KEEP ISLINGTON MOVING
Say No to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)
Media
Increasingly, the public is becoming aware of the flawed nature of the LTN project through informed media coverage via the local and national press, video outlets and more. We've selected some of the best recent reportage here (in reverse order - most recent at bottom of page).
Islington Free News Media
Video of "Liveable Barnsbury Meeting", 15.11.22
This extraordinary video records the scenes outside Bridgeman Road Library in Barnsbury when a large group of people found they were unable to gain access to a meeting organised by the Council for residents to "have their say" about plans for a "Liveable Barnsbury" (despite little advance notice, the Council had booked too small a venue - the meeting was eventually cancelled). The footage is important in two respects: (1) it includes several face-to-face interviews with a wide range of ordinary but highly articulate residents explaining why they vehemently oppose the Council's LTN programme (aka "Liveable Neighbourhoods); (2) it illustrates the widespread frustration and anger of the local community at the Council's failure to consult with them on this issue in a fair and effective manner.
The Times
Editorial on Barriers to Movement, 25.10.22
Excellent Times leader which concludes: "What is now needed is for councils to listen to the complaints and rethink hastily imposed schemes".
The Times
Article on DfT data
Article on how revised Department for Transport (DfT) data undermines the key rationale for implementing LTNs in the first place and shows how LTNs have made congestion worse on boundary roads, 25.10.22
Islington Tribune
Letter from Rachel Bolt, KHM, 20.5.22
A big majority of Islington residents don't like LTNs
Islington Tribune
Letter from Rachel Bolt, KHM, 25.11.22
Islington LTNs don't reduce pollution
Twitter Thread
Includes ITN News at 6.00 Report 17.3.22
Highbury LTN increased pollution by 26%
Vision News
Extract from story published online 1.12.22 - click here for full article
Oxford Council have approved shocking plans to lock residents into one of six zones using sophisticated CCTV filtering. Is this the logical conclusion of Islington's LTN programme?
Islington Tribune
Letter from Paul Dale, Barnsbury, 9.12.22
There is no "traffic problem" in Barnsbury and no need for a "solution" - we're perfectly "liveable" as we are!
Letter to Islington Council
Letter from Barnsbury resident to Councillor Rowena Champion, 26.1.23
Here's a remarkably thoughtful and reasonable letter from a resident of Lonsdale Square in Barnsbury. I suspect the sentiments it articulates so well are typical of long-term Barnsbury residents who have no strong opposition to traffic management in principle, but who resent attempts by the Council to impose a politically motivated solution which threatens to be severely detrimental to their own way of life with no obvious benefits for the majority of their neighbours. We love living in Barnsbury and with regard to LTNs we wish the Council would just leave us alone!
Not surprisingly, the Council have so far failed to respond to the letter.
Sunday Telegraph
Article by Ewan Somerville, 12.2.23
Shops on Myddleton Road in Haringey are leaving in droves as a result of the Council's misguided LTN
Petition
Launched by Mark De-Laurey, Deadline 9 August 2023
What looks like a very sensible petition has been launched to "Carry out an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods". If you believe it is high time there was a proper cost-benefit analysis of LTNs then please do sign by visiting https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/632748. At 10,000 signatures the Government must respond; at 100,000 there must be a debate in parliament.
Letters to Islington Tribune
Two LTN-sceptic letters from KIM stalwarts published in the Tribune on the same day! The first, from one Nick Collin (!) deplores the "greenwashing" which the Council is now deploying in an underhand attempt to push through the Barnsbury LTN. The second, from Christopher McCann of Lonsdale Square was originally sent to Councillor Champion and posted here above. Receiving no reply, Christopher sent it to the Tribune instead and here it is!
Islington Free News Media
Video of "Liveable Barnsbury" Protest outside Islington Town Hall, 7.3.23
Another Anti-LTN protest, another sensational video from IFN Media who were once again on hand to record proceedings. The circumstances this time were a series of "workshops" organised by the Council to let residents "have their say" about the proposed "Liveable Barnsbury" initiative, aka "imposing another unwanted LTN on another Islington ward", in this case Barnsbury. At each workshop session, residents were invited to put stickers on a map of Barnsbury-Laycock to indicate where they wanted improvements - cue for a small minority to call for their own streets to be blocked off or filtered at the expense of their neighbours. Not very democratic. Worse, most of those trying to register for the workshops found they were already booked up, we suspect by the cycling/Pro-LTN lobby who had been given advance notice. You can hear what residents think of this as well as their views on LTNs generally in this excellent video - well worth watching in its entirety. There is even a cameo appearance by your own website manager, right at the beginning!
