Introduction

Low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are designed to reduce vehicle traffic and promote cycling and walking, but they’ve become flashpoints in local debates across the UK. In Lambeth, the reaction has been particularly fierce, sparking protests, petitions, and accusations of a political “culture war.” But opposing LTNs doesn’t make you a petrol-head or anti-environment. Here, we explore the top 5 myths about LTNs and what the Lambeth experience teaches us.

1. Myth: Everyone Opposed to LTNs Is Anti-Environment

Critics of LTNs are often labeled as environmentally unfriendly, but this oversimplifies the issue. Many residents oppose LTNs not because they dislike green policies but because of how these schemes have been implemented — often without sufficient consultation. In Lambeth, even eco-conscious locals voiced concerns about access for the elderly, disabled, and emergency vehicles.

2. Myth: LTNs Reduce Overall Traffic

Proponents claim that LTNs reduce traffic levels. While this may be true *within* designated LTN zones, areas surrounding them — like boundary roads in Lambeth — have seen a spike in congestion. Local monitoring reports suggest that some residents feel penalized rather than protected.

3. Myth: LTNs Are Equally Beneficial for All Residents

LTNs can inadvertently increase inequality. Critics in Lambeth point out that wealthier, inner-zone residents often benefit most, while those in denser, more diverse communities near boundary roads face increased noise, pollution, and commute times.

4. Myth: Pushback Against LTNs Is Orchestrated by the Right

While some national media frame LTN opposition as part of a “right-wing backlash,” the reality in Lambeth is more nuanced. Resistance has come from all sides of the political spectrum, with many Labour-voting residents expressing frustration over a perceived lack of local accountability and transparency.

5. Myth: LTNs Are Here to Stay

Though LTNs are presented as permanent, public pressure can and does lead to policy reversals. In Lambeth, local councillors have faced mounting calls to rethink or modify schemes in light of community feedback — showing that LTNs are far from untouchable.

1. Myth: All LTN Critics Are Anti-Environment

It’s easy to paint LTN opponents as climate change deniers or petrol-hungry drivers. In truth, many critics in Lambeth support sustainable transport. What they oppose is the *execution* of the schemes, which they argue disproportionately affects working-class residents, disabled people, and those who rely on cars for legitimate reasons like school runs, caregiving, or shift work.

“I want cleaner air too,” said one local mother at a 2024 town hall meeting. “But the way these LTNs were forced on us without real alternatives just made life harder.”

2. Myth: LTN Resistance Is Right-Wing Culture War

The media often packages LTN protests as part of a conservative backlash. Yet in Lambeth, many activists are long-time Labour voters, trade union members, and environmentalists themselves. Community resistance cuts across political lines, suggesting it’s not a right-wing movement but a grassroots one based on local realities.

Social media posts from residents show diverse coalitions—including parents, key workers, and elderly citizens—uniting to challenge what they see as undemocratic decision-making by the council.

3. Myth: LTNs Reduce Traffic Everywhere

Official data on LTNs is complex. While residential roads within LTNs may see reduced traffic, boundary roads often suffer. In Lambeth, Brixton Road and Streatham High Road—already pollution hotspots—experienced higher congestion due to displaced vehicles.

This unintended consequence disproportionately affects those living near major roads, who are often lower-income families or renters with little political clout. Instead of city-wide emissions reductions, LTNs can shift the burden from one neighborhood to another.

4. Myth: Residents Were Properly Consulted

Many LTNs were introduced under COVID-19 emergency powers, allowing councils to bypass full public consultations. In Lambeth, residents reported finding planters and bollards installed overnight with little warning. Petitions were ignored or delayed. Public forums were held *after* changes were made, creating a perception that the policy was a done deal.

This lack of democratic input fueled resentment. As one resident put it, “We weren’t against cleaner air—we were against being steamrolled.”

5. Myth: LTNs Help Everyone Equally

LTNs are often framed as universally beneficial, but studies and testimonies suggest otherwise. In Lambeth, residents with disabilities found themselves cut off from accessible transport routes. Small business owners reported lost deliveries and footfall, while carers said it took longer to reach vulnerable clients.

Meanwhile, homeowners inside LTN zones enjoyed quieter streets and rising property values. This spatial inequality—where one street thrives while the next suffers—raises serious questions about fairness in green policy implementation.

6. Myth: All the Opposition Is Fake or Funded

Some councils and campaigners have accused anti-LTN groups of being backed by lobbyists or fossil fuel interests. While it’s true some opposition has been co-opted by political actors, in Lambeth the majority of activism was organic.

Grassroots campaigns like “One Lambeth” and “Open Our Streets” were led by parents, teachers, and long-term residents. Their demands were clear: review the schemes, consult properly, and address the knock-on effects.

7. Myth: Opposition to LTNs Means Opposition to Progress

The most harmful myth of all is that challenging LTNs means rejecting modernity or environmental responsibility. In reality, Lambeth’s critics are asking for *better* climate policy—ones that include all voices, accommodate diverse needs, and distribute benefits more fairly.

Proposals include investing in electric shuttle buses, enhancing public transport, and involving communities in co-designing traffic schemes. Critics want progress—they just don’t want it imposed.

Conclusion

LTNs in theory represent a promising step toward greener, more livable cities. But the Lambeth case shows how easily well-meaning policies can backfire if imposed without genuine engagement. Ignoring the lived realities of residents and dismissing them as reactionary only deepens division.

As climate policy becomes increasingly local, councils must choose between imposition and inclusion. A just transition requires listening—not labeling. Lambeth offers a warning, but also a path forward—if we’re willing to hear it.

Explore more: How Green Policies Are Changing the UK’s Cities

Recommended Video: Watch this 5-minute explainer on LTN protests in London