top of page

Send a Statutory Objection

IMPORTANT instructions on how to copy and paste your Statutory Objection into an email

​

1. Address your email to: traffic.management@royalgreenwich.gov.uk

2. Insert the following as an email subject (if you don't, your Statutory Objection will not be counted): 11-24 WEST AND EAST GREENWICH

3. Copy and paste everything below into the body of your email.

4. Make sure you replace the placeholder text, in square brackets below, with your full name and address.

5. Send your email.

​

​

[Name]
[Address line 1]
[Address line 2]
[Address line 3]

 

STATUTORY OBJECTION RE. THE WEST & EAST GREENWICH NEIGHBOURHOOD MANAGEMENT SCHEME (11-24 WEST AND EAST GREENWICH)

 

I. Introduction 

 

I submit this formal Statutory Objection to the West & East Greenwich Neighbourhood Management Scheme, implemented on 27 November 2024 for an 18-month trial period, on the grounds that the scheme: 

 

  1. Is based on an unfair consultation process.

  2. Lacks public support and is therefore contrary to the good engagement provisions of the draft statutory guidance on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

  3. Fails to meet legal requirements for road safety and signage.

  4. Breaches the public sector equality duty (‘PSED’) by failing to have sufficient regard to negative impacts on disabled persons, the elderly and the disproportionate impacts of traffic displacement and resulting air pollution on more disadvantaged, ethnically diverse communities.  

  5. Is not supported by adequate reasoning.

  6. Wastes public funds amid severe financial constraints. 

  7. Fails to comply with Digital Accessibility Requirements.

 

This correspondence is a Formal Statutory Objection and must not be treated as a complaint.

  

I direct the Council’s attention to Regulation 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2489), which requires that all Objections to experimental traffic orders (ETOs) be properly considered before any decision is made on their continuation. The experimental period allows for the actual effects of the ETO to be judged and therefore operates – in effect – as an extended period for consultation before any decision is reached on whether to make the ETO permanent. Failure to treat this as a Statutory Objection would therefore constitute a procedural irregularity and may render any future decisions regarding the scheme unlawful. 

 

While the objective of reducing traffic and improving air quality is supported in principle, any such scheme must be lawful, equitable, and inclusive. This objection concerns the failure of the present scheme to meet those essential standards.

 

Summary of Legal Grounds

 

This objection is submitted under Regulation 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. We identify various legal issues with the Council’s approach, in the circumstances of which it would be unlawful to make the ETO permanent, including:

 

  • Unfair consultation in breach of the Gunning principles and the common law duties established in R v London Borough of Brent, ex p Gunning [1985] 84 LGR 168, R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC 56, R (Eveleigh) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] 1 WLR 3599 and R (Clifford) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025] EWHC 58 (Admin);

  • Failure to give due regard to consultation feedback and representations, contrary to Regulations 7 and 9 of the 1996 Regulations and the draft Statutory Guidance;

  • Breach of the PSED in respect of elderly, disabled and racially diverse communities and failure to make reasonable adjustments, contrary to Sections 20 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010;

  • Disproportionate environmental and social harm to low-income and ethnically diverse communities, contrary to the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and Articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998;

  • Failure to give adequate reasons enabling members of the public to consider and respond intelligently to what is proposed;

  • Non-compliance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, resulting in unlawful enforcement;

  • Failure to ensure public safety and lawful design under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and having regard to the principles established under the National Planning Policy Framework;

  • Digital exclusion of disabled residents, in breach of the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018 and Regulation 7 of the 1996 Regulations.

 

The effect of these issues, taken alone and a fortiori cumulatively, mean that any decision to make the ETO permanent will be unlawful. Any decision to make the scheme permanent, or to continue with it in force, would be open to challenge on public law grounds.

 

II. Grounds for Objection 

 

1. Lack of Public Support and Failure to Meaningfully Engage with Consultation Feedback 

 

1.1. Overwhelming Public Opposition to the Scheme

 

The Commonplace survey conducted prior to implementation found that 79 per cent of respondents in East Greenwich and 68 per cent in West Greenwich expressed negative or very negative views of Option A - the option that most closely resembles the scheme now in operation.

 

Although this consultation was non-statutory, public authorities are expected - under general principles of administrative law and procedural fairness - meaningfully to engage with the results of any public engagement exercises they choose to undertake. This expectation is particularly strong where the consultation is presented as part of the evidence base for policy development, or where affected groups raise material concerns.

 

The failure conscientiously to take account of overwhelming opposition, particularly where it concerns disabled access, road safety, and displacement of traffic onto more hazardous routes constitutes a breach of the statutory balancing duty under Section 122(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

 

It is also contrary to the Department for Transport’s draft guidance regarding the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the implementation of LTNs which was published in March 2024. The draft guidance focuses on themes including obtaining community support, good practice in engagement and design principles for effective LTNs. Importantly, it introduces a new requirement that ‘Via its engagement and consultations an authority should be confident that a scheme is capable of carrying the support of a majority of the community before introducing it.’ At para 5.66 of its decision report dated 31 July 2024, the Council recognised that the draft guidance is a material consideration in the context of this ETO. It has failed to front up to the conflict with that guidance, however.

 

1.2. Unfair Consultation 

 

Pursuant to Regulation 23(4)(b), representations made during the Statutory Objection period must be properly considered and addressed before a traffic order is confirmed or made permanent. Any failure to do so will render the decision unlawful.

 

The Council states that over 8,000 responses were received during its two phases of engagement in 2023, and that residents were supportive of ‘the vision’ for better air quality but expressed ‘significant concerns about the proposals.’However, beyond a limited number of amendments including part time closures and the limited extension of exemptions, the Council has not demonstrated how the many other significant concerns discussed below were addressed in the scheme design. Where a public authority conducts extensive engagement, it is under a public law duty to respond meaningfully. Failure to do so undermines the legitimacy of the consultation process.

 

Although the Council was not under a statutory obligation to consult the public prior to implementing the West and East Greenwich schemes under an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO), it elected to do so through a two-stage public engagement process, primarily hosted on the Commonplace platform. The Council was bound to do so in accordance with the common law requirements for a fair consultation (R (Eveleigh) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] 1WLR 3599 at [92] per Laing LJ and R (Liberty) v Secretray of State for Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 571 at [118].

