News

+ Ambulances routinely delayed by 24/7 road closures (8 February 2021)

Some of you may have seen the article in the Daily Telegraph on Friday about how the road closures in Dulwich Village and East Dulwich are causing long delays to ambulances on 999 calls, with life-threatening consequences. The article was based on a series of emails between the London Ambulance Service (LAS) and Southwark Highways Department (Southwark), obtained through a Freedom of Information request submitted last October.

These reveal that ambulances in Dulwich are routinely delayed by the current road closures. In September last year alone, the last month for which figures are available, ambulance crews reported 10 delays because of 24/7 closures in the Dulwich area, including responses to at least two Category 2 (life-threatening) 999 calls and three Category 1 (immediately life-threatening) 999 calls. Paramedics repeatedly highlight the hard closure at Calton Avenue as the cause of the problem in Dulwich Village, with delays ranging from between 5 and 10 minutes.

What is really concerning is that the documents also appear to show that repeated requests by the LAS to Southwark to replace the planters with cameras are being ignored. At a meeting on 16 July last year with Southwark transport project managers, all three Emergency Services asked for hard closures to be removed and ANPR cameras installed instead. “We know ANPR cameras are expensive,” said the Metropolitan Police representative, “but it’s about saving a life.”

One Dulwich has repeatedly asked our Councillors, and the decision-maker Cllr Rose, to introduce ANPR cameras at Dulwich Village junction instead of 24/7 closures. We know from your emails that many of you have done the same. We have raised the issue of access for the emergency services in our objections to the closures in both Dulwich Village and East Dulwich. But the Council is refusing to listen.

The problem has not gone away, as Cllr Rose implies in the Daily Telegraph article. In fact, the LAS continues to ask for ANPR cameras instead of hard closures that prevent access. Ambulances doing three-point turns at planters is still a regular occurrence, as are reports of ambulances getting stuck in traffic. As well as putting residents’ lives at risk, it’s not fair on ambulance crews, whose lives are difficult and stressful enough as it is without having to do long detours and weave through congested traffic.

What will it take for Southwark to comply with the Emergency Services’ requests? The death of a resident because an ambulance can’t reach them in time? Or a house or flat burning down because a fire engine gets stuck in displaced traffic? Refusing to make changes when lives are at stake is irresponsible and immoral.

We have now written yet again to MP Helen Hayes asking her to intervene. When former MP Kate Hoey intervened in the disastrous Loughborough Road traffic experiments in 2015, after the London Ambulance Service complained, Lambeth Council ended the experiment. We hope our MP and Southwark Council will now do the same.

Update 11 March 2021 Further delays to ambulances have been logged by One Dulwich supporters in January, February and March this year. On 24 February, an ambulance attending a collision between a cycle and a car at the junction of Court Lane and Eastlands Crescent had to take a long detour to reach the accident. On 5 March, an ambulance heading towards Dulwich Village junction had to do a three-point turn. There is now a high level of anxiety in the local community about delays to 999 calls.

We have had no response from our MP Helen Hayes to our earlier letter.

+ It’s time for Southwark Council to stop ignoring the community (7 January 2021)

Before Christmas, Southwark Council decision-maker Councillor Catherine Rose announced that the Council planned to publish its plans for a “consultation and survey” relating to the temporary road measures early in the New Year. What can we expect this community engagement to involve?

As the Experimental Traffic Orders in the Dulwich area were introduced under emergency powers, the Council didn’t have time to carry out a public consultation or Equality Impact Assessment before they went in. There was, however, widespread astonishment when the Council suggested that they knew there was public support for the measures because of the earlier, incomplete “Our Healthy Streets: Dulwich” consultation – an entirely different and more holistic scheme that included (among other proposals) permits for residents.

This was compounded by:

the Council refusing to publish the OHSD survey in full to validate its claims that a majority of local residents were in favour of closing Dulwich Village junction;
the knowledge that the OHSD scheme had included misleading information (including the assertion that traffic through Dulwich Village junction had increased by 47%), which would have influenced people’s responses;
the fact that the OHSD consultation had never included the option of area-wide timed restrictions, even though this had been requested at the public meetings, and raised with councillors by local residents;
the discovery that, throughout the OHSD consultation process, the Council had held unreported meetings with a working group that included well-known pro-closure lobbyists;
the obvious bias of the questions on the Commonplace website (which, although our ward councillors agreed they were unacceptable, the Council nevertheless continues to promote unaltered); and
the lack of public meetings in December 2020 about the measures in Dulwich Village, despite earlier public meetings about the measures around Melbourne Grove.

In 2019 Southwark Council published its Approach to Community Engagement, an interesting 20-page document that sets out its principles and standards of engagement. These include a desire to work collaboratively with the people affected by the policy or change under consideration. One Dulwich has offered on a number of occasions to work collaboratively with the Council on the development of an inclusive and socially just solution to traffic issues in the Dulwich area. So far, it hasn’t been invited to do so.

