Where do local candidates stand on the Dulwich LTNs?
We asked the candidates from all political parties standing in five Dulwich wards whether they are for or against the Dulwich LTNs, and why.
On 9 April, we wrote to all candidates – personally, where we had their email address (for example, all current Labour councillors standing again for election), or via the Southwark branch of each political party – as follows:
Dear [candidate]
We understand you have been selected to stand for the [xxxxx] party in [xxxxx] ward in the 5 May 2022 elections.
One Dulwich have promised to let their 2,100 supporters know the positions of each of the candidates on the Dulwich LTNs, which are a key election issue.
Would you very kindly let us know as soon as you can, and at the latest by Wednesday 13 April, whether you are for or against the LTNs, and briefly tell us (in a few sentences) why?
We extended the deadline to allow for late replies.
We were expecting replies from each candidate, because we thought those standing for election on 5 May 2022 would be keen to explain their position on this key issue to so many voters in their ward. (Please see the map here showing the boundaries of Champion Hill, Dulwich Hill, Dulwich Wood, Dulwich Village and Goose Green.)
But it seems that political parties prefer to answer on behalf of all candidates collectively. Local Conservative Party candidates did, however, include with their statement additional personal comments from those standing in Dulwich Village and Dulwich Wood wards, explaining why they were against the LTNs.
Because of the way the replies came in, we are showing responses under the headings of each party, rather than ward by ward. You can also look up the parties’ Southwark manifestos (in alphabetical order): Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal Democrats. (We can’t find any Southwark manifestos for the Green Party or the Women’s Equality Party.)
Broadly, the Conservatives, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats are all critical of Dulwich LTNs.
No response has been received – at all – by the Labour Party, even though local Labour councillors have been enthusiastic promoters and supporters of the Dulwich LTNs.
WHAT THE PARTIES REPLIED
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Champion Hill: Graham Davidson and Francis Truss
Dulwich Hill: Edith Okparaocha and Rupert Watson
Dulwich Village: Tristan Honeyborne and Clive Rates
Dulwich Wood: Lindsay Chathli and Peter Heaton-Jones
Goose Green: Qin Hong, Michael Poole-Wilson and Adam van den Broek
Statement from all candidates
‘We the undersigned are standing as candidates for the Conservative Party in the Southwark wards of Champion Hill, Dulwich Hill, Dulwich Village, Dulwich Wood and Goose Green wards.
Each of us agree with the position on the Dulwich LTNs which is as set out in Southwark Conservative’s manifesto, and which can be accessed by this Link. The relevant section is as follows:
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) have been introduced in Southwark with little or no consultation, and the results of consultations have been consistently ignored. With regards to LTNs, or any other interventions that close or restrict roads, we will:
remove those, including those in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill, that have significant adverse effects on vulnerable groups including children, the elderly, disabled and less mobile people;
resist future measures that:
displace traffic onto residents or schools;
create access issues for vulnerable residents, emergency services or carers;
damage local businesses; or
do not demonstrably reduce carbon emissions or tackle climate change
represent the interests of pedestrians, cyclists, bus and train users, the less mobile and local businesses in all transport related decisions;
rely only on independent, unbiased, clear data when considering road use and traffic management; and
give our full and unwavering support to the conclusion of Southwark’s Citizen Jury on Climate Change [namely that] “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) should only be implemented if extensive engagement with broader potentially impacted areas as well as the specific area is carried out thoroughly and shows support”’.
Tristan Honeyborne, Conservative candidate for Dulwich Village, says
'The conversations with local residents and businesses really bring it home. People who are now struggling to make hospital appointments and check-ups, or impacts on the disabled. Small shops with reduced footfall. And of course the fact that after more than 18 months, the junction is still causing difficulties for emergency services responding to call-outs. The scheme must be scrapped.'
Clive Rates, Conservative candidate for Dulwich Village, says
‘This LTN is bad for the environment, bad for bus users and bad for schoolchildren. My daughter's school is on one of the boundary roads suffering massive traffic increases. It makes no sense on any level, and needs to go. Once we are elected, we will be able to prove what we all know already – the scheme has failed, and we have been misled by our local councillors from beginning to end. We can then start doing what they should have done 4 years ago – improve public transport, electric charging infrastructure and bicycle storage.'
Lindsay Chathli, Conservative candidate for Dulwich Wood, says
'LTNs were brought in without any thought for those outside the zone. Neighbours of mine in Dulwich Wood and family members have been hit by congestion on Lordship Lane and the South Circular, extended journey times, missed appointments and fines they can't afford because of bad signage. It seems to be Labour's way or the highway.’
Peter Heaton-Jones, Conservative candidate for Dulwich Wood, says
'The LTN restrictions have a huge impact on families and businesses here in Dulwich Wood. Croxted Road and the South Circular are now often gridlocked, and drivers from our area who stray into an LTN zone face heavy fines for making an honest mistake. Of course cleaner air is vital, but Labour's experiment has clearly failed. It has to end.’
GREEN PARTY
Champion Hill: Michael Millar
Dulwich Hill: Myrtle Bruce-Mitford
Dulwich Village: Piers Holden and Christopher Langdon
Dulwich Wood: Guy Fairbairn and Vincent Matley
Goose Green: Philip Collins and David Jennings
Statement from the co-chair of the Southwark Green Party
‘Thank you for your email and the opportunity to give our view on Dulwich LTNs.
Southwark Green Party support important outcomes such as reduced air pollution and the creation of safer and more accessible streets, including and importantly by removing barriers for children, older and disabled people to walk, wheelchair or cycle.
However these outcomes are only achieved through a package of initiatives set within a comprehensive policy context. Therefore we would argue that LTNs should not be introduced without such a package to include mobility hubs, demand response especially for vulnerable groups and other incentives and improvements. Additionally the link between housing affordability, employment opportunity and sustainable local infrastructure needs to be examined to analyse root causes and seek to remove the need for high volumes of short car journeys.
Equally, if not more important, is the process by which any measures are introduced. LTNs have been introduced with poor levels of engagement, the sense of predetermined consultation and with limited phasing around implementation. Additionally the imposition of LTNs appears to offer little by the way of flexibility achieved by following a "monitor and manage" approach. There is also little clarity around how they will integrate with future mobility measures - this is to ensure that they can adapt to ongoing changes, to ensure groups are not disadvantaged and that a consensus can be reached.
The current measures were introduced and confirmed during the pandemic and therefore it is hard to understand how the decision reflects normal traffic patterns especially as many people appear to remain uncomfortable in using public transport for reasons of health. However we fully support the policy outcomes of reduced air pollution, more active transport and better local infrastructure but believe that there is a more effective, more engaged and more consultative approach to achieving those aims than has been demonstrated by this highly polarising debate.’
LABOUR PARTY
Champion Hill: Sarah King and Esme Hicks
Dulwich Hill: Maggie Browning and Jon Hartley
Dulwich Village: Richard Leeming and Margy Newens
Dulwich Wood: Catherine Rose and Andy Simmons
Goose Green: James McAsh, Portia Mwangangye and Charlie Smith
No replies at all.
Cllr McAsh wrote to us on 21 April saying that he thought we would receive something from the Southwark Labour Party shortly. We didn’t.
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PARTY
Champion Hill: Columba Blango and Jonathan Hunt
Dulwich Hill: Tara Copeland and Tom Rogers
Dulwich Village: Raghav Parkash and Richard Wingfield
Dulwich Wood: Aiken Furlong and Iain Johncock
Goose Green: Clare Donachie, Michael Green and Sophie Roach
Statement from Dulwich Village ward candidates on behalf of all Liberal Democrat candidates in these wards
‘Thank you for your email to the Southwark Liberal Democrats asking for further clarity on the stance our candidates in Champion Hill, Goose Green, Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Wood have with regards to the LTN measures in Dulwich. Our agreed position as the Southwark Liberal Democrats is held by all existing councillors and candidates and is set out on our website here.
In short, the Southwark Liberal Democrats do not support the current LTN measures in Dulwich. We do not believe that the process for their introduction, as well as the consultation with residents, was fair and meaningfully involved those affected. While some residents felt very engaged with the council, most people felt that these road closures and cameras were imposed on them using emergency legislation, without genuine consultation and engagement. While some roads have benefited by an improvement in air quality, we know that the reverse is true for a number of other roads in the area. We are concerned that the measures are not providing an overall benefit to the area and are instead leading to longer car journeys as people navigate the road restrictions, and pollution being moved from one part of the area to another, as seen through the unacceptable levels of congestion on Croxted Road and East Dulwich Grove, for example. As your councillors, we would fight to remove the current LTN measures in Dulwich and replace them with alternative, fairer and evidence-led ways of tackling congestion and pollution which would be co-created with residents and local businesses. We would want to see an independent third party conduct a fair and comprehensive consultation as to what those measures should be, which puts residents at the heart of decision making on this issue.’
WOMEN’S EQUALITY PARTY
Goose Green: Claire Empson
No reply at all.