 

The principles underlying a lawful consultation – the ‘Gunning’ principles – were set out in R v London Borough of Brent, ex p Gunning [1985] 84 LGR 168 and were endorsed by the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] 1 WLR 3947 per Lord Wilson JSC at [25]:

 

‘(…) these basic requirements are essential if the consultation process is to have a sensible content. First, that consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage. Second, that the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response. Third (…) that adequate time must be given for consideration and response and finally, fourth, that the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals’

 

Throughout its consultation process in 2023, the Council repeatedly described the engagement as formative and open to public influence. Its statements included:

 

 

These representations suggest that the consultation was genuine, that no firm decision had been taken, and that residents' views would materially influence the design and implementation of the scheme. However, the consultation process as conducted has proved to be fundamentally at odds with these assurances and has been conducted in breach of the Gunning principles on consultation at a formative stage and the requirement to conscientiously take account of the product of consultations in finalising any statutory proposals.

 

The consultation carried out to date has exhibited widespread deficiencies and irregularities. Stage 1 directed participants' attention to general local improvements such as lighting, seating, and greening - none of which were subsequently pursued. Stage 2, by contrast, focused exclusively on low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) options, which had not been mentioned at Stage 1. The Stage 2 consultation was built around dense consultancy reports exceeding 100 pages for each scheme area, presented in a format unlikely to be accessible to or intelligible by a typical resident. The Council failed to explain how the Stage 1 responses informed or contributed to the development of the Stage 2 options, despite having explicitly stated that outcomes from early engagement would shape the design process.

 

In the Stage 1 consultation material, the Council posed the question: ‘Will you introduce a low traffic neighbourhood again?’ and answered it by stating that the consultation was ‘the start of a process’ and that ‘we cannot predetermine what measures may be suggested.’ A response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request sent to a resident further confirmed that the scope of the Council’s consultants (PJA) ‘only goes as far as developing outline designs of any scheme that may be supported by the outcome of the public consultation.’ These public commitments were unequivocal: any proposed scheme would depend upon and be shaped by the feedback received.

 

However, material disclosed through subsequent FOI requests - only after intervention by the Information Commissioner - demonstrates that these commitments were not honoured. In November 2022 - well before the first consultation period of 13 February – 24 March 2023 - the Council had already appointed PJA to ‘deliver’ LTNs in West and East Greenwich via an Experimental Traffic Order and had internally set a target implementation date. Despite public denials of predetermination, the Council has provided no explanation for this fundamental discrepancy between internal action and external representation.

 

Internal correspondence released under FOI further undermines the integrity of the consultation. Prior to the close of the Stage 2 engagement, officers and consultants were already referring to one specific design (Option A) as ‘the agreed direction of travel.’

 

Other messages stated: ‘We should aim to use the engagement to support the direction we’ve already mapped out,’ and cautioned against ‘raising expectations’ that the consultation could lead to meaningful changes. These admissions indicate that the consultation was tainted by pre-determination, and designed not to explore options, but to legitimise a pre-selected outcome. The use of a public consultation to retrospectively legitimise a pre-determined outcome is a clear breach of the Gunning principle on consultations taking place at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage. It also severely undermines the fourth Gunning principle on the requirement to conscientiously take into account the product of consultations before finalising any statutory proposals. 

 

Following closure of the Stage 2 consultation - before the responses had been analysed and conscientiously addressed in the formulation of the ETO - the Council distributed a leaflet presenting the LTN proposals in a one-sided, promotional manner. This leaflet dismissed public concerns, lacked balance, and reinforced the impression that the Council’s course of action had already been determined. The distribution of such material at that point in the process is incompatible with a genuine and open consultation and is further evidence of the Council’s predetermined, close-minded approach.

 

It is also inconsistent with the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC 56, which held per Lord Wilson JSC at [24] that the requirements of fairness must be linked to the purposes of consultation and ensuring that the decision-maker receives all relevant information and that it is properly tested. Such an approach, according to the Court, avoids ‘the sense of injustice which the person who is the subject of the decision will otherwise feel’ and is ‘reflective of the democratic principle at the heart of our society.’

 

Taken cumulatively, the Council:

 

  • Publicly represented that no final decision had been made, while internally confirming, promoting and preparing a predetermined outcome. Contrary to the Council’s assertion that design options were shaped by the consultations, in fact, the Council had already taken a decision before the end of the consultation period;

  • Presented multiple ‘options’ while rejecting the possibility of alternatives that did not involve traffic filtering;

  • Invited participation in a process portrayed as open, while deliberately managing expectations and feedback to minimise opposition;

  • The Council relies on having made a number of limited amendments to the scope of exemptions, replacing hard closures with ANPR and part-time operation of restrictions as proof that the consultation process was genuine and shaped the proposals. However, this ignores the fact that the ETO is met with significant public opposition and the FOI requests revealed the Council’s predetermination of the ETO even before the consultation period began. Furthermore, the Council overlooks frequently raised concerns about displacement and air pollution and does not appear to have properly turned its mind to mitigating impacts on elderly and less able-bodied persons.

 

These actions amount to a breach of the procedural and substantive requirements governing fair consultations. They also raise serious concerns as to the Council’s candour, credibility, and compliance with public law duties. The fact that the approach to public engagement to date has been unlawful and seemingly conducted in bad faith is a matter of obvious materiality when taking any decision on whether to continue with or make permanent the ETO. Any reliance on the outcome of this flawed process to justify the continuation, or making permanent of the ETO would be irrational, unlawful, and open to public law challenge.

 

1.3. Failure to Reconcile Public Health Claims with Displacement Effects

 

While the Council has stated that the scheme is needed because air pollution exceeds WHO guidelines, and that the area has one of the highest rates of hospitalisation for respiratory infections among babies in London, it has not addressed how traffic displacement onto already congested and polluted boundary roads will affect public health outcomes there. This contravenes the draft statutory guidance on LTNs which, amongst the approaches it considers ‘should be taken’ ‘as a minimum’ is the delivery of information leaflets to all properties within the area of the scheme and a scheme-appropriate radius of properties outside the area. It follows that the statutory guidance clearly envisages the consideration of impacts beyond the immediate area of the ETO. This omission weakens the claimed environmental and health rationale for the scheme and suggests an unbalanced consideration of borough-wide impacts.