Times Article
Good article confirming what we've always suspected - the equipment used for measuring traffic volumes doesn't accurately record vehicles in congested conditions or travelling at less than 10 mph. In other words the denial by Islington Council that LTNs cause congestion on boundary roads was false, as we have always maintained based on the evidence of our own eyes. The same data was used by academic reports to present misleadingly low statistics on congestion.
Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail
Articles published 29.3.23 and 31.3.23 - "Pictured: 'Insane' new road layout that makes London borough 'look like Legoland' unhappy residents have claimed."
Stop Press: you can now see an excellent video by Michael Hudson of NTD on this Charlton Place "Wavy Road" fiasco: https://www.ntd.com/london-locals-strongly-against-low-traffic-neighbourhood-roadworks_910852.html Clearly, the Council's "consultation" process was a joke!
Stop Press 2: and the story has now reached ITV News: https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-04-11/businesses-blast-wavy-kerb-cycle-route-in-historic-street-as-trade-drops
As part of the St Mary’s ward LTN, Islington Council has redesigned Charlton Place, off Essex Road and adjoining the popular Camden Passage area, famous throughout London for its antiques. Traffic will be banned from using the street between 8.15am and 9.15am and 3pm and 3.45pm using surveillance cameras. Lorries weighing over 3.5 tonnes will also be banned. The wavy kerb is designed to make cars slow down, restrict parking, and create a "safer cycle route".
Traders in Camden Passage say the scheme is already stopping shoppers visiting their historic shops and the lack of parking means loading and unloading is now very difficult. Others say the scheme is not worth it and is already losing them money. An overwhelming 98% of businesses objected to the development when petitioned.
One trader, who has been selling his wares in the area since the 1970s, said: “It’s a load of nonsense. There’s something wrong with the people who designed it. Here is supposed to be a conservation area but they’re turning it into something out of Legoland or Alton Towers or something. They’re complete and utter idiots using traffic as an old excuse.”
Another business owner said: “I’m definitely against it. I think it’s a complete and utter waste of money. There’s not a problem with traffic around here, there’s been no increase in traffic. And this is limiting people coming and shopping in the area."
And there are complaints about consultation.
“The council said it wouldn’t affect my businesses, all I’ve had is a leaflet dropped off saying they are doing the works but that was two or three weeks before. There’s been little pre-warning. They said they went door to door, but that’s a complete lie.”
“It’s insane, it seems to be a vanity project. They’re not hearing our voices.”
Spectator Article
8.4.23 Mental Blocks - the Madness of Low Traffic Neighbourhood Measures - by Ysende Maxtone Graham. Note the "Three D's" of LTNs: Displacing traffic onto boundary roads; Dividing communities; Discriminating against the elderly and disabled. I'd add: Destroying the local economy by Driving out shops, small businesses and tradespeople.
Daily Mail Article
13.4.23 All over the UK, Councils are waging their "War on Cars" by reducing parking spaces with ugly bike hangars and so-called "parklets" and "rain gardens". In Islington, as part of a cynical "greenwashing" manouevre, this is being done in the name of "climate change" - see Islington Tribune article here. Bike Hangars have already been installed throughout the Borough, including in Barnsbury in advance of the LTN consultation process, much to the dismay of most residents apart from the small but absurdly influential cycling lobby. Attempts to engage with the Council have been met with the usual obfuscation and misinformation. Residents of Crossley Street have repeatedly asked the Council to justify its decision to install a bike hangar in a position which none of the immediate residents wanted. The Council have failed to provide even the most basic information such as how requests for hangars were evaluated or how the design and construction of the hangars is judged appropriate for this conservation area. Ironically, the main problem which residents face is the proliferation of hire bikes left on pavements, a problem which bike hangars does nothing to solve. On this too, the Council is silent.
Islington Council steps up the War on Cars
Hot on the heels of the revelation of the staggering amounts which Islington Council earns from LTN-related fines comes further evidence of the lucrative motivation behind its War on Cars. As the following two extracts illustrate, Islington Council not only leads the UK in terms of charging for parking but also earns more than any other borough from parking violations. It then has the nerve to propose that parking spaces should be reduced by replacing them with "parklets", "cycle hangars" and other anti-car measures as part of its "Liveable / Low Traffic Neighbourhoods" programme. And then pretends to justify this in the name of a "climate emergency". As such the Council appears to be simultaneously bigoted, discriminatory, profiteering, cynical and dishonest.