In June 2020, Cllr Rose’s predecessor, Cllr Richard Livingstone, said, “The measures are flexible as the experimental nature of the trial allows us to make amendments and changes within the first six months.” Unfortunately, flexibility doesn’t appear to have been part of any community engagement to date, and no significant changes or amendments have been offered or made. The six-month deadline has passed without any review taking place – without, indeed, the Council even making public how many objections it has received.

To help restore a degree of trust in the Council’s interactions with the community, badly dented by this and earlier consultations relating to Dulwich Village junction, One Dulwich calls on Cllr Rose to apply to the engagement process not only the principles and standards that Southwark has set itself, but also best professional practices. To this end we propose that the forthcoming consultation and survey should:

involve residents’ groups, traders’ groups, health and social care workers (doctors, midwives, carers), and organisations championing the rights of protected groups, particularly the elderly, the disabled, and women who are pregnant or on maternity leave;
make a specific effort to contact those who are seldom heard, rather than deferring to an established list of groups and societies;
ensure consultation with those living on residential main roads who are likely to be experiencing the impact of any traffic displacement;
publish on Southwark’s website the minutes of any private meetings with special interest groups and lobbyists, including paid consultants acting on behalf of campaign groups;
require individuals to state if they are members of special interest or campaign groups, or are professional lobbyists or consultants, when making responses at Council meetings, or public meetings organised by the Council;
provide both oral and written responses, not just be councillors operating “in listening mode”; and
be evidence-based, using hard data not opinion surveys to support decision-making.

Surveys should:

be conducted by an independent, established, professional research organisation;
contain questions that are open, unbiased, comprehensive, inclusive and accessible, reflecting the needs of all sections of the community, including those with protected characteristics, to enable the Council to meet its obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty;
provide a balanced choice of options that allow respondents to support the road measures, ask for them to be removed, or ask for modifications (following Croydon Council’s model of “Remain, Remove or Replace”);
have strict eligibility criteria – for example, only over-18s;
use methods to prevent and detect fraudulent entries (PIN entry?);
provide offline and online options to enable those without internet access to participate;
give more weight to responses from those living and working in the affected area; and
be clear in advance how and when the results will be interpreted and applied.

It’s time for Southwark Council to stop ignoring its residents, businesses and traders, and start genuinely trying to involve us in co-creating a socially just and balanced solution to the problems of traffic and air quality in Dulwich. Applying its own standards and best practices to community engagement would help the Council to demonstrate its impartiality and provide confidence in the integrity of the results.

+ The new petition (1 January 2021)

There is growing opposition to the 24/7 road closures. Over the past month, groups across Dulwich (residents, traders, societies and campaigns, including One Dulwich) have come together to ask for a better and fairer solution. The main concerns are the displacement of traffic, causing congestion and poor air quality on residential roads, and problems with access, affecting both residents and traders. Together, these groups have drafted a new e-petition to Southwark Council to address these concerns. It opened on 22 December 2020, and you can see the full text here.

The groups who drafted the petition have deliberately kept the demands simple, as the purpose is to open up discussion with the Council at what is a particularly crucial time. At some point over the next few weeks, the Council will set out plans to review the current measures in the Dulwich area (Phase 1 and Phase 2). So far, councillors have offered no indication that they are thinking of modifying either phase.

The petition mentions permits. These aren’t linked to a CPZ (controlled parking zone). Southwark’s policy is to introduce CPZs borough-wide, but this petition is about access, not parking – how to allow certain groups through timed restrictions. School streets, for example, often allow through Blue Badge holders and key workers. Across London, councils have given exemptions to various groups, in different combinations – not just Blue Badge holders, key workers and residents, but carers (or family members who are carers), local shops and businesses, and those making deliveries.

So far, Southwark has limited exemptions in the experimental traffic orders to emergency vehicles, buses and taxis. (The 24/7 closures, obviously, don’t even allow emergency vehicles through.) But the Council’s thinking in the past was on much broader lines. The plans that were consulted on in “Our Healthy Streets: Dulwich” earlier this year, for example, included permits for local residents.

The new e-petition to Southwark is the first step in what should be an open and democratic process of review, looking in detail at the effects of the experimental traffic orders in the Dulwich area on all sections of the community, and finding ways to make the measures fair and socially just.

+ Dulwich Village junction: an update (15 December 2020)

Since our last News update in October, we have been working hard on a number of fronts.

As registered supporters will know from our regular updates, we have met twice with Southwark Council’s new cabinet members Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess to press for a better, and more socially just, area-wide solution. Some of us submitted public questions on the road closures to Southwark Council’s most recent cabinet meeting on 8 December, but all were rejected (although Cllr Rose has said that she will respond to them formally in due course).

Many of us are working hard on issues around monitoring air quality. We don’t understand how Southwark Council can conduct a traffic experiment affecting thousands of people in the south of the borough without robust before-and-after data. Many of you will have been following the recently re-opened inquest into Ella Kissi-Debrah’s death, and the arguments put forward that spikes in air pollution around the South Circular were a contributory factor. Given the possible harm to children caused by sudden increases in pollution, we believe it is crucial that the Council properly considers the effect of directing traffic 24/7 on to residential main roads, many with schools and health centres. Even an experiment lasting six months could cause significant harm.