 

The decision report dated 31 July 2024 following the Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Sustainability and Transport’s decision to call in the decision due to concerns about the adequacy of consultations and, in particular, the Council’s treatment of air pollution on boundary roads, was dismissive of these concerns. Worryingly, despite residents raising concerns about displacement effects to no avail throughout the consultation process, the Council addressed the issue for the first time in the July 2024 report. At para 5.18 of that report, the Council stated that the ‘displacement effects suggested in the reason are not accepted’ citing a ‘growing evidence base suggesting that low traffic neighbourhoods have not increased traffic on surrounding roads.’ The integrity of the consultation process is severely undermined by the Council only revealing the basis of its assessment of boundary roads for the first time in July 2024, nine months after the conclusion. The Council failed to properly engage with these issues during the consultation period when the public was not aware of the Council’s reliance on a ‘growing evidence base’. This information should have been before the public during the consultation period. Instead, this issue is largely absent from the consultation reports and Equality Impact Assessment.

 

The draft guidance clearly envisages consulting beyond the immediate area of the ETO in appropriate circumstances. It follows that the Council was wrong to limit the geographical boundaries of their consultation to the immediate area of the ETO and should have considered the impacts on those living close to boundary roads.

 

1.4. Lack of Assessment on Local Economic Impact and Inclusive Access

 

The Council also claims that the scheme will support local businesses by encouraging walking and cycling. However, this bare assertion is not supported by any retail or economic impact assessment. Nor has the Council adequately addressed the likely barriers for disabled or mobility-impaired residents who cannot easily walk or cycle, and for whom circuitous car journeys may discourage local trips altogether. Any lawful transport strategy must be evidence based and conscientiously consider inclusive access to economic life.

 

1.5 Inadequate Reasoning

 

The Council’s reasons for make the ETO were inadequately explained. The effect of this is that the Council does not now know the basis for what is proposed, and is not able adequately to provide representations including in relation to be important and controversial issues such as impacts on local businesses, the risk of increased air pollution on boundary roads and the impact on the elderly and disabled.

 

2. Deficiencies in Signage Contrary to TSRGD 2016, Fairness, and Road Safety

 

2.1. Inadequate and Unlawful Signage: Legal Non-Compliance and Enforcement Risks

 

The Council asserts that all statutory signage complies with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD); however, extensive post-implementation amendments between November 2024 and March 2025 - including the removal of incorrect signs, placement of corrective stickers, and the addition of new warning signage. This strongly suggest that the scheme’s original signage was deficient, misleading, and potentially unlawful.

 

Signage must, under TSRGD, be clear, unambiguous, correctly positioned, and visible to provide adequate notice to road users. Yet at the time enforcement began, several key restriction points lacked proper advance warning signage, and others were obscured or confusing in their layout. The Council’s own admission that £120,705.75 was spent on remedial signage work amounts to a tacit acknowledgement that the scheme did not meet legal and operational standards from the outset.

 

Although advance warning signs are not explicitly required in all circumstances, their absence - particularly in unfamiliar, high-traffic environments - is unfair to road users and potentially dangerous.

 

The lack of advance warning signs and deficiencies in signage creating road safety risks render the Council potentially liable to a claim in negligence should an accident occur that can be attributed to poor or inadequate signage. The fact that the Council is purportedly exercising statutory functions in making the ETO does not make it immune from a negligence claim (Kane v New Forest DC (No.1) [2001] EWCA Civ 878; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 312).

 

Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, enforcement must be fair and proportionate. Failure to provide adequate notice may render Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) unenforceable. This view is supported by case law. In London Tribunals case 2220496820 (Haque & Others v London Borough of Ealing, 2022), a PCN was ruled unenforceable due to inadequate and misleading signage. Similarly, in a 2020 tribunal ruling against the London Borough of Lewisham, the adjudicator cancelled an LTN PCN where signage was either unclear or missing, stating that the motorist could not reasonably be expected to understand the restriction.

 

These cases confirm that signage that is unclear, misleading, or incorrectly position may render PCNs issued in accordance with them unenforceable and vulnerable to legal challenge. This approach is clearly at odds with the Council’s position as expressed in a public statement dated 20 March 2025, and further social media posts dated 28 March 2025, wherein the Council acknowledged that signage had been ‘updated to provide greater clarity’ following resident feedback. Yet it simultaneously claimed that all PCNs issued remain valid.

 

PCNs issued in West & East Greenwich before remedial signage works were completed may therefore have been issued unlawfully, undermining the scheme’s legitimacy. If signage required correction to improve clarity, that constitutes an implicit admission that the original signage was inadequate. Enforcement can only be lawful if the signage present at the time of the alleged contravention meets the required legal standards of clarity, legibility, and visibility. Retrospective improvements cannot justify penalties issued under earlier defective conditions.

 

It would be irrational for the Council to continue to enforce PCNs relating to signage that the Council deemed defective enough to warrant extensive post-implementation amendments.

 

2.2. Failure to Ensure Road Safety and Comply with Section 122 RTRA 1984

 

The scheme raises serious concerns under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which requires local authorities to secure the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of all road users - including drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians - and to consider accessibility and local amenity.

 

Instead of improving safety, the scheme has closed off quieter residential streets and diverted substantial volumes of traffic onto some of the borough’s most hazardous and congested boundary routes, including:

 

  • Trafalgar Road

  • Woolwich Road

  • Blackheath Hill

 

Transport for London’s Road Safety Data identifies these roads as collision hotspots, with a history of serious and fatal incidents. Funnelling more traffic onto these routes predictably increases risk - particularly for vulnerable users such as children, older people, and cyclists.

 

In contrast, many internal roads within the LTN zone had low or negligible accident rates prior to the scheme. The effect is a displacement - not a reduction - of road danger.

 

2.3. Lack of Statutory Justification and Road Safety Impact Assessment

 

The Council’s published Statement of Reasons - required under Regulation 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 - was brief, vague, and failed to identify the specific statutory purposes behind the experimental order.

