix the process, not scrap the progress.

In 2025 a High Court judge ruled that the West Dulwich Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) was unlawful, based on an error in the decision-making process used to implement the scheme. The judge further ruled that the LTN should be quashed – i.e. removed – because of this error.

Crucially, the High Court judgment did not criticise the effectiveness or impact of the West Dulwich scheme itself. Instead, it focused on a flaw in the process behind its implementation.

We believe that, in complying with the ruling, Lambeth should not step back from defending the principle that well-designed LTNs – developed with public consultation and democratic accountability – are essential tools for creating safer, healthier, and more liveable neighbourhoods. We stand by a scheme that has made a clear and positive difference.

Since its introduction in September 2024, the West Dulwich LTN has helped create safer, quieter streets for everyone – particularly children, older residents, and people walking or cycling.

Early data suggests a decrease in the number of police-reported traffic crashes, including on boundary roads. Local residents report a noticeable reduction in speeding, and an increase in people choosing to travel on foot or by bike.

Local businesses remain strong – a new café has opened, and shop occupancy remains above the London average. Many streets now feel more welcoming and sociable.

While LTNs can be controversial at first, evidence from across London and beyond shows that they become more popular over time as their benefits become clearer. As traffic levels fall, roads become safer, and communities adapt, initial concerns are frequently replaced by growing local support.

West Dulwich is no different: many residents who were initially uncertain have come to value the calmer environment and improved safety.

The opposition of a vocal minority should not be mistaken for a majority view.

Local residents have told us:

Suzanne Hutson of Chatsworth Way, who has a vision impairment, said:

“Not everyone drives. Not everyone can drive. For West Dulwich residents without cars, we need safe and accessible means to travel around our local area: LTNs make a palpable difference.”

Denise Blake of Eastmearn Road said:

“As a parent of a young child, the LTN has made our street feel much safer and more sociable. We don’t want to go back to heavy traffic.”

Katie Bryer of Rosendale Road added:

It’s wrong to think that LTNs only benefit those who live inside them. I live on a boundary road, but – as somebody without a car who walks and (nervously) cycles throughout London – LTNs are a life changer. I fully support the West Dulwich LTN, both in itself and as part of a bigger picture where we start to create a network of safe walking and cycling routes.”

Jackie Dishman of Dalmore Road said:

“We’ve campaigned for more than a decade for action on the dangerous rat-running through our street. The LTN has transformed daily life. Removing it would take us backwards and undo real progress for our community.”

A Better Streets West Dulwich spokesperson, said:

“This ruling highlights the importance of getting process right – but it doesn’t change the fact that the LTN itself has worked. Lambeth must now act decisively to rerun the process and reinstate the scheme.

We cannot allow a paperwork error – serious though that was – to undo the real-world progress that’s been made.

“What happens next matters – not just for West Dulwich, but for every community working to create safer, healthier streets. Lambeth must fix the process, not scrap the progress.”

West Dulwich Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)

In December 2025 Lambeth Council sent letters to residents about the proposed West Dulwich CPZ. They outlined the council’s proposals as an outcome of their statutory consultation of Aug/Sept 2024 and the subsequent consultation to impose a 12-2pm time zone for the CPZ. 

Ultimately Lambeth have decided not to implement a CPZ for the foreseeable future. A number of parking restrictions alongside the shops in Rosendale Road and new EV bays will still take place.

• Free time-limited shopper parking bays to provide space for customers to park for free outside the shops (on Rosendale Road, Carson Road and Idmiston Road)

• A designated loading bay facility (on Rosendale Road)

• Double yellow lines on the corners of junctions and at bends, to prevent obstructive and dangerous parking. Double yellow lines will also be introduced on Rosendale Road as part of the introduction of the Brockwell Park to Gipsy Hill Healthy Route – Phase 3

• Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP) in Lamp Columns and associated parking bays to provide additional charging facilities for motorists

• New cycle hangars, to provide secure cycle storage for residents

Should you wish to see the history of the CPZ and the detailed plans for the revised proposals, details can be seen here.

An unintended consequence of many of these schemes both here and elsewhere is that people are tempted to pave over their front gardens to create hard standing for their cars when on-street parking becomes difficult. This, of course, makes flooding much more likely and could also be in contravention of planning rules in Lambeth.

There is, however, plenty of advice and suggestions available on how to retain green space and planting on a driveway, or other suggestions to reduce flood risk on your own drive - for example at the National Park City website.

SITE 18  (SADPD Proposals)

Lambeth’s proposals for Site 18 (the area behind the west side of Norwood Rd, between York and Lansdowne Hills) are still under discussion. You may remember that we, Norwood Forum and the BID launched a campaign against the council’s original plans. There is due to be a judicial review in and NAG will be represented there. You can see a full history of the campaign against the plan on the Forwood Forum Site.