We have been urging you all to send in your formal written objections to Phase 1 of the Dulwich Village Experimental Traffic Orders (see www.onedulwich.uk/objections). The closure of Dulwich Village junction – one of the few east-west routes across this part of the borough – has had a huge effect over a wide area, as the geographical spread of our support base shows (1,000 supporters in Dulwich and a further 800 living on affected roads, as you can see at www.onedulwich.uk/supporters). The official deadline for your objections (counting six months after the start date) is 17 December. This is not, incidentally, a date that has been publicised by the Council.

Despite making many forceful representations to the Council about the lack of access, through both the 24/7 and timed closures, for vulnerable groups and those looking after them (emergency vehicles, community midwives, carers, GPs), progress seems glacially slow. We have still not seen the Equality Impact Assessment that should have been carried out to look at how the road changes would affect these vulnerable groups: it is, apparently, an ‘evolving document’.

We have been talking to traders in Dulwich Village, Melbourne Grove and Lordship Lane about the effect of the road closures on their businesses. Many are significant local employers, responsible for the livelihoods of a number of local families, and are struggling to keep afloat. They do not believe that their concerns are being heard.

We are also talking to residents’ groups – both formal associations and more informal WhatsApp and email groups – so that we can better understand perspectives from different roads.

In addition to all this, we are trying (and often failing – we apologise) to answer the hundreds of emails you send us at onedulwich@gmail.com, many offering ideas and support, and many sharing personal stories of daily hardship because of traffic or access issues.

We believe that all these voices, and many more, are not being listened to by our local councillors. This is not a tenable position. Their role, after all, is to champion the needs of the whole community. We understand the passion of those who support the closures as they stand (and indeed the passion of those who would like more roads to be blocked for even longer periods of time). But we also believe that we cannot as a community allow this binary For/Against fight to continue. It is damaging the daily lives of many local people, both young and old.

It has, in addition, given licence to a level of aggression that makes even reasonable debate impossible. This unproductive polarisation is why, as a campaign group, we have always tried to find the middle ground. A solution that is fair and inclusive will need compromise from both ends of the spectrum.

We all support the Council’s main objectives – reducing traffic, improving air quality, and making walking and cycling safer and easier. But we are asking, with increasing urgency, for a democratic debate about how best to achieve this.

We are asking our Council to listen.

+ Dulwich Village junction: an update (2 October 2020)

Because there seems to be some confusion on social media about the facts, here is a brief summary of where we have got to in our discussions with the Council.

1. A trial of timed restrictions

Unless Council thinking changes radically, One Dulwich believes that a logical, democratic next step is a trial of timed restrictions at the junction. This would balance the current trial of 24/7 restrictions.

Before any scheme is made permanent, there has to be a public consultation. A trial of timed restrictions would enable everyone to make a decision about which option they preferred, based on empirical evidence rather than speculation.

This is particularly important in the light of the new Phase 2 measures on Dulwich Village, Burbage Road, Turney Road and Townley Road, all of which will affect traffic in the area as a whole.

At our most recent meeting on 13 August, One Dulwich asked the Council to consider a trial of timed restrictions at the junction from 7.30am to 9am, and 3pm to 6pm. (The Council has since proposed timings of 8am to 10am and 3pm to 6pm on other local roads.) These hours correspond with peak school times, so the critical issue of children’s safety would be prioritised.

For the reasons outlined below, we suggested a trial using demountable (surface-mounted) bollards. This type of physical barrier has to be operated manually, which would mean that during the restricted hours there could be no entry or exit for any vehicles – with the possible exception of emergency vehicles.

This was a genuine attempt on our part to find a compromise. We said that if the Council would agree to this in principle, we would go back to our supporters and ask what they thought.

We haven’t had a substantive response to this proposal – just a suggestion that we meet again in October.

Physical barriers seemed a possible solution because the Council had told us in the past that ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras at the junction were too expensive. However, given that cameras will shortly be introduced at four other locations around the junction as part of Phase 2, this does not seem credible.

The Council keeps repeating previously made comments that physical barriers immediately adjoining Dulwich Village aren’t ‘compatible’ with the junction. (This was the reason way back in May for suggesting a layout that stepped back the barriers to the ends of Court Lane and Calton Avenue.) However, the technical advice we’ve received does not support this view. Multiple requests to the Council to provide the detailed technical basis for their original objection have so far not been answered.

We are happy to take back to our supporters any practical proposal for timed restrictions at or near the junction, whether this is based on barriers or cameras, because this seems to be a logical middle ground in what has become an increasingly polarised debate.

The onus is now clearly on the Council to justify 24/7 closures at this junction alone, when planned restrictions elsewhere are peak hours only.

2. The abandoned Our Healthy Streets (OHSD) consultation

Measures introduced by the Council since the OHSD consultation was abandoned are altered, fragmented versions of what was originally set out in public documents. At the time, we were told that measures couldn’t be considered individually, but had to be understood as an interconnected whole. Therefore, as we have said to the Council, it is not reasonable to say that the public has been consulted on the current measures (or, equally importantly, that timed restrictions cannot be considered). Despite this, the Council continues to refer to figures from the OHSD consultation (even though there are many unanswered questions about them) as justification for 24/7 closure of the junction.

