Who closed Dulwich Village junction? Bias, misleading data and selective reporting.

On 21 March, after a Freedom of Information (FOI) request released the data, we shared the disconcerting news that Southwark’s claim of popular local support for closing Dulwich Village junction in early 2020 was not supported by the evidence. The results of Phase 2 (October and November 2019) were based on a tiny handful of responses, many from outside the Dulwich area, from Hammersmith to Islington to Croydon.  The very small group in Dulwich who supported the closure was tightly clustered round the junction itself – and cannot be said to represent local residents’ views. 

This is important because (in the confusing history of Dulwich road closures), Phase 2 apparently gave the green light to Phase 3 (spring 2020), which ended up as the closures we have now. The Council says that these past consultations somehow justify the current measures – not only the 24/7 closure of Dulwich Village junction, but also the excessive five-hours-a-day restrictions and the massive fines.

But the results of Phase 2 don’t support this picture at all. In fact, the more we looked into the data from Phase 2, the more uneasy we became. Only 1.3% of voters in Dulwich Village ward supported the 24/7 closure of Calton Avenue. The survey was so badly set up that people could select up to eight options, which not only inflated the figures but also led to contradictory answers – closing a road, for example, while making it one way and adding timed restrictions. 

Online responses from outside the area were favoured over paper responses from local workshops. Some results show evidence of manipulating the data to make it fit. In their published summary, for example, the Council referred only to those voting in favour, while leaving out those who preferred alternatives, or those who didn’t want any change at all – a bit like reporting only Yes votes in a referendum, but leaving out all those who voted No. 

You can read all about the poor process, misrepresentation of data, evidence of bias and selective reporting in the full report here.

Two key questions follow on from this:

• Has Southwark Council given the local community misleading information so far?

• Does Southwark Council have the necessary skills and resources to run a public consultation?

These issues matter, because Southwark is about to embark on yet another public consultation into road and traffic in the Dulwich area. The leader of the Council has promised us a fair and transparent process, which we have every right to expect.

One Dulwich is encouraging everyone to respond to the new consultation.

But we will challenge anything in the process or the final results that shows bias, misleading data, or selective reporting.