Dulwich campaign group slams council with claims of a ‘biased and misleading’ consultation on LTNs

A Dulwich campaign group has slammed the council over a consultation on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) that they have claimed was “biased and misleading”.

Southwark Council has denied the claims made by the Dulwich Alliance that the council misled residents about the amount of support for a main road closure over two year’s ago.

A report called ‘Who closed Dulwich Village junction?’, published on the Alliance’s website on May 10, highlighted the groups complaints with a survey used in a public consultation led by the council in 2019.

In the report, the Dulwich Alliance claimed that only 1.3 per cent of voters in the Dulwich Village ward supported its closure and “of the handful who did, many lived on or very close to the junction itself, so are not representative of the community as a whole”.

There are currently closures at Burbage Road, Calton Avenue, Turney Road and Townley Road.

A Dulwich Alliance spokesman said: “It’s a bit like reporting only yes votes in a referendum and leaving out all those who voted no, even though there were more people who voted no than voted yes.

“This matters because the way the council interpreted the results of this survey and selectively reported its results will have influenced the consultation we had last year, which the council has argued shows there is popular support for the current road closures and traffic restrictions.

“It also matters because Southwark is about to embark on another consultation into road and traffic in the Dulwich area and this makes us nervous about whether they have the necessary skills to run an impartial and unbiased process and how accurately and honestly the results will be presented.

“We suggested to Council leader Kieron Williams in March that the consultation should be handled by an independent and professionally qualified public consultation organisation, to provide residents with confidence in the review process and results, but the council turned this down.

“Instead he has promised a fair and transparent consultation, which we encourage everyone in Dulwich to take part in, but we stand ready to challenge it if the full data is not published or if there are any signs that questions are biased or the results are selectively reported.”

Last month, some residents staged a protest on the Bank Holiday Monday to coincide with a meeting held by Village Ward Councillors Margy Newens and Richard Leeming.

A spokesman for the Dulwich Alliance said: “We were able to put our point across that 24/7 closures stop emergency vehicles getting through, discriminate against elderly, vulnerable and mobility-impaired residents, and push traffic and pollution on to residents and schools in neighbouring streets.

“We want a solution that balances the needs of the whole community, both young and old, and which doesn’t empty some streets of traffic by increasing congestion on others.”

The demonstration was limited in size due to Covid-19 restrictions on public gatherings and social distancing, but one of the protesters said it was “a taste of what the council can expect once its consultation starts this month.”

Southwark Council have denied these claims and said that any suggestion that they have misled residents is “unfair”.

Cllr Catherine Rose, Cabinet Member for transport, parks and sport, said: “The Dulwich Alliance has chosen to present selected information from Phase Two of Our Healthy Streets Dulwich consultation process from 2019.

“We recently published the full responses to Phase Three of that engagement process, which showed responses from over 2,000 local residents on specific proposals at the end of that consultation process.

“It was one of the largest consultation exercises the council had ever conducted for area specific traffic schemes, pre-pandemic.

“But neither of these reports deal with the current Dulwich Area Streetscape Trials. Which is why we are undertaking the current Dulwich Area Review and consultation exercise, which seeks the experiences and feedback from the whole community on these measures.

“I would encourage everyone that received one of 19,000 newsletters in the wider Dulwich area to respond and make sure their voice is heard.

“Everyone has a right to disagree, but I think it is unfair to suggest that a local authority, with statutory duties and clear accountability, conducts consultations that are not transparent, open and professionally run.

“We do our utmost to make sure consultations allow people from all parts of the borough, and sometime beyond, to get involved in council decision making where it affects them, and the responses will feed into any final decision.

“Sometimes we have to make difficult decisions concerning road safety, air quality and traffic management, for the benefit of the wider community, not the sole preferences of any one group.

“We value opinions from a wide variety of groups and we work hard to reach into all sections of the community affected, including a potentially significant number of people who travel into the borough for work and business, also supportive professions such as carers, NHS staff, teachers etc.

“Sadly, at the moment this is being made more difficult by the actions of a tiny minority.

“I would ask everyone on all sides of the debate to engage constructively in the review process.

“Dulwich has always shown itself to be a community that, despite strongly held differences of opinion, is capable of generous support to its neighbours and each other.

“The issue of traffic, road safety, healthier streets and climate change is one we all have to respond to.

“I would encourage everyone who has an interest in this to come forward and take part in our consultation.”