Could the tide be turning against LTNs?
21.5.23 Two really encouraging news items.
First, Transport Secretary Mark Harper has put a stop to government funding of LTNs, as reported in this Telegraph article, which is full of really sensible quotes:
Second, Dulwich Council have scrapped plans for an LTN following opposition from residents. If they can do it in Islington, we can do it here!
"South London council scraps planned LTN after huge outcry from residents"
Islington Tribune
26.5.23 Another cracking letter from Paul Dale. "Barnsbury isn't broken and it doesn't need fixing" - exactly so!
Spectator and Times
Two more excellent anti-LTN articles, from Andrew Ellson in The Times and Lionel Schriver in The Spectator.
Andrew Ellson's title says it all: "Why low traffic neighbourhoods are a policy disaster". Lionel Schriver's article "Let's rise up in our road rage", is more wide-ranging and targets ULEZ, 20mph speed limits, and "15 minute cities" in addition to LTNs. But they're both agreed that, as Shriver puts it, "We've entered an era of unaccountable bureaucratic imposition that's only going to get worse, especially as fines for violating all these new rules are nice little earners for municipalities". The good news is she thinks the British public has finally had enough. Let's hope she's right.
Letter sent to Tribune - "Islington LTNs are bad for business".
Here's a draft letter sent to the Tribune in June, responding to a letter from John Hartley asking me for evidence that LTNs are bad for business. Sadly it wasn't published, although there were several other excellent letters making essentially the same point. I'm including it here because it includes some important links to material which makes it clear that the Council is well aware that small businesses are overwhelmingly opposed to LTNs but has chosen to ignore them.
Letter to Tribune 24.6.23
Islington LTNs are bad for business.
John Hartley (Reducing Traffic is a Laudable Goal, Letters, June 23) asks Nick Collin (Community Vanished, Letters, June 16) for evidence that Islington’s LTN programme is bad for business. That’s easy! Just refer to Islington Council’s own report “Feedback from businesses on the Highbury people-friendly streets programme” published during the 2022 consultation on the Highbury LTN and available on the Council’s website (See Ref 1 below). Or watch the video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zljHMpbG6-I
The report acknowledges receipt of 287 formal objections to LTNs from local businesses in the form of a signed petition. The number of businesses in support appears to have been zero. To its credit, the Council describes the feedback in some detail. The following classes of objection were cited in 100% of responses: No Consultation or Due Notice; Loss of Custom; Poor Effect on Businesses; Less Passing Trade; Difficulties Receiving Deliveries; Difficulties Making Deliveries to People’s Homes; Long-term Impact on Business. But the Council appears to have ignored this feedback and the LTN went ahead.
To date, the Council has not consulted with businesses in Barnsbury to any meaningful extent. The flawed “Interactive Mapping” process is almost by definition unsuitable for capturing businesses’ objections, especially tradespeople. But based on our own research, business opposition to the Barnsbury.Laycock Liveable Neighbourhood is widespread.
The opposition of the business community to the Highbury LTN attracted a lot of media coverage at the time, including letters to The Tribune from La Fromagerie, Godfrey’s Butchers and C&H Pharmacy (See Refs 2,3,4, below) so John Hartley’s apparent unawareness of this issue is surprising, as is his claim that LTNs reduce traffic on boundary roads. His “evidence” in this case appears to be monitoring data cited by the Council which has now been thoroughly discredited. But anyone in doubt on this matter need only visit any of the main thoroughfares in Islington to observe the congestion caused by LTNs. Roads such as Holloway Rd, Balls Pond Rd, Blackstock Rd and Essex Rd are now routinely gridlocked, disrupting business activity throughout Islington and beyond.
Islington’s LTN programme is anti-car, anti-business and makes traffic much worse on main roads. It should be reversed in those wards such as Highbury where it was imposed under the cover of Covid, and should not under any circumstances be extended to Barnsbury.Laycock.
