Who influences Southwark Council about Dulwich road measures?
When it comes to talking to the Council about road measures in Dulwich, some people are more influential than others.
We can say this with a certain amount of confidence because One Dulwich, despite having more than 2,000 registered supporters, has been treated for months by councillors as an irritant rather than a stakeholder. (This is bewildering, as we have only ever asked for an opportunity to work with the Council to help shape a better and fairer solution.)
Other groups in Dulwich have had a better reception. The Dulwich Society, for example, was closely involved with the “Our Healthy Streets Dulwich” consultation from at least July 2019, as part of what the Society called a “stakeholder group and working party” – which included local councillors Cllr Margy Newens and Cllr Richard Leeming – that local residents didn’t know existed. (You can see references to this working party if you look under ‘Executive Committee Minutes’ on the Dulwich Society website.) This matters because the “Our Healthy Streets Dulwich” consultation was used by the Council as justification for the current Covid-19 Streetspace measures, which include the closure of Dulwich Village junction.
It isn’t, of course, the Dulwich Society’s fault that the Council prefers to consult with them rather than with local campaign groups like One Dulwich. But what this means in practice is that the Council tends to hear the views of only one set of people.
For example, some members of the Dulwich Society’s Transport and Environment Committee were not only part of the “Our Healthy Streets Dulwich” working party but have actively participated in other Council committees as campaigners. These Council committees include the Cycling Joint Steering Group (Southwark councillors and officers meeting with campaign groups that include Living Streets, Southwark Cyclists, and Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School) and the Walking Joint Steering Group (Southwark councillors and officers meeting with – yet again – campaign groups that include Living Streets, Southwark Cyclists, and Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School).
At the same time, the representative of the campaign group Living Streets who sits on these committees is also a co-opted member of Southwark’s Environment Scrutiny Commission, which calls the Council to account on environmental matters.
If the same people are not only advising on policy but also scrutinising its effectiveness, this might explain why Southwark has apparently bypassed so many key groups that should have had input into the design of the current road measures – those representing the elderly, for example, or carers, or key workers like nurses and midwives.
It would have been helpful if Southwark had listened to the views of air quality campaigners like Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, who has highlighted the devastating impact of air pollution on roads in south-east London.
It would also have been helpful if they had involved the charity Transport for All which campaigns to ensure that environmental initiatives do not negatively impact disabled people.
It would have been useful, too, if Southwark had invited views from representatives of business associations on local high streets in order to understand which changes benefit customers, and which changes push customers away.
At this stage of the Dulwich Review (please make sure you fill in the online survey – the deadline is 11 July), we can’t go back and change what Southwark has done.
But if you feel that the questions in the Review survey are biased, and don’t let you explain how and why the road measures aren’t working for everyone in the community, this might be the reason. Southwark has spent so long listening to one tiny set of people, it seems to have forgotten there are others with different needs and different points of view.