 

While it references objectives such as ‘encouraging active travel’ and ‘reducing through traffic,’ it does not explain how the scheme's specific design features would lawfully and effectively achieve those outcomes. Therefore, in breach of the Gunning principles, it has not been possible to respond properly to the ongoing consultation.

 

Moreover, the inclusion of ‘improving road safety’ as a stated objective is not supported by evidence. Rather than mitigating risk, the scheme has introduced new and avoidable hazards, including:

 

  • Forcing vehicles to make unsafe turning manoeuvres in tight residential spaces (e.g. Royal Hill outside James Wolfe Primary School);

  • Increasing vehicle flows near pedestrian crossings and children’s play areas (e.g. Maze Hill adjacent to Greenwich Park playground);

  • Causing delays to emergency services and elevating driver frustration due to congestion on boundary roads;

  • Exposing vulnerable residents - including children, the elderly, and disabled persons - to heightened danger near schools and housing estates.

 

Crucially, some roads that previously had low or negligible accident histories (such as Victoria Way and Eastcombe Avenue) have now become significantly more dangerous as a result of increased volumes of redirected traffic, blind bends, and inadequate pedestrian infrastructure. The scheme has not been supported by road safety audits or targeted mitigation in these areas, despite foreseeable risk.

 

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 91(c)) requires that transport schemes promote safe and inclusive access for all users. Implementing a scheme that knowingly worsens safety conditions - particularly on roads with known design constraints or vulnerable populations - is incompatible with this policy and may breach the Council’s common law duty of care.

 

Most concerningly, the Council has not published a Road Safety Impact Assessment, despite making significant changes to traffic volumes and enforcement. This omission raises procedural concerns and may render the decision-making process irrational (in the Tameside sense) as well as unfair under administrative law principles.

 

2.4. Displacement of Road Danger to Charlton, including Victoria Way and Eastcombe Avenue

 

The West & East Greenwich Neighbourhood Management Scheme has caused significant traffic displacement into the Charlton area from adjacent LTN zones. Local residents continue to raise sustained concerns about road safety, especially the increased risk to children navigating high-traffic residential roads without proper pedestrian infrastructure.

 

Two roads of particular concern are Eastcombe Avenue and Victoria Way. Eastcombe Avenue now carries displaced traffic previously using Westcombe Hill. While Westcombe Hill includes a zebra crossing and a relatively straight descent, Eastcombe Avenue lacks any safe crossing infrastructure near the A102 pedestrian underpass and includes a blind bend and road narrowing at its lowest point - significantly increasing pedestrian danger, particularly for school children.

 

Victoria Way, a residential road that was not previously a high-traffic route, has become a major through-route for diverted traffic. It shares similar characteristics with Eastcombe Avenue: no dedicated crossing infrastructure, limited visibility, and proximity to sensitive locations such as Fossdene Primary School, where children and their carers are now exposed to higher volumes of passing and idling traffic.

 

There is widespread concern that a child will be killed before anything is done. These are not speculative anxieties but grounded in observable, day-to-day danger.

 

Displacing traffic onto these already vulnerable residential streets without implementing new mitigation measures - such as safe crossings, traffic calming, or pedestrian priority design - reflects a failure to conduct the legally required road safety and equality impact assessments.

 

This may constitute a breach of the Council’s legal duties under:

 

  • Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (duty to ensure safe and expeditious movement of traffic);

  • The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 91(c): duty to promote safe and inclusive access for all users);

  • The Council’s common law duty of care to children and vulnerable road users.

  • It may also render the Council liable to a claim in negligence as per Kane v New Forest DC (No.1).

 

2.5. Incomplete Implementation of Traffic Order Provisions

 

The original Experimental Traffic Order for the West & East Greenwich Neighbourhood Management Scheme included an extensive list of subsidiary provisions, including amendments to waiting restrictions near junctions and the designation of specific parking places. These were intended to enhance visibility, safeguard turning movements, and prevent obstruction at key conflict points within the scheme area. However, many of these measures were not implemented when the scheme came into effect in November 2024. In a statement attributed to Councillor Averil Lekau, the decision-maker for the scheme, the Council indicated that it had chosen to wait and see whether these provisions were necessary once the experimental scheme was operational.

 

This approach raises serious concerns regarding both the legal and operational integrity of the scheme. Where a traffic order contains detailed provisions intended to mitigate risk or ensure clarity, failure to implement those measures may render the scheme deficient in its execution. It also raises questions about whether the statutory objectives of the scheme - particularly those relating to safety and the expeditious movement of traffic - could ever have been met under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 without full implementation. Moreover, presenting a more comprehensive scheme during consultation or legal advertisement, only to enact it in truncated form, risks misleading the public and undermining the procedural fairness required by law.

 

3. Equality Impacts

 

3.1. Physical Accessibility and Steep Gradients: Practical Barriers to Mobility

 

The Royal Borough of Greenwich claims that the scheme improves accessibility by supporting ‘wheeling,’ including for wheelchair and mobility aid users. However, this assertion fails to account for the area's steep topography, which poses substantial barriers to safe mobility for disabled residents, carers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

 

Several key roads within the scheme area significantly exceed safe operating gradients for wheelchair users and mobility scooters:

 

  • Crooms Hill – up to 27.6 per cent

  • Vanbrugh Hill – up to 25.7 per cent

  • Point Hill – up to 22.5 per cent

  • Hyde Vale – up to 25.6 per cent

  • Maze Hill – up to 17.3 per cent

  • Westcombe Hill – up to 15.6 per cent

 

National guidance states that:

 

  • Manual wheelchair users should not self-propel on gradients exceeding 1:12 (8.3 per cent);

  • Powered mobility devices typically manage 6-8 per cent, with some tolerating up to 12 per cent on short distances.

 

Forcing wheelchair users and other mobility-impaired individuals - particularly those without Blue Badges - to navigate these gradients due to displaced or restricted routes is not only unsafe, but discriminatory.

 

The claim that the scheme facilitates ‘wheeling’ is therefore misleading, and demonstrably false when assessed against the physical geography of the area.

 

The same barriers apply to cyclists, particularly older, less physically able individuals, or those returning to cycling as part of active travel initiatives. Climbing steep hills like Crooms Hill or Vanbrugh Hill may be unmanageable and descending them - especially without speed mitigation - may feel unsafe. These design oversights deter would-be cyclists and marginalise those who do not meet the ‘physically fit’ cycling ideal.

 

This undermines the scheme’s claim to support inclusive mobility.

 

Furthermore, many of the steepest residential roads affected by the scheme - such as Crooms Hill, Vanbrugh Hill, Hyde Vale, and Maze Hill - are not served by any regular bus route or public transport alternative that links residents to key amenities such as local shops, medical centres, or pharmacies on lower or higher-gradient roads like Woolwich Road, Trafalgar Road, or at Blackheath Royal Standard. For residents without private transport, particularly those with children or limited mobility, walking or cycling uphill with shopping or daily essentials is not a viable or safe option. The absence of accessible alternatives further compounds the exclusionary effect of the scheme, especially in poor weather. It highlights the Council’s failure to account for the practical realities of daily life.

 

While Vanbrugh Hill is technically served by the 386 bus, this is a single-decker service operating at relatively low frequency - typically every 15–20 minutes - and does not provide a high-capacity or universally accessible alternative for those with mobility impairments. Moreover, the steep residential roads between Vanbrugh Hill and Westcombe Hill, many of which are affected by the scheme, have no bus service at all. The 386 route travels up and down Vanbrugh Hill and along Westcombe Park Road to and from Blackheath Royal Standard, but does not serve the majority of steep interior roads impacted by the LTN scheme. The limited public transport provision in these hilly areas exacerbates the accessibility barriers introduced by the scheme.

 

3.2. Failure to Comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

 

The Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced for the scheme fails to meet the legal requirements of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which imposes the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). This requires public authorities to have due regard to:

 

  • Eliminating discrimination;

  • Advancing equality of opportunity;

  • Fostering good relations between those with and without protected characteristics;

  • Remove or minimise disadvantages and take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a protected characteristic.

 

It will be apparent from the above that having ‘due regard’ to equalities impacts imposes positive obligations on decision makers to ‘advance equality of opportunity’, ‘foster good relations’, ‘remove or minimise disadvantages’ and ‘take steps’ to meet the needs of persons who share a protected characteristic. It therefore follows that the starting point for decision makers subject to the PSED is to robustly consider the positive steps they can take to meet the needs of persons who share protected characteristics, remove or minimise disadvantages etc. It will not be sufficient for the purposes of s.149 to accept harm as a foregone conclusion and then merely decide on the level of harm that will be acceptable to those sharing a relevant protected characteristic. 

 

The courts have consistently held that EqIAs must be conducted with integrity and genuine engagement. In Bracking v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the PSED must be discharged substantively with rigour and an open mind.

 

The current EqIA is substantively deficient in the following respects:

 

(a) Impact of Steep Gradients

 

The EqIA does not reference the extreme gradients on roads like Crooms Hill, Vanbrugh Hill, or Maze Hill and the physical barriers preventing independent travel for wheelchair and scooter users these represent. No alternative provision or mitigation has been proposed.

 

The analysis also ignores how these gradients affect less physically able cyclists, including older people and those returning to cycling. The omission of these impacts overlooks the exclusionary effect of the scheme on individuals outside the able-bodied norm — undermining the Council’s active travel and equality objectives.

 

(b) Impact on Blue Badge Holders and Carers

 

The exemption policy permits only one vehicle per Blue Badge holder, excludes out-of-borough Blue Badge users, and imposes a complex application process. This approach disregards residents who:

 

  • Depend on multiple unpaid carers

  • Cannot access or navigate the application process due to digital exclusion or cognitive impairment

 

This restrictiveness places indirect discriminatory barriers on disabled people and their caregivers, in breach of Sections 20 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

 

(c) Extended Journey Times and Physical Harm

 

The scheme introduces lengthy detours that disproportionately impact:

 

  • People with chronic pain or reduced stamina

  • Disabled residents without Blue Badges

  • Health workers, unpaid carers, and others needing to make essential trips

 

For many residents, extended journeys result not only in inconvenience but also pain, fatigue, exacerbation of medical conditions, and barriers to essential services. Conditions like arthritis, fibromyalgia, long Covid, and respiratory illness make longer walking distances or time in traffic physically harmful.

 

The Council provides no evidence of assessing how these extended journeys affect:

 

  • Access to GP surgeries, hospitals, and pharmacies

  • Caregiving duties for vulnerable residents

 

This failure to anticipate harm and make reasonable adjustments breaches Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010.

 

3.4. Mischaracterisation of Access and Behavioural Framing

 

While the Council has claimed that ‘all addresses would be accessible by vehicles at all times,’ this claim ignores the qualitative difference between technical accessibility and practical usability.

 

For residents with disabilities, fatigue, chronic illness, or time-critical responsibilities, longer routes and complex detours are not merely inconvenient - they can be harmful, exhausting, or exclusionary.

 

Moreover, the Council’s stated goal of ‘changing the way people view transport’ is framed as a behavioural issue, overlooking the fact that for many, car travel is not optional. This framing ignores the unequal burden such policies place on protected groups and risks breaching the duties under Sections 20 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

 

3.5. Barriers to Accessing Essential Trades and Domestic Services

 

The scheme also affects all residents who rely on professional services at home. These include visits by boiler engineers, window cleaners, electricians, plumbers, and delivery couriers - all of whom operate under time-sensitive schedules and often serve multiple households in a day.

 

The access restrictions introduced by the scheme, combined with steep gradients and enforced circuitous routes, make it difficult for such professionals to reach properties during morning or evening hours. This is particularly problematic where time slots are narrow, traffic congestion is high, or road layouts are unfamiliar. In practice, this is already leading to delays, cancelled appointments, and in some cases, tradespeople refusing to accept bookings in affected areas due to poor access, lack of legal parking, or fear of receiving Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).

 

This significantly disrupts residents’ ability to maintain their properties and access essential domestic services, which is not only inconvenient but may also create health and safety risks - for example, in the case of missed boiler repairs during winter or unaddressed electrical faults.