Nick Collin, www.keepislingtonmoving.com, Barnsbury N1
Gianna Cinalli, www.keephighburymoving.com, Highbury N5
David Corrigal, www.keepbarnsburymoving.com, Barnsbury N1
References:
2 https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/highbury-traders-low-traffic-scheme-does-not-deliver
3 https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/people-friendly-streets-putting-patients-at-risk
4 https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/weve-lost-out-with-ltns
Times Article on Buses
9.12.23 by Andrew Ellson
Increasingly, the evidence shows that journey times for buses are longer in LTNs, often dramatically so. This is partly because the LTN diverts traffic on to the main or "boundary" roads, causing congestion and delays, but also because dedicated cycle lanes mean there is less room for traffic generally and particularly for buses, especially when bus lanes are removed. So this policy clearly discriminates against the relatively disadvantaged population which uses buses and favours the relatively advantaged cycling population. More and more, it is looking as if the Active Travel Policy kicked off by Boris Johnson and eagerly adopted by mostly left wing councils is a fundamentally flawed approach to transport management.
8.1.24 Letter to Tribune re 2024 Budget - "A Modest Proposal"
The Council should scrap the planned road closures in Barnsbury.Laycock.
Councillor Diarmaid Ward complains in last week’s Tribune of being forced to make £10.8m savings in the Council’s budget proposals for 2024/25. Interestingly, the budget announcement includes £10m to be spent on five new “Liveable Neighbourhoods”, the largest of which, Barnsbury.Laycock, is due to have 15 new road closures with traffic camera filtering. I have a modest proposal. Scrap the misguided plans for Barnsbury.Laycock. Those of us living in the residential core of Barnsbury consider it perfectly liveable as it is, and the effect of the road closures will be to divert traffic on to our already congested main roads, increasing pollution and emissions. This will be unfair on the already relatively disadvantaged residents living on those roads and will penalise local businesses, outcomes directly at odds with the Council’s stated aim “to deliver a more equal Islington by … creating a greener and healthier Islington and a fairer local economy”.
Nick Collin
Keep Islington Moving
Barnsbury, N1
Times Leader on Traffic Restrictions
24.2.24
Excellent article in the Times on how LTNs and other traffic restrictions enforced through ANPR surveillance are restricting our civil liberties and allowing greedy local councils to rip us off with outrageous fines. Orwell would be turning in his grave!
22.3.24 Letter to Tribune in Response to Pro-LTN Campaigning by Cycle Lobby
Traffic Management is Complex - Time to Think Again
There has recently been a coordinated series of letters to The Islington Tribune from the cycling lobby in defence of the Council's LTN programme to date, supportive of the proposed new Liveable Neighbourhood plan for Barnsbury.Laycock. This excellent letter from Gillian Collin (!) perfectly encapsulates KIM's response.
12.4.24 Video of Traffic Congestion on Upper Street
This clip shows gridlocked northbound traffic on Upper Street. This is what happens when you have LTNs in St Mary's, Canonbury and Highbury, all the way up the east side of Upper St to the disastrous Highbury Corner. If, as threatened, the Council goes ahead with its proposals to install 15 new traffic cameras in Barnsbury.Laycock, for which Upper Street is the Easternmost boundary road, then the congestion will get even worse. The video was shot from the upper storey of a shopkeeper on Upper Street who, like most of his neighbours, is strongly opposed to LTNs.
30.8.24 & 6.9.24 Letters to Tribune on Pedestrianising Bottom of Liverpool Road
These letters to the Tribune from James Dunnett and Meg Howarth are interesting. Both propose "pedestrianisation" of the Southern end of Liverpool Road between Tolpuddle Street and Chapel market. This might well reduce traffic on Liverpool Road - a common complaint of residents living there - whilst still allowing fairly free north/south traversing of Barnsbury via Upper St, Essex Rd, Caledonian Rd and York Way. If the plan to install traffic filtering east and west of Liverpool Rd was also abandoned, this would reduce traffic even more. Rather than actually close of the stretch of road outside the Sainsbury and Waitrose supermarkets (which would probably be unacceptable since taxis routinely stop there to pick up shoppers) a "Shared Street" or "Woonerf" system could be put in place where cars, bikes and pedestrians all share the same stretch of road. Perhaps surprisingly, this usually works well and is increasingly implemented in countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland, and Canada as well as the UK. You can visit what appears to/ be a successful shared street outside the V&A in London.