3. Use of road space at the junction

As our councillors have acknowledged, the ability to use the road space at the junction for public events is a consequence, not an objective, of any road measures. Road measures must stand on their own merits: the junction is still a highway, with cyclists passing through, sometimes at speed. Having said this, time-restricted closures would not rule out the possibility of using the road space for public events like farmers’ markets, if that’s what the community wanted. With appropriate licensing, roads can be closed at any time, either occasionally or on a regular basis, for organised public events.

+ New mandate for timed restrictions, not closure, at Dulwich Village junction (2 September 2020)

As the number of One Dulwich supporters continues to rise, there is now a new mandate for timed restrictions at the Dulwich Village junction.

For months now, Southwark councillors have repeatedly claimed the Council has a mandate to close the Dulwich Village/Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction – because, they say, the results of Phase 3 of the OHSD consultation showed a majority of local residents in favour.

However, despite repeated requests, the Council has never clarified whether their final figures include emails, letters and paper questionnaires, which roads were considered to be part of Areas A, B and C, and whether the responses of under-18s were included.

The Council has also glossed over the fact that the question in the OHSD consultation about the closure of the junction was in the context of a holistic package of related measures, so interlinked that they couldn’t be considered separately.

Now there is a new mandate for Dulwich Village junction – for timed restrictions not 24/7 closure. As at 29 August 2020, One Dulwich had more people (all of whom were aged 18 or over) supporting timed restrictions (1314) than the number of respondents who supported 24/7 closure in the OHSD survey (1102). One Dulwich supporters comprised 834 supporters in Areas A, B and C and what Southwark calls ‘border’ roads (which they’ve never defined), by which we mean all the A roads: Croxted Road, Lordship Lane, Half Moon Lane, Village Way, East Dulwich Grove and Dulwich Common. This compares with 731 in the OHSD survey. Our 480 supporters on other roads in the Dulwich area compared with 371 in the OHSD survey.

Given this level of local support, and because the current closure is experimental and can be changed or amended within the first six months, One Dulwich believes that it would be fair, reasonable and democratic to trial timed restrictions at Dulwich Village junction.

We will continue to press the Council on the logic of this request.

+ Open Letter to Councillor Livingstone (29 August 2020)

An open letter to Councillor Richard Livingstone, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and the Climate Emergency, 29 August 2020

Dear Councillor Livingstone,

The Council has listened. The recent Phase 2 proposals include timed restrictions, monitored by cameras, for some roads in Dulwich Village. We welcome this approach as a balanced way forward.

Concerns remain – the positioning of the cameras, access during the trial period, and why the closures benefit some streets while disadvantaging others. But we believe, with careful thought and goodwill, these issues can be fixed. We have the beginnings of a fair and equitable solution that can work across Dulwich.

Please take this one step further. You know that 1300 local people are asking you to trial timed restrictions at Dulwich Village junction, too. This is a key request from the local community. A trial of timed restrictions across the whole Dulwich area may show that closing roads only at peak hours will achieve your, and our, objectives of reducing traffic, improving air quality, facilitating social distancing, and making active travel safer and easier.

Keeping the permanent closures at this junction, as you know, pushes traffic 24/7 on to main residential roads that already have high levels of pollution, risking the health of those who live there.

It also discriminates against the most vulnerable, particularly the housebound who rely on carers.

To those who want to keep the closures to create road space for community events, we say that this is a side issue. There is nothing to stop the temporary closure of roads anywhere in Dulwich, at any time, for markets, concerts or street parties. This should not direct policy.

We are asking you to balance the needs of all who live and work in the Dulwich area. In return your Labour council will be seen as fair, reasonable, responsive and democratic.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

One Dulwich

+ Dulwich Village junction: One Dulwich proposes a trial of timed restrictions (21 August 2020)

On 13 August, we had a constructive one-hour meeting with Southwark Council officer Clement Agyei-Frempong, his colleague Rachel Gates, and Dulwich Village ward councillor Margy Newens, to discuss our proposals for timed restrictions.

We reiterated our position that we want the roads in Dulwich to be safer for cyclists and pedestrians, and we support more active travel. But we also want a fair and reasonable compromise that balances the needs of the whole community, including those who have no choice but to use their cars. We emphasised that we do not believe it is right to empty some streets of cars by pushing traffic and pollution 24/7 on to neighbouring streets. This is about social equity as well as transport equity.

We explained that we will continue to campaign for a permanent solution involving timed restrictions, possibly as part of a wider zone, with permits and exemptions. We believe that all details – including the hours of restriction – should be decided after consultation with the local community.

But in the short term, while the Experimental Traffic Order (“ETO”) is in place at Dulwich Village junction, we asked if the Council would be willing to modify this ETO to allow a trial of timed restrictions.

In the past, we have been told that there is not enough Council cash to pay for a trial using permits. We have also been told that signage alone is not enough. So we have thought carefully how to address this. We concluded that the only way timed restrictions could work affordably on a trial basis – which would at least remove the 24/7 closures – would be for the junction to be opened and closed manually, using physical barriers such as bollards or retractable gates. This has been done elsewhere in London.

