Parts of our neighbourhood suffer from too much through traffic. Our Streets for People survey in 2020, which had 401 responses, found that 82% of respondents thought that there was too much traffic in the area. When asked about trialling a Low Traffic Neighbourhood, 81% were either ‘supportive’ or ‘very supportive’ with 9% either ‘not very supportive or ‘not at all supportive’. In this context, we appreciate that Camden Council, with Islington, is exploring a scheme in our area.
Consultants Urban Movement did further engagement work for us in 2021 (report here), which included the creation of a Design Charter that any scheme would be expected to comply with. We have attempted to assess the current proposals against the Charter:
| Design Charter element | Assessment of summer 2024 proposals |
| THROUGH TRAFFIC: Remove the ease at which vehicles can rat-run through the area and limit through-traffic to create a quieter more peaceful neighbourhood. | PARTIAL: Opportunities for rat-running are removed from most streets in the area, but the street that suffers from most rat-running – Chetwynd Road – remains a through road in one direction. |
| AREA-WIDE SCHEME: Improvements should apply to every street. Traffic should not be displaced to other streets in the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood should be kept as one, any scheme should not ‘break it up’. | YES/PARTIAL: The proposal is for a very large LTN, including most streets in the DPNF area. However, not all of our streets are included an residents on some of the boundary or neighbouring streets, such as Highgate Road and Gordon House Road, are worried about increases in traffic. |
| BETTER WALKING: Priority for people walking in the neighbourhood should be introduced. Better crossings where required (particularly around schools), and wider footways where effective width is insufficient or inaccessible for buggies or people with mobility aids. No pavement parking. | YES: The proposal is strong in this regard. |
| INCREASED ROAD SAFETY: Slower speeds on all streets and better defined space for moving, parking, and walking. Make streets into child-friendly spaces. | YES/PARTIAL: Road safety should improve for those streets within the LTN that are already reasonably safe. Questions remain about streets with remaining through traffic. |
| INCREASED CYCLE SAFETY: Cycling in and around the neighbourhood should be safe and inviting for all age groups and abilities. Increase on street cycle parking and secure cycle storage. | YES/PARTIAL: Cycle safety should improve for those streets within the LTN that are already reasonably safe. Questions remain about streets with remaining through traffic. |
| FUTURE PROOF: Make it easier for people to use shared ownership vehicles and car clubs, incorporate EV Charging Points, and prepare for micro-mobility (dockless cycles, e-cycles, and e-scooters) safely. | YES: There is good potential to improve these measures. |
| FAIRNESS: Ensure safe accessibility to streets for all, especially those less able and those with children, buggies, or mobility aids. Ensure a fairness of approach that does not negatively impact people in the neighbourhood or just outside. Ensure fairness of access to parking/ storage for all modes. | NO/DON’T KNOW: Residents with mobility needs are worried about the extra driving distances that would result. People outside the neighbourhood are convinced that they will suffer from more traffic. Clearer projections about possible impacts are needed. |
| SCHOOL STREETS: Explore School Street measures for all schools in the neighbourhood to reduce traffic demand in peaks. | PARTIAL: There is good potential to improve these measures, although the largest schools in the area are on boundary roads. |
| LOCAL BUSINESS HUBS: Ensure access and servicing is maintained for businesses around York Rise, Chester Road, and Swain’s Lane, with short stay bays and loading, with improved crossings. Improve the public realm to increase local footfall, and make hubs into sociable community spaces. | YES/DON’T KNOW: The pedestrian environment for our local centres should improve and access will be maintained. However, local business fear loss of car-borne trade and we would like to understand the likely impact of them. |
| ACCESS TO HOMES: Maintain access to all residential properties by car. | YES: All properties will be accessible by car. |
| PROTECT ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES: Schemes should not negatively impact people reaching healthcare. | YES: It appears that full access for emergency services will be maintained, although some residents will have a longer drive to the Whittington or Royal Free hospitals. |
| AIR QUALITY: Any scheme should aim to reduce emissions and improve air quality, particularly around schools and areas with high pedestrian activity. | DON’T KNOW: Air quality can be expected to improve on many of our local streets. The largest local schools are on boundary roads, where we would like to better understand how air quality may change. |
| DATA: As part of the design process collect GPS origin + destination data to identify rat-running. | NO: It appears that this useful exercise has not happened. |
| TIMED RESTRICTIONS: Explore measures to further protect the neighbourhood from rat-running in the morning and evening peaks. | NO: It appears that this has not happened. |
| INCREASE TREES + PLANTING: Increase tree planting, habitat creation and biodiversity on streets. Include sustainable urban drainage and create pockets of green spaces to make walking and cycling more pleasurable. | YES: High potential for these interventions. |
We feel that we don’t know enough about the likely impacts on traffic flows and businesses inside and outside the LTN and the DPNF to either support or oppose the proposals at this stage.
We would also like to understand what alternatives exist to such a large LTN, which is causing concern to many in our area and adjacent areas.
We request further engagement on these matters before the project progresses to the next stage.