11.10.24 Article in Tribune on the Mildmay "Liveable Neighbourhood"
In a press release, the Council have announced "final plans" for the Mildmay ward LTN, despite strong opposition orchestrated by KIM. Realistically, it seems unlikely that implementation of road closures can be halted in this ward but we are not giving up without a fight! Stalwart KIM supporter Bex Kelly is quoted at length in this Tribune article, succinctly making the case against LTN road closures and berating the Council for "paying homage to faux green activism from cycling lobby groups". Exactly so!
14.1.25 The Times. Groups opposed to LTNs join forces to lobby the transport minister
In an encouraging development, fifteen groups opposed to LTNs, including Keep Islington Moving, have written a joint letter to the new Transport Minister Heidi Alexander. We also co-signed a joint letter to the Times. This has led to an excellent article in the Times by Andrew Elson which is reproduced below in full, together with the published letter.
Groups opposed to LTNs have written to the transport secretary, Heidi Alexander, to demand that councils get communities’ approval before starting the schemes
Andrew Ellson
Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Tuesday January 14 2025, 12.01am, The Times
Local campaign groups opposed to low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) have joined forces for the first time to lobby the government for changes to the law.
In a letter to Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, 15 community organisations have urged Labour to introduce a “strict regulatory framework” for traffic management projects to ensure that councils cannot introduce any new schemes without community consent.
The letter, which is signed by groups representing tens of thousands of people, states: “The Department for Transport has always said that LTNs are a matter for local authorities and should be developed through engagement with local communities. However, our experience is that local authorities often impose LTNs without local community support — in many cases after public consultations showing that two thirds or more wanted them removed. This has eroded trust in local government.”
The campaigners want to meet Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary. The groups believes there is no robust evidence to demonstrate that LTNs improve public health. Instead, they say that residents who live, work, shop or go to school in areas with LTNs are affected by increased congestion. They believe that bus users also suffer, along with those who depend on cars because they have disabilities or are frail or elderly, as well as emergency services, community health workers and carers on home visits.
Advocates of LTNs say that the zones encourage walking and cycling, and are therefore good for public health and the planet. Cash-strapped councils are raising millions of pounds from fines enforcing the schemes, although the money can only be used on other transport projects.
Shortly after Labour was elected, the last transport secretary gave the green light to councils to implement more LTNs. Louise Haigh said that local authorities would have her “absolute support” to introduce new schemes across the country.
However, this appeared to contradict draft statutory guidance issued by the Department for Transport under the previous government requiring councils only to proceed with schemes if they had local support and met various standards of community consultation and implementation.
Haigh resigned in November after The Times revealed that she had a conviction for fraud, but her comments encouraged local groups opposed to LTNs to come together for the first time to start a national campaign.
The letter, which is signed by the Independent Oxford Alliance, Keep Islington Moving and the campaign group Social and Environmental Justice, among others, asks Alexander to meet them to “discuss a framework to stop local authorities disregarding statutory guidance and failing to meet their public sector equality duties”.
The group also has a letter published in The Times on Tuesday, which is signed by representatives of 12 of the groups. Three of the groups’ organisers said they did not want their names made public because of “bullying tactics” by pro-LTN campaigners. In one case, a group organiser said that an LTN advocate who was also a local councillor had complained to her public-sector employer about her campaigning, which resulted in an inquiry at her place of work.
Supporters of low-traffic neighbourhoods say they encourage walking and cycling . Richard Aldwinckle, of the One Dulwich campaign in south London, who is acting a spokesman for the group, said: “The problems LTNs have caused have created widespread division within communities and have destroyed trust in local government and local democracy.
“Councils seem to believe that if they ignore objections to their schemes for long enough, opposition will just melt away. But it’s impossible for local people to accept unjust traffic schemes that cause misery and ill-health to the most vulnerable people in our communities.
“We believe it is essential that public consultations are fair and independent, and that residents’ responses are acted upon. Keir Starmer said his government wants to restore trust in politics. Making it mandatory to carry out independent surveys of local residents and businesses when proposing LTNs, acting on their results and, if implemented, ensuring that the LTNs continue to have public support would be a good place to start.”
The Department for Transport said: “As is longstanding policy, local authorities are best placed to decide what traffic management schemes are appropriate, but they should always be developed through engagement with local communities. There are no plans to change this.”