 

No assessment appears to have been undertaken on how the scheme affects residents’ ability to secure and retain essential trades or domestic services. This omission highlights the failure of the scheme to consider the practical realities of life in the area, particularly for those without informal support networks or alternative means of assistance. It further undermines the Council’s claim that ‘all addresses remain accessible,’ and reflects a broader lack of engagement with the cumulative and intersectional burdens imposed by the scheme on residents' daily lives.

 

3.6. Adverse Impact on Local Businesses and Economic Participation

 

The scheme also imposes indirect and unequal burdens on local businesses, many of which rely on consistent customer footfall, passing trade, and timely access by suppliers and delivery services.

 

Businesses located within and around the filtered areas, such as Royal Hill and Westcombe Park, have reported substantial losses in trade, particularly during the morning and evening periods when vehicle access is most restricted. These businesses include cafés, restaurants, convenience stores, and trades serving early morning and after-work customers – including builders, couriers, and shop suppliers.

 

The restrictions have created an effective ‘trough’ between multiple filters, where businesses are now only accessible from limited routes. In one case, the General Store and newsagent located on Royal Hill has lost approximately 60 per cent of its morning and evening trade, due to the loss of passing van and delivery driver customers. Although the shop continues to deliver newspapers from 6am, the traditional early-morning rush of site workers, couriers, and van drivers has vanished since the camera enforcement began. Even in the middle of the day, takings are reportedly down by 30 per cent, owing to reduced footfall and general uncertainty among motorists about whether they will be caught by confusing or poorly signed restrictions.

 

Another café on the same stretch of Royal Hill reports a year-on-year drop of 35 per cent in trade. A group of high-end food retailers nearby - including a butcher, fishmonger, greengrocer, and refill shop - have seen weekday takings fall by 15–20 per cent, even where Saturday trade remains relatively stable. The collective concern among these traders is not only declining revenue but the prospect of business closures if the current restrictions are maintained. Several have already met with council officers to raise their concerns, but have been told that no material changes can be made during the 18-month trial period for fear of ‘compromising the monitoring data.’

 

This is not merely a matter of economic theory but of lived economic harm. Where local retail units are placed at existential risk, and small businesses - many of which serve lower-income or long-term residents - are forced to operate under artificial constraints, the scheme fails in its duty to support inclusive and sustainable economic participation.

 

In one especially serious incident, a courier was forced to park at a distance and hand-deliver parcels on foot across the LTN restriction. During that time, his locked van was broken into and remaining parcels were stolen. When he attempted to intervene, he was stabbed. While the attackers are solely responsible for the violence, the enforced separation between vehicle and delivery point created by the LTN may have contributed to the conditions in which this incident became possible. This raises further questions about the safety implications of the scheme for workers operating under time pressure and security risk.

 

While the Council claims that walking and cycling benefits high streets, this assumes all residents are able to travel by these modes. It fails to account for those who cannot carry goods uphill or visit multiple shops on foot, particularly disabled residents, older people, or those without nearby transport links.

 

The Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty require that economic opportunity is not unfairly restricted. Failing to assess the impact of the scheme on local businesses – particularly small, independent traders already under pressure – constitutes a serious omission.

 

In its current form, the scheme undermines both economic inclusion and the long-term viability of neighbourhood commercial centres.

 

4. Displacement of Traffic to Areas with Vulnerable Populations 

 

4.1. Displacement of Pollution and Danger onto High-Risk Corridors

 

The scheme redirects traffic onto already congested and polluted boundary roads, including:

 

  • Trafalgar Road

  • Woolwich Road

  • Blackheath Hill

 

These routes already experience some of the highest traffic volumes and poorest air quality in the borough. They are disproportionately lined with social housing, schools, nurseries, and healthcare facilities, placing vulnerable populations in direct proximity to vehicle emissions and road danger.

 

The Council’s own 2016 report, Outdoor Air Quality and Health in Greenwich - a document notably absent from the Council’s own website and accessible only through external search engines - formally designated Trafalgar Road, Woolwich Road, and Blackheath Hill as Air Quality Focus Areas, noting that concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and particulate matter (PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅) in these areas exceeded national air quality objectives due to vehicle emissions. The report also stated that:

 

  • ‘Air pollution contributes to 6.3% of annual deaths in Greenwich’;

  • ‘Children, older adults and those in deprived communities are most at risk’;

  • Pollution at levels considered ‘legal’ still pose significant respiratory and cardiovascular health risks.

 

Despite this, the 2024 scheme now redirects through-traffic onto these same corridors without mitigation. These roads also fall within Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) designated under the Environment Act 1995, which imposes a legal duty on the Council to improve air quality. The rerouting of traffic into these AQMAs - already known to breach legal and public health thresholds - risks violating that duty.

 

Concrete examples of affected institutions and communities include:

 

  • A brain injury rehabilitation hospital on Blackheath Hill, where patients are highly susceptible to pollution and traffic noise;

  • Supported flats on the Parkside Estate on Blackheath Hill for chronically ill individuals, placing clinically vulnerable residents directly in the path of intensified air and noise pollution;

  • Alpha Nursery on Plumbridge Street, bordering Blackheath Hill, caring for children aged 3 months to 5 years - a group particularly sensitive to roadside NO₂ and PM exposure.

 

The 2022 Addendum Report, which informed the decision to dismantle the earlier LTN in West Greenwich, explicitly acknowledged that:

 

  • Traffic increased by 27 per cent on ‘roads such as Maze Hill’;

  • 50 per cent of local respondents cited increased traffic on Blackheath Hill;

  • Widespread concern was raised about displacement, congestion, and air pollution on boundary roads.

 

The current scheme reproduces the same displacement pattern, with the same affected corridors - but now on a wider geographic scale. Crucially, the March 2024 decision report admitted that:

 

‘Respondents are worried about displacement of traffic onto boundary roads... particularly Trafalgar Road and A2... Although pollution will reduce and improve in the zone, it will make air quality worse outside of it.’

 

Despite this, the Council has provided no boundary-road-specific air quality modelling, and no mitigation measures for these known outcomes. This contradicts the Council’s own public health objectives, and may breach statutory obligations under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, which implement Directive 2008/50/EC and require authorities to avoid the deterioration of air quality, particularly where vulnerable groups are exposed.

