We have been contacted by many other groups from across the country, who are campaigning against unwanted LTNs, asking us how we succeeded. Here is an outline that we hope is useful. But the real answer is, a lot of hard work and an honest politician!
1. The court case was won because the Claimant (supported by OpenOurRoads) found an honest politician. Unlike the previous administration, Mayor Perry was open and honest about the real reason the LTNs were introduced and then made permanent. Within the constraints of his office he did not shy away from answering difficult questions in public meetings. His answers were honest and transparent. The council had to make up the shortfall in the budget that would have resulted had he not made the LTNs permanent.
2. Residents across the land know what is the main driving force behind these road closures - it is money. Justice Pepperall, whilst not criticising the Council’s report, acknowledged that the evidence for their benefits was thin on the ground, at best suggesting any environmental and road safety benefits were 'modest'. He agreed with us that the dominant purpose was revenue. The problem is that many other local councils and politicians are greenwashing their true money-making intentions.
3. Other High Court challenges have failed because the claims have been made on other grounds. Other councils may well have a similar motivation but aren't honest enough to say so publicly, making it very difficult to prove. At Council meetings they trot out phrases from political playbooks. Gaslighting their own residents and insulting communities.
4. The public has seen through it for many years, but this is the first time a judge has seen through the deception.
5. What is needed is a definitive, evidence-led level of proof as to the benefits of any trial scheme and standard measures to attain prior to making any trial scheme permanent. Clear data collected before, during and at the end of any changes made under Experimental Traffic Orders, and transparency on any subsequent decisions, with no cherry picking or concealment of residents’ views.
6. OOR believes the only way to ensure this happens is to have proper oversight of decisions by a politically independent body to ensure the data is robust. The Local Government Ombudsman exists but appears to have limited power or scope. These decisions affect the everyday lives of ordinary people and such interference can be devastating. The fact that a resident had to go to the extreme of seeking a Statutory Appeal via the High Court to have some element of challenge and recourse is astounding. It demonstrates how hard it is for locals to engage and be heard. Consultations are being manipulated - and ignored - time and time again as a tick box exercise or to provide a veneer of legitimacy.
safety but these LTNs masquerade as environmental or safety schemes when they are being used to fleece the community for the sole purpose of making up for councils' budgetary shortfalls. We all suspect this is what it’s about and, in this instance, a court has agreed with us. Wider environmental solutions are not achieved by simply displacing traffic from one road onto other roads - anyone who thinks that needs a reality check.
8. OpenOurRoads has received numerous messages from local people, delighted to have their roads back. They are now able to get to appointments, workplaces, schools, shops, doctors, hospitals and visit (and be visited by) friends and family - without hindrance. People are grateful beyond words for what has been achieved. This has lifted the spirits of local communities. The roads are now open to all not just the few.