Because of this manual operation, there could be no exemptions during the trial itself. During the restricted hours, only cyclists and pedestrians would be allowed through. Outside those hours, everyone would be allowed through. We have suggested that the closure times for the trial could be the peak hours of 7.30am to 9 am and 3pm to 6pm, weekdays only and term time only.

We emphasised that this proposal, and the Council’s response to it, would have to be approved by our supporters.

Since the Council is trialling 24/7 closures (having said, during the OHSD process, that no trials were possible), we consider our suggestion for a second trial is both pragmatic and reasonable. Doubtless 24/7 supporters will do all they can to resist this. To them, we can say that there will have to be a public consultation before any permanent intervention – so having timed restrictions as one of the options put to the public seems a democratic line to take. After all, compromise involves both sides moving nearer to the middle ground.

Clement listened to our proposal intently, said he would consider it carefully and would come back to us – we explained that we had received pro bono advice from an experienced traffic engineer that our trial proposal works from a technical point of view. Clement suggested a follow-up meeting, explaining that further interventions will be happening later this month/early September. Encouragingly, he said he thought we had a lot in common, that Southwark’s bigger picture and our aspirations were aligned and that the Council wants to work with us. He said that he, too, wants there to be social equity and transport equity.

There was a welcome willingness by the Council to listen. The ball is now very much in their court. We will let you know their response as soon as we hear back.

+ Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: the controversy (20 August 2020)

You may have heard that Dulwich is now a Low Traffic Neighbourhood. What does this mean, and will it reduce traffic, improve air quality and make walking and cycling safer?

The background

In recent years, TfL (under Boris and then Sadiq) has introduced a number of initiatives, including Our Healthy Streets, Liveable Neighbourhoods and now Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (“LTNs”). All of them focus on the problem of traffic congestion in London, and how to turn a negative (too many cars) into a positive (fewer cars, cleaner air, more sociable streets, and safer walking and cycling). According to Simon Munk of the London Cycling Campaign, the concept of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods has been around a long time – the Dutch had low-traffic schemes as far back as the 1960s. But the term was re-popularised relatively recently, probably by the London Cycling Campaign and another national campaign called Living Streets, who together produced two explanatory guides in the spring of last year.

So what is a Low Traffic Neighbourhood?

Ideally, it’s a small and compact residential area, about one square kilometre in size (you should be able to walk from one side to the other in about fifteen minutes). Traffic isn’t banned, but can’t easily drive through because streets are closed by bollards or gates, or one-way systems. Because through traffic stays outside on the boundary or peripheral roads, the neighbourhood itself becomes a more pleasant place to live. Traffic that needs to come in (residents’ cars, for example) still can, but the number of routes is reduced, and journeys may take longer.

How do we know they work?

The Low Traffic Neighbourhood that everyone always holds up as a success is Waltham Forest. In 2014, Waltham Forest Council was given £27 million by TfL to introduce what were then called mini-Holland schemes across the borough to encourage walking and cycling. A 12-month review of the scheme in Walthamstow Village found a number of benefits. The other piece of research that is constantly referred to in support of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods was published in 2002. (As far as we know, no comprehensive overview has been produced since then.) Called ‘Disappearing traffic? The story so far’, it examined 70 case studies from eleven countries. One of the conclusions was that reducing space for cars on roads can cause overall traffic levels to reduce by 11%, possibly because people change their behaviour (switching to other modes of transport, making fewer journeys, etc). This has become known as ‘traffic evaporation’.

So will a Low Traffic Neighbourhood work in Dulwich? Possibly. Or possibly not.

1. The Waltham Forest Effect

If we go back to the mini-Holland scheme in Walthamstow Village, it’s not easy to draw direct comparisons with Dulwich.

a) Firstly, Southwark doesn’t have £27 million to spend on LTNs in the borough – the total Streetspace funding for Southwark (to pay for all the post-lockdown emergency measures, including Experimental Traffic Orders and LTNs) is £1.3 million, with Dulwich getting about £150,000. This low-budget approach means that there is unlikely to be money for cycleways, street lighting, attractive landscaping or even comprehensive monitoring of traffic and pollution.

b) Secondly, Walthamstow Village has an underground station, as well as mainline stations and a bus network, so its transport infrastructure is very different.

c) The 12-month review found that cycle trips went up 28% after the introduction of the mini-Holland scheme. This, however, was not based on monitoring or evidence but on the perceptions of 402 local households: 71 thought their cycling had increased a little, and 41 thought their cycling had increased a lot. Bus journey times increased slightly. Community groups also raised concerns about the increased level of traffic on four roads within the scheme. Outside the scheme, that is on three boundary roads, traffic went up, by 2.6%, 11.1% and 28.3%.

d) In 2019, there was a further academic review of the three boroughs awarded money by TfL for mini-Holland schemes. This found that people living with most exposure to mini-Hollands were likely to do an extra 32 minutes of walking and 9 minutes of cycling per week. But the study itself made clear that the sample group interviewed wasn’t ideal: the response rate was low, and it didn’t represent the demographics of either the mini-Holland areas or the control areas outside them.

e) Finally, with regard to Waltham Forest, it’s interesting to note that, six years after the scheme went in, there is still disagreement and controversy among residents. Waltham Forest Streets 4 All is a coalition of local groups who believe that closing roads has only increased congestion and pollution.