 

Further, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 imposes a legal duty on local authorities to protect and improve the health of the local population - a duty undermined when known pollution hotspots are subjected to additional environmental burdens without mitigation.

 

Under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, the Council must have due regard to the needs of those with protected characteristics, including disability, age, and pregnancy/maternity. Redirecting traffic and environmental harm toward these communities - without assessing or mitigating the impact - may amount to indirect discrimination and a failure to advance equality of opportunity.

 

Additionally, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, public authorities have a positive obligation to avoid exposing individuals to foreseeable environmental harms that interfere with private and family life. The absence of an Environmental or Health Impact Assessment, particularly in relation to known high-risk corridors, may breach the Council’s duties under the Human Rights Act 1998. In extreme cases, Article 2 (right to life) may also be engaged where the risk to life is real and immediate.

 

The Council:

 

  • Knew the risks of boundary-road displacement since at least 2016;

  • Observed and acknowledged the risks in 2022;

  • Is now repeating them in 2024, with no meaningful modelling or mitigation.

 

This is not a matter of technical oversight, but one of institutional accountability and strategic contradiction. It is incompatible with the Council’s stated goals of sustainability, health improvement, and equity.

 

4.2. Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities in Exposure to Harm

 

The Council’s justification for the scheme - namely the reduction of air pollution and respiratory illness - is undermined by the fact that traffic is being displaced from wealthier, predominantly White areas to lower-income and more ethnically diverse communities.

Census 2021 data highlights striking disparities:

 

  • Social Housing: 58.1 per cent of residents on Blackheath Hill live in social housing, compared to 16 per cent on Crooms Hill, 7 per cent on Hyde Vale, and just 4.7 per cent on Point Hill;

  • Vehicle Ownership: Only 39 per cent of households on Blackheath Hill own a car or van, compared to 60.2 per cent on Crooms Hill, 75.5 per cent on Hyde Vale, and 72.6 per cent on Point Hill;

  • Ethnicity: Just 40.2 per cent of residents on Blackheath Hill identify as White, compared to 79 per cent on Crooms Hill, 90 per cent on Hyde Vale, and 84.2 per cent on Point Hill. The borough average is 55.7 per cent.

 

These figures show that the communities least responsible for traffic emissions are being subjected to its worst consequences, while more privileged areas are protected from through-traffic.

 

Further socioeconomic-related indicators deepen this disparity. Only 8 per cent of Blackheath Hill residents are in higher managerial or professional roles, compared to 31.5 per cent on Crooms Hill, 41.5 per cent on Hyde Vale, and 40.3 per cent on Point Hill. Conversely, 14.6 per cent of residents on Blackheath Hill have never worked or are long-term unemployed — a figure more than ten times higher than Crooms Hill (1.2 per cent), Hyde Vale (4.6 per cent), and Point Hill (3.8 per cent). 

 

These statistics underscore a structural inequity: the most economically disadvantaged area within the scheme boundary - Blackheath Hill - is the one absorbing the greatest environmental burden from displaced traffic.

 

This environmental and social inequity is supported by robust evidence:

 

  • A 2015 study in Environmental Pollution found that low-income and ethnically diverse communities in England are disproportionately exposed to NO₂ and PM pollution, increasing risks of respiratory and cardiovascular disease;

  • A 2023 study in Nature Communications found that globally, 7.3 billion people live with unsafe levels of PM2.5, with 716 million of the world’s poorest residing in areas with the most hazardous air - a stark reflection of global and local environmental injustice.

 

Moreover, these populations often face compounded risks from poor housing, limited access to healthcare, and pre-existing conditions - increasing both exposure and vulnerability to pollution-related harm.

 

Displacing traffic into these communities - already overburdened by environmental stressors - represents a clear failure of environmental justice.

 

This contradicts the Council’s duties under:

 

  • Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (Public Sector Equality Duty);

  • Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010;

  • Articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

A scheme that improves air quality for some by worsening it for others cannot be considered equitable or lawful. The Council must not pursue climate or health improvements by imposing new environmental burdens on the borough’s most disadvantaged residents.

 

5. Failure to comply with Digital Accessibility Requirements

 

The Council’s primary consultation platform, Commonplace, fails to meet legally required accessibility standards under UK law. 

 

Multiple stages of the West & East Greenwich Neighbourhood Management Project consultation hosted on this platform exhibit serious accessibility violations. These include, but are not limited to: 

 

  • Missing form labels and headings, rendering form questions inaccessible to screen reader users; 

  • Low colour contrast ratios throughout the survey interface, in breach of WCAG 2.1 AA guidelines; 

  • Inaccessible interactive map content with no keyboard navigation, no alt text, and no equivalent alternatives; 

  • Buttons and links without accessible names or labels; 

  • An ineffective and equally non-compliant alternative survey for screen reader users.

 

These findings were verified through the WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool and relate specifically to the following pages: 

 

  • Step 1 and Step 2 of the main consultation; 

  • The interactive map interface; 

  • The alternative screen reader survey, which also fails accessibility checks. 

 

Given that the consultation concerns a trial traffic scheme being implemented by a public authority, the platform is subject to the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018. These require conformance with WCAG 2.1 AA and obligate the Council to ensure that its services are accessible to all users, including disabled people. 

 

The Equality Act 2010 further imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments to avoid disadvantaging disabled persons. 

 

The failure to ensure digital accessibility constitutes indirect discrimination and a breach of the Council’s legal obligations. 

 

By deploying a consultation process that is inherently inaccessible to blind, visually impaired, cognitively impaired, and motor-impaired users, the Council has not lawfully discharged its duties under:

 

  • Section 20 and Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010;

  • The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018;

  • The Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 14, read with Article 8);

  • Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (duty to secure convenient and accessible movement of traffic); 

  • Regulation 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (duty to consider objections received during the experimental period before making the order permanent).

 

No consultation that excludes disabled residents through design or oversight can be regarded as lawful or valid. Accordingly, any reliance on feedback from the current consultation to justify continuing the scheme is procedurally and substantively unsound. 