23.3.25 The Daily Sceptic. Dartmouth Park LTN proposals withdrawn by Camden Council
Here's a really interesting article by Mike Wells of the Daily Sceptic describing how a concerted campaign mainly organised by the Highgate Society has led to plans for the Dartmouth Park LTN jointly proposed by Camden and Islington Councils has been put on hold. This is really encouraging for KIM and hopefully the same thing will happen here in Barnbury. The full text of the article is reproduced below (minus photos) or it can be currently accessed via: https://dailysceptic.org/2025/03/24/the-crash-of-londons-latest-ltn/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJPTmNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTtPa9HfxDjoiwtBwfrFFxs1jSQuXxUs32pkH2U5C3IVktkOMUHqwSnvTw_aem_Q8RZY2hnCUGP5qKcuqAC_A&embedded_webview=true
The Daily Sceptic
The Crash of London’s Latest LTN
by Mike Wells
The Labour-run London Borough of Camden (LBC) has been forced to scrap a hugely controversial Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme centred on Dartmouth Park on the eastern edge of Hampstead Heath – home to Ed Miliband, Benedict Cumberbatch and numerous other Labour luvvies. The plan had been to impose an 18-month ‘trial period’ with the least possible public consultation.
Attempting to put the best spin on it, LBC calls this a “pause”, but the scheme – a pet project of cycle-fanatic Cllr Adam Harrison, “Cabinet Member for Planning and a Sustainable Camden” and CBC’s Deputy Leader – was always unworkable. Uproar among locals, who discovered Camden’s brief ‘nonsultation’ was to be held during last summer’s holidays, was led by the Highgate Society which commissioned expert analysis of LBC’s dodgy metrics.
Locals packed protest meetings and deluged their council with complaints, not least about the scheme’s obvious potential for raising money by fines. With vehicle access from the north, east and south denied to thousands of homes in the LTN, voters demanded to know how ambulances, deliveries and visitors could reach them, or how anyone less than 100% fit would be able to get the shopping home?
Among many issues they highlighted were inevitable gridlock on Highgate Road, Highgate West Hill and other bus routes on the proposed LTN’s boundary, and increased air pollution on children’s walking routes to the area’s schools – ironically the same good schools which attract so many upwardly-mobile Labour supporters to leafy Dartmouth Park’s expensive homes.
Having wasted vast amounts of TfL’s money on consultants while plotting Dartmouth Park’s LTN in secret, Camden’s Labour regime has been handed an expensive lesson in not annoying one’s diehard voters. Its problems include a private company called Commonplace, and an unusually articulate local population.
Commonplace Digital Ltd is a privately-owned “citizen engagement platform” which claims to “inspire thriving places, powered by data and collaboration”. On its touchy-feely website rows of smiley, young and casually-dressed “customer success managers” and “business development managers” promote the platform.
What Commonplace actually does is to sell machine-readable online surveys to councils and developers – relieving them of the trudge of asking local people what they think and reading the responses properly, while still getting the result they first wanted via an ostensibly democratic process.
The snag, as we in Bedfordshire know to our cost, is in the questions asked and the boxes you’re allowed to tick. Our council’s Commonplace survey on local cycling and walking issues produced 826 responses, of which over 100 tried to explain – only possible in the “other comments” box – that by far our worst problem is how to get across the A1 safely into Biggleswade without using a car: a walk/cycle underpass is needed, obviously.
But in its published LCWIP plan, based on this “engagement”, Central Beds Council felt able to ignore the lethal risks run by locals trotting or wheeling their children across the A1 carriageways, because the online Commonplace survey had asked no machine-readable question about it. The metrics didn’t prove a need, which happily allowed CBC and National Highways to carry on ignoring the danger.
People are increasingly suspicious of the skewed questions asked in Commonplace surveys, and in the case of Camden’s proposed Dartmouth Park LTN, many refused to participate. Instead 773 locals emailed their council direct, as well as emailing individual councillors. Here in Beds our ward councillor just leafleted over 800 locals about our Biggleswade problem, asking what they need to get onto town safely, and the scores of replies were a revelation.
Ask people what they really think, without leading questions or tick-boxes, and what you get is ‘quote gold’. Many said roughly what was anticipated, though in their own inimitable words; others made important points that hadn’t even occurred to campaigners. Analysing genuine replies like these – as opposed to machine-readable surveys – takes time and thought, and Camden is now having to go back to the drawing board and read its hundreds of non-Commonplace responses, acutely aware that having wound up the Highgate Society and Dartmouth Park’s vigilant locals, its cunningly-worded online “consultation” cannot alone justify imposing a disastrous LTN.