What works/doesn’t work in Waltham Forest increases our understanding of LTNs. But we can’t be sure that the results will be exactly the same in Dulwich. As the original 2002 study by Sally Cairns, Stephen Atkins and Phil Goodwin says (on page 14), “…every scheme to reallocate roadspace is different, and so the effects of any plan will be highly dependent on individual circumstances.”

2. Who benefits?

Key to all this is the central question of who benefits from a Low Traffic Neighbourhood.

The biggest criticism to emerge in recent weeks, as boroughs all over the country put in Experimental Traffic Orders, is that the advantages to those living on closed roads may come at a high price – that is, increased congestion and pollution for those living on the so-called boundary roads.

So if, for example, Southwark decided that the Dulwich LTN had the borders of the old Areas A, B and C from the recent OHSD (Our Healthy Streets Dulwich) consultation – too big an area, really, at 2.3 square kilometres – those living on roads like East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane and the South Circular could all see raised levels of traffic and pollution. (The closure of Dulwich Village junction in June showed a significant impact on all three of these roads.)

The general response to any concerns raised about LTNs and road closures is that we need to be patient – that road changes take a while to “bed in”. But is that a fair argument when we’re talking about pollution and children’s lungs? Even six months of increased exposure could have serious long-term effects. And will they “bed in” anyway, in relation to Dulwich’s individual circumstances?

If you’re on Twitter, you might want to have a look at tweets by @LIttleNinjaUK (or take a look at his website www.littleninja.co.uk), who campaigns to reduce children’s exposure to pollution. He believes that LTNs increase air pollution on boundary or residential main roads (“RMR”s) – often affecting low-income and BAME communities who are least responsible for vehicular traffic and most at risk – and that this is social injustice.

He says, “It’s not ok for people to experiment with other people’s lives and children’s lungs. Where it’s obvious that traffic will be increased on an already congested road, action must first take place to reduce traffic and public air pollution exposure on that road.”

Phil Goodwin, co-author of the original 2002 study, has been tweeting recently, too. He said on 4 August, “I support those who complain that sometimes schemes provide improvements for leafy areas where rich people live, but divert traffic on to ‘traffic roads’ where poorer people live, and this is not fair. Reallocation of capacity should be done in a way that supports the most needy.”

Next steps

The current and future road interventions across Dulwich are being put in place under Experimental Traffic Orders. This means that changes can be made, and the experiments started again, or that the experiments can be scrapped altogether.

If the Dulwich Low Traffic Neighbourhood doesn’t work – because it doesn’t reduce traffic or improve active travel or, even more importantly, because it benefits the affluent at the expense of less affluent communities – One Dulwich believes that Southwark Council must either modify the ETOs or be prepared to rip it up and start again.

+ And here comes Phase 2 (3 August 2020)

As predicted, the displacement of traffic caused by the closures of Dulwich Village junction and Melbourne Grove has resulted in huge traffic jams that often back up the entire length of Dulwich Village all the way to the South Circular. It has also massively increased traffic on main residential roads like East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane, Half Moon Lane and Village Way, while side roads off Dulwich Village and Court Lane have turned into rat runs, and many of the shops in Dulwich Village are badly impacted as a consequence.

We receive daily reports of the effects of the closures – people with breathing problems unable to go out, traders who can’t deliver goods or medicines, near misses caused by cyclists jumping red lights or cycling on pavements, cars doing dangerous three-point turns, and children playing in the middle of the road, having been given a false sense of security by the flowers painted on the tarmac.

In May we asked Village Ward Councillors for a meeting with them and a traffic engineer to discuss our pragmatic proposal for restrictions at peak hours instead of 24/7 closures. Finally, it looks as if a meeting may happen shortly.

[The meeting took place on 13 August. The Council officers are considering their response. When we hear back, we will let you know.]

Phase 2 update

In the meantime, we had hoped to hear by now what Southwark Council is planning for Phase 2 of the Experimental Highway Measures. However, it now turns out these are not going to be shared by Councillors with residents until the middle of August, making it very likely they will be introduced just as the schools come back at the beginning of September.

[Phase 2 proposals for the Melbourne Grove area and the Dulwich Village area have now been published on Southwark's website.]

A little more information about changes in Dulwich Village ward emerged at a meeting on 28 July between Councillor Margy Newens and representatives from local residents’ associations:

1) Changes to traffic lights

The long tailbacks from the traffic lights at the junction between Dulwich Village and Village Way/East Dulwich Grove are recognised as being unacceptable. Although One Dulwich has previously been told that lights can’t be changed as part of a trial, TfL have been asked to alter the traffic lights at this junction, so that cars wanting to turn right into East Dulwich Grove from Dulwich Village north will have a couple more seconds to do so. The Council hopes that TfL will do this before the schools return, when a full coach service for the independent schools will be in operation. At Dulwich Village junction, the lights have been rephased so that the green phase exiting the junction is dictated by the volume of traffic wishing to exit Turney Road into Dulwich Village.

