Lambeth’s net zero obsession: councillors in tears, ‘wellbeing’ leave for staff—but no listening to residents

14 February 2025, 15:03

By EJ Ward

A public meeting that ends with councillors in tears and staff needing “wellbeing” leave should be a wake-up call for local democracy.

Yet, the bitter row over the West Dulwich Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) has become just another chapter in the ongoing war between councils and residents over road schemes. It is a symptom of a deeper issue: a growing disconnect between those in power and the communities they serve.

At the heart of this dispute is the claim that Lambeth Council’s consultation process was unfair—so flawed, in fact, that anti-LTN campaigners believe they can win a landmark High Court case to scrap the scheme entirely.

But while this legal battle is ostensibly about a traffic order, it really raises fundamental questions about how councils engage with the public, handle dissent, and push through policies despite widespread opposition.

Lambeth Council has made it clear that it is fixated on reaching net zero by 2030—a full 20 years ahead of the UK’s target—steamrolling through climate policies while basic services crumble and residents are left wondering if they even get a say, and the council constantly fails to get the basics right.

The numbers tell a clear story: 67.5% of respondents to the council’s own consultation were unhappy with the West Dulwich LTN. The very meeting that was meant to inform residents turned into a debacle, with anger so intense that council officers reportedly took a break just to escape the hostility. Opponents say they were ignored, their feedback dismissed, and that the process was little more than a tick-box exercise.

This is the problem with Lambeth’s approach. It is so determined to push its green agenda that it is willing to bulldoze through opposition, alienating the very people it is supposed to represent. Climate action cannot be imposed by force—it has to be done with public support. Yet Lambeth seems to see engagement as an obstacle, rather than a crucial part of good governance.

LTNs are meant to improve quality of life by cutting through-traffic and encouraging walking and cycling. Yet, across London and beyond, these schemes have often been met with fury. Businesses say they are being crippled, residents say they are trapped in gridlock, and emergency services have raised concerns about access.

Councils, meanwhile, press ahead, defending the schemes as necessary for environmental and public health reasons. But Lambeth’s wider track record shows that while it is happy to push net zero policies, it is failing on more fundamental issues.

Roads are in disrepair. Rubbish collection is unreliable. Social housing is in crisis. Yet instead of fixing these problems, the council’s energy is focused on enforcing LTNs against the will of local communities.

The growing anger over road schemes is not just about traffic—it reflects a broader frustration with how power is exercised at the local level. When residents feel unheard, their frustration boils over, sometimes into hostility. While abuse of public servants is never acceptable, nor is a political culture that dismisses public concerns as an irritant.

The West Dulwich case may set a precedent for whether councils can impose LTNs despite majority opposition. But win or lose, Lambeth—and other councils—must learn from this debacle. Public meetings should not be traumatic experiences for councillors and officers. Nor should residents feel their only option is to take their council to court.

A better approach would be to acknowledge public anger, improve transparency, and engage communities earlier and more meaningfully in the decision-making process. If a policy is truly in the public interest, it should be able to withstand genuine democratic scrutiny.

Climate action is important, but it cannot come at the expense of democratic accountability. Lambeth needs to realise that it serves its residents—not the other way around.

If it refuses to listen, it shouldn’t be surprised when people fight back.

LBC Views provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk