What Recent LTN Cases Tell Us About Consultation Risk: From Process to Product

A Shift in Where Risk Lives

Three cases in particular mark out the current territory: West Dulwich Service Station v Lambeth (2025), Hawes v Tower Hamlets (2024), and the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Sheakh v Lambeth (2022). Together with HHRC Ltd v Hackney(2021), they reveal a decisive shift in where legal risk now sits.

The standard for consultation design has not increased as sharply as many predicted. Courts have shown unexpected tolerance for imperfect processes, especially when there is genuine urgency or an experimental reason for implementation. What has shifted is the level of judicial scrutiny on how consultation outputs are managed. Judges are scrutinising whether significant representations, data, and impacts on equality have been properly reflected in officer reports and final decisions. This shift matters because it changes where practitioners should focus their quality assurance effort. If your risk management is still centred on perfecting the questionnaire rather than demonstrating conscientious consideration of responses, you may be looking in the wrong place.

West Dulwich: When a Submission Disappears

West Dulwich represents the first successful judicial review to actually quash an LTN decision. That alone warrants close attention from anyone managing contentious schemes.

The case contained plenty that was uncomfortable for practitioners: muddled mailouts, a poorly handled drop-in session, survey questions that appeared to assume implementation. On their own, none of these flaws made the consultation unlawful. The judge accepted that, despite serious weaknesses, the process just about met the basic Gunning requirements.

The fatal problem was simpler and more brutal. A residents’ group produced a detailed 53-page submission bringing together data, lived experience and legal argument. That document more or less vanished from the decision-making trail. It was not summarised or engaged with in the officer report. The court concluded there was no evidence the decision maker had actually considered it. That was sufficient to sink the decision.

In other words, the issue was with careful consideration, not the way consultations were conducted.

The Practical Insight

Your highest risk is an impressive submission you cannot visibly account for. If a community or business group has clearly invested serious work into a response, you have two defensible options:

• Treat it as material: summarise the key points, show how they were weighed and explain why the recommendation stands despite them.
• Treat it as persuasive: adjust options, mitigations or recommendations and state explicitly that you have done so.

Letting it sit in an appendix without an indication of having been read is unsafe. Every claimant-side lawyer reading West Dulwich will see Gunning as conscientious consideration of the main litigation gateway.

Hawes: Manifesto Promises and the Limits of Re-Consultation

Tower Hamlets faced the opposite scenario. A new Mayor was elected on a pledge to remove existing LTNs. Campaigners argued that the council had to re-consult on a “middle way” compromise option that emerged from officer analysis, and that the Mayor had simply acted on politics rather than evidence.

The High Court disagreed. The consultation history was messy, but the core findings matter for anyone managing controversial schemes:

• Consultation doesn’t require endless responses from everyone; a single fair exercise can be lawful.
• Officers may develop new options after consultation, including compromises not shown to the public.
• A Mayor or Cabinet can choose a different option than officers prefer if the reasons are clear within rational bounds.
• Manifesto promises can influence decisions, but don’t exempt engagement with evidence, guidance, and feedback.

The Practical Insight

You do not have to re-consult every time officers generate a new option. The trigger for re-consultation is not “we developed a clever compromise”. It is whether the option adopted is so different in kind from what was consulted on that consultees are effectively ambushed. In Hawes, the court did not think that line was crossed.

For practice, this means:

• Be explicit that you may blend, adapt, or tweak options based on responses. Ensure officer reports trace consultation feedback to the options presented to Members.
• When Members go against the officer’s preference, help them record why in clear language.

Politics is welcome, but it should never overshadow the process. Having manifesto pledges isn’t inherently unlawful, yet they shouldn’t be used as a cover for poor consultation or shallow reasoning. Let’s remember to prioritise thorough discussion and careful consideration above all.

Sheakh and HHRC: Equality, Urgency and Learning During Implementation

Two earlier cases continue to shape the landscape. In Sheakh v Lambeth, the Court of Appeal accepted that experimental traffic orders can be used to test LTN impacts, including on protected groups, as long as the council genuinely has equality in mind and is prepared to adjust. In HHRC v Hackney, the High Court was prepared to tolerate a lighter-touch initial process because of the COVID emergency, on the basis that more structured engagement followed as circumstances settled.

Neither case gives councils a free pass, but together they support two pragmatic points:

• It’s perfectly fine to learn as you go along, just make sure you’re keeping a close eye on how things are affecting everyone, especially disabled residents, their carers, and folks living on boundary roads.
• Remember, proportionality is key. If there’s a true emergency, a quicker first phase can be understandable, but it’s important always to aim to catch up later.

The Practical Insight

“We will monitor and adjust” is only safe if you can show you actually have. A line in a report promising monitoring does very little on its own. To look credible under Sheakh, you need:

• A clear Equality Impact Assessment identifying plausible risks, with simple indicators to track.
• Evidence later shows adjustments to exemptions, mitigations, or measures as information emerged.

Common Threads Across the Cases

Across all four cases, the same themes recur. They provide a useful checklist for active travel and wider traffic schemes.

1. Formative Stage Remains Critical

Courts continue to expect that consultees can argue “no” as well as “how”. For LTNs, this means:

• Avoiding materials that present schemes as done deals.
• Asking at least one question about whether the intervention is acceptable in principle.
• Being open, in reality and on paper, to amending or removing elements if feedback and data point that way.

2. Information Must Be Sufficient to Respond Intelligently

None of the cases demand gold-plated glossy brochures. What they do look for is:

• Clear, legible maps.
• Short, honest explanations of traffic logic and trade-offs.
• Signposting to more detail for those who want it, rather than burying key documents on obscure webpages.

If your consultation landing page looks like a campaign for the scheme rather than a balanced explanation, assume that a claimant will use screenshots against you.

3. Conscientious Consideration Is Now the Main Litigation Door

For officers, this means moving away from treating consultation analysis as a narrative description (“most people said X, some said Y”) and towards something closer to an audit trail:

• Theme-by-theme summaries of what people said.
• Officer responses to each theme.
• A clear link from those themes into options appraisal and recommendations.
• Explicit mention of outlier but serious concerns.

If you cannot trace that line inside your own papers, a judge will struggle too.

The Direction of Travel

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods remain contentious locally, but courts increasingly see the process as stable. Showing consultation, providing information, and handling feedback honestly strengthens your case beyond headlines. The risk has shifted from asking questions to proving you’ve listened to the answers transparently.

Download our checklist to support the development of your proposals.

---

---

How tCI Can Help

Quality Assurance: Independent review at critical stages, from evidence protocol design through to final reporting, ensuring your approach to qualitative data meets legal and good practice standards. Our seven-stage QA process includes assessment of analysis methods, interpretation fairness, and compliance with Gunning, PSED and ICO requirements.

Early Assurance: A snapshot review during planning to sense-check your evidence framework, codebook design, and proportionality rationale before fieldwork begins.

Charter Workshops: Half-day sessions helping your team understand good practice standards for handling qualitative consultation data, including rigorous analysis and defensible interpretation.

Whether you’re preparing for a high-stakes service change or need confidence that your evidence approach will stand up to scrutiny, we can help. Contact tCI for Quality Assurance at hello@consultationinstitute.org