2) Cameras, closures, permits

Having been told by our Councillors that cameras couldn’t be considered for Dulwich Village junction as they were too expensive, it seems they can be afforded elsewhere in Dulwich as part of the Phase 2 measures. Timed closures (again what we have proposed for Dulwich Village junction) are possible, as are further permeable closures (i.e. planters stopping motorised traffic), but it hasn’t yet been disclosed which roads will be affected. Closures will apply to everyone as residents’ permits aren’t being considered at this stage, although permits could be part of a permanent solution in future.

3) Bus gate on Dulwich Village?

On Dulwich Village itself there may be a virtual bus gate, with cameras allowing through only buses, emergency vehicles and private school coaches on a timed basis, possibly weekdays only.

4) Monitoring traffic . . .

On 19 June, Cllr Livingstone wrote to Southwark residents about the first round of interventions, saying: “These are all experimental measures – we will be required to conduct full public consultation before any of these are made permanent, and within eighteen months from installation. The measures are flexible as the experimental nature of the trial allows us to make amendments and changes within the first six months. An option will of course be to return the highway arrangements to the original state if the trial is not deemed to be successful. We will be monitoring the impact of these changes throughout that period, using counts of motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.”

However, it now turns out the Council only plans to monitor traffic on selected local roads on a quarterly basis. Click here to see the map of these roads. Roads were monitored with rubber strips throughout June. They will also be monitored throughout September and then in December. (Will the results be collated in time for the six-month review of the Experimental Traffic Order?) Some roads (for example, Woodwarde and Dovercourt) had their strips removed at the beginning of July. The strips on Calton Avenue were cut on 1 August. Cllr Newens said that she would be happy to receive feedback about additional roads that should be monitored.

5) . . . but not pollution . . .

It turns out the Council has no plans to monitor pollution levels, even though increased levels of traffic are producing more pollution past many local schools. In a newly published set of FAQs, the Council says this is because “it is not possible to solely filter out the traffic contribution to poor air quality”, and that, instead, they will be “using change to traffic levels as a proxy for the air pollution contribution by motor traffic”. This clearly is not acceptable when it is possible for slow-moving traffic jams to register lower volumes of vehicles passing through, while their idling engines produce up to twice the amount of pollution. We believe it is essential that something as crucial as understanding changes to air quality is evidence-based, and are pressing the Council to monitor actual levels of vehicle emissions, especially on the main residential roads on to which traffic has been displaced.

6) . . . or social impact.

We have heard that the Council has no plans to carry out an assessment of the impact of the ‘experimental’ traffic measures on people with vulnerabilities, such as mobility-poor and less able residents, and those with higher Covid-19 risk exposure, such as shielding residents and BAME communities. As these experiments are being introduced in response to the coronavirus pandemic, it seems odd not to be assessing whether it is helping to reduce the risk among these vulnerable groups. Apparently an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) was conducted prior to the closures, which concluded that, because everybody is still able to access their homes, the experiments do not discriminate against any disadvantaged or vulnerable people. There has been a request for this to be published, including details of who was interviewed.

When we find out more about what Phase 2 involves, we will let you know.

+ Can we expect more road closures? (4 July 2020)

From what we can gather, more road closures (using Experimental Traffic Orders, and citing Covid-19) can be expected this summer.

We have heard that Phase 2 is likely to involve one or more closures on Turney Road or Burbage Road, and that the measures will be cheap as possible – so expect more planters.

We also understand that there is money for a School Street outside Alleyn’s.

How much funding is there, and where does it come from?

We’re a bit confused about the funding, but this is what we’ve found out so far.

The Council’s June 2020 report on the Covid-19 Post lockdown highway schemes says that both the Dulwich Village and Melbourne Grove South closures were funded by ‘Dulwich Healthy Streets’, and came to a total of £45,000.

More information about funding came from a small piece that appeared in the South London Press on 25 June, saying that Dulwich Village is a low traffic neighbourhood or LTN (news to many of us) and has been granted money from TfL’s Streetspace funding pot. This was broken down as £23,000 for the first phase, and £110,000 for the second.

We don’t know how these figures tie up with the £45,000 mentioned in the June 2020 report.

We asked the South London Press if they had any more details, and they sent us a spreadsheet of all the London Streetspace funding to 18 June 2020 . This includes the figures of £23,000 and £110,000 for Dulwich Village, plus £3,450 for a School Street for Alleyn’s, and Low Traffic Neighbourhood funds of £5,000 for Melbourne Grove North, and £5,000 for Melbourne Grove South.

In the meantime, perhaps the more pressing question is: how exactly is this money going to be spent in Phase 2? As soon as we find out, we’ll let you know.

+ Open Letter to Southwark Council (23 June 2020)

Dear Councillors,

Although you have said to others that you agreed to consider our proposals and made provision for council officers to discuss them, you have in fact acknowledged to us that the officers were moved to other projects and that you no longer have time. So no technical discussion of our proposals for timed restrictions, or the principles that might apply (including, importantly, as to who may have access during timed closures etc), has ever taken place.