 

Failure to comply with these statutory and procedural obligations will leave the Council open to challenge for discrimination, breach of consultation duties, and unlawful decision-making.

 

III. Conclusion and Proposed Way Forward 

 

For the reasons set out above, I submit this as a formal Statutory Objection under Regulation 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The West & East Greenwich Neighbourhood Management Scheme is legally and procedurally flawed on multiple grounds:

 

  • It fails to give due regard to public consultation feedback - including overwhelming opposition to the scheme’s design - in breach of the common law duty of procedural fairness. While the initial consultation was non-statutory, the Council presented it as a genuine engagement exercise and is legally obliged to conscientiously consider and respond to the representations received. Its failure to do so renders the process procedurally defective;

  • It is based on a procedurally flawed and misleading consultation process. Although the Council was not legally required to consult, it voluntarily undertook a staged engagement, publicly presenting it as genuine and formative. Internal records show the outcome had already been decided, thereby breaching the Gunning principles;

  • It fails to comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD), with significant evidence of unlawful and misleading signage at the time enforcement began, confirmed by post-implementation corrective works;

  • It relies on a legally inconsistent position   that PCNs issued under unclear signage remain valid, despite retrospective improvements - a stance incompatible with basic principles of fairness and lawful enforcement;

  • It redirects traffic onto boundary roads already designated as Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and Air Quality Focus Areas, in breach of the Council’s statutory duties under the Environment Act 1995 and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 to improve, not worsen, air quality. These roads—Trafalgar Road, Woolwich Road, and Blackheath Hill—are among the borough’s most congested and polluted, and are disproportionately lined with social housing, schools, nurseries, and healthcare facilities. No boundary-specific air quality modelling or mitigation has been provided, despite the Council’s prior knowledge of these risks;

  • It disproportionately burdens lower-income, ethnically diverse communities on boundary roads - such as Blackheath Hill and Woolwich Road - while shielding affluent, majority-white areas inside the LTN. This exacerbates structural inequalities and undermines environmental justice, in breach of:

                        o   Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (Public Sector Equality Duty),

                        o   Articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and

                        o   Directive 2008/50/EC as implemented by the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010;

  • It fails to account for physical accessibility and topography, with key walking and cycling routes traversing steep gradients (e.g. Vanbrugh Hill, Crooms Hill) that are unsafe or unusable for disabled residents. This contravenes the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and to advance equality of opportunity under Section 149;

  • It has resulted in unjustifiable expenditure;

  • It endangers the health and safety of vulnerable groups, including children in nurseries, patients at a brain injury rehabilitation hospital, and chronically ill residents in supported housing, by concentrating pollution and road danger along already hazardous corridors — without a Road Safety or Environmental Impact Assessment. This violates the Council’s statutory duties under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life);

  • It imposes disproportionate burdens on small businesses and service workers in constrained areas like Royal Hill and Westcombe Park, where active travel access is impractical. Reduced footfall, increased delivery difficulties, and security risks for lone workers (e.g. delivery drivers) undermine economic inclusion and conflict with the Council’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010;

  • It was implemented in an incomplete and misleading form, omitting several measures included in the advertised Experimental Traffic Order (e.g. waiting/loading restrictions and junction markings). This may have misled consultees, invalidated aspects of the trial, and breached both the Gunning principles and Regulation 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996;

  • It relies on a statutory consultation process that is digitally inaccessible to disabled residents, in breach of the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018, the Equality Act 2010, and Regulation 7 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996.

 

This scheme cannot be justified as a fair or lawful environmental intervention when it appears to protect wealthier residents at the expense of already disadvantaged communities. By rerouting pollution and congestion onto areas with higher levels of social housing, lower vehicle ownership, greater ethnic diversity, and poorer public health outcomes, the Council is deepening existing inequalities. Public health must not be improved for some by sacrificing the well-being of others - particularly not those with the least means to protect themselves. This imbalance may also breach the Council’s duties under Article 14 (non-discrimination) and Article 8 (private and family life) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

These cumulative legal, procedural and safety-related failings render the scheme vulnerable to judicial review. Any decision to make it permanent - or to continue enforcement under it - may be legally unsustainable and open to legal challenge.

 

Accordingly, I request that the Council:

 

  1. Immediately suspend the ETO pending a full and legally compliant road safety review.

  2. Conduct a comprehensive topographical and accessibility impact assessment, including the effect on disabled road users and carers.

  3. Undertake a full equality re-assessment that extends to those who would be affected by increased traffic on boundary roads, consistent with the Public Sector Equality Duty and duty to make reasonable adjustments.

  4. Commission and publish a Road Safety Audit, with specific reference to boundary roads, high-risk locations, and vulnerable populations.

  5. Review and refund all Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued during any period in which signage was non-compliant, unclear, or under correction, including those issued prior to post-implementation amendments.

  6. Suspend the consultation and reissue it in a fully accessible format, compliant with WCAG 2.1 AA and the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018, ensuring equal access for digitally excluded and disabled participants.

  7. Confirm in writing that this objection will be considered in accordance with Regulation 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, and that no decision will be taken on the continuation of the scheme until all statutory objections have been fully assessed.

  8. Disclose the following documents and records in the interests of transparency and lawful decision-making:    

    • Any Road Safety or Collision Risk Assessments conducted before or during implementation

    • Any updated Equality Impact Assessments undertaken during or after the trial period   

    • Internal correspondence or meeting notes evidencing how public consultation feedback from the Commonplace platform was assessed or acted upon

    • Any Health or Environmental Impact Assessments relating to traffic displacement or boundary road pollution.         

 

Failure to comply with these procedural and substantive obligations may render any further action in relation to this scheme ultra vires, unlawful, and open to legal challenge. Moreover, continuing to pursue or enforce a scheme that is legally vulnerable - and subject to unresolved objections represents a misuse of public funds, particularly at a time when the Council is already financially constrained. The Council has a duty to act not only lawfully, but prudently and responsibly in its use of residents’ money.

 

Formal Notice 

 

This must be treated as a Statutory Objection under Regulation 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and not as a complaint. 

 

I request written confirmation that this Statutory Objection has been recorded, and will be formally considered.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

bottom of page