You say that you have unanswered questions about the One Dulwich proposal. Some of those have obviously fallen away due to the shrinking of the Council scheme, others are answered in our discussion paper of 28th May (on our website). But many of your questions can only sensibly be answered after we have that promised discussion with the Council officers who are traffic professionals, and with you.

Like all ideas for discussion, it’s an iterative process. The Council’s Phase 3 proposals themselves changed during the consultation period. To date, timed closures have been dismissed by you out of hand as impractical (or by some lobby groups as a matter of principle), yet they clearly exist and work well in other parts of London and in other parts of the country.

So let’s have that discussion.

The process and timing

For the benefit of others not party to the many exchanges between you and numerous residents, we’d like to set out a few important points that explain why we are pursuing our initiative now.

We consider that the Phase 2 consultation was flawed. You have mentioned that there were packed meetings, but many don’t recall those; and the fact is that a mere 217 responded online. Southwark’s own feedback report said any other paper and oral survey responses could not be safely relied upon. Only 122 approved of the permanent closure of Dulwich Village junction. Despite numerous requests, no information as to who the respondents were has been provided (we have offered help to establish the data).

The outcome of Phase 2 was referred to the traffic engineers who produced the holistic set of proposals – not ‘options’ - presented to the public for consultation as Phase 3. You have acknowledged that there was an advisory group, we understand without representation from local residents’ associations, but with actual or indirect representatives of lobby groups who support permanent closures (as you do yourselves – which you have been honest enough to say).

The very fact that over 2,000 responded to Phase 3 shows how deficient engagement was in Phase 2. And, of course, before the Council could finalise the plans, Phase 3 was supposed to have been followed by Phase 4 and Phase 5, including further engagement with the local community. That will not now happen. Yet the Phase 3 consultation is being taken as conclusive justification for the Covid measures. As you know, we have concerns about the data outcome from Phase 3, but you have agreed to provide more information.

Unlike well-established lobby groups, with thousands of members to corral into action, One Dulwich has had to get up to speed in a very short time. But our idea of timed restrictions has not come ‘out of the blue’, as has been suggested. Timed restrictions had been offered scheme-wide by the Council in Phase 2 (‘camera filters’ referred to in the feedback report), but by the time of Phase 3 were suggested for limited parts of the scheme only (with entry for permit holders), yet notably not for the Village junction.

Timed closures had also been proposed as preferred options by residents in both Area B and Area C in February and March, and had been referred to (and dismissed) at the third public consultation meeting at JAGS. In other words, One Dulwich summed up in our proposal of 27 March all the requests for area-wide timed restrictions that had been going on for months, but which had never been properly debated or discussed.

As you know, we share the Council’s overall aims. We know you do not question our motives, which are community-driven. We look forward to further discussion.

Regards

Trevor Moore

On behalf of One Dulwich

A copy of this letter can also be downloaded here.

+ 'Temporary' Closure of Dulwich Village junction to go ahead (19 June 2020)

Southwark Council has now approved the temporary closure of Dulwich Village junction, blocking entry/exit to Court Lane and Calton Avenue, under an “experimental traffic management order”. The order comes into effect on 25 June 2020 and will be in place for 18 months (i.e. until 29 December 2021).

In response to the concerns of local residents, the Council has stated that “because the proposal is experimental, there is no requirement for advanced consultation and there is no power of objection”.

Since plans for this experimental order became publicly known, residents from all over Dulwich have written to our ward councillors, Richard Leeming and Margy Newens, MP Helen Hayes, and the Southwark Council Cabinet member responsible for the decision, Richard Livingstone to say that we do not want this junction closed to traffic. Many of us said we would prefer to see timed restrictions for traffic, rather than complete closure, for which One Dulwich and others have been campaigning for months. Although the decision has been taken, One Dulwich believes it is vital to keep up the pressure and for as many people as possible to voice their objections. We will continue to campaign for timed restrictions as a more pragmatic and sensible solution.

One Dulwich now has hundreds of supporters, with people joining every day, including residents, shopkeepers and doctors. We have been flooded with emails showing just how much the Council’s decision and the “Our Healthy Streets Dulwich” process that led up to it, have bitterly divided the community. It has caused considerable distress to those residents and traders most affected by the junction closure, especially elderly, less able people whose lives are most challenged by Covid-19 and its isolating effects and who depend on cars for mobility, not just transport.

Our supporters believe that the Council’s decision has not been arrived at through proper consultation with residents or shopkeepers, and is based on inaccurate and misleading evidence.

Many suspect that it has been pushed through “with no power of objection” under the cover of Covid.

All of us at One Dulwich are committed to healthier streets for all. But we need to achieve this objective fairly, transparently and democratically.

+ Map of One Dulwich Support Base Now Available (15 June 2020)

The One Dulwich support base is spread across all the zones affected by the road closures which Dulwich Council intends to effect in and around Dulwich Village. You can see the wide extent of this support via the interactive map available on the "Supporters" page of this website.