The letter below should be sent to the Chief Executive, and can be copied to local councillors, TfL, the London Mayor and Government ministers
Ms Debbie Warren
The Chief Executive
Royal Borough of Greenwich
Woolwich Town Hall,
Wellington Street,
Woolwich SE18 6PW
[email protected]
Dear Ms Warren,
Re: The West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme (introduced on 20 August 2020)
I am writing to make a formal complaint about the introduction, information provided, and management by the Royal Borough of Greenwich of the traffic management scheme for part of West Greenwich (the Scheme).
Scheme prevents, impedes and displaces vehicles, most of which have legitimate reasons for entering or leaving the area. This contravenes the Road Traffic Regulation Act, by denying free movement on the streets.
1. The Low Traffic Neighbourhood policy and guidance has not been followed
The area was the subject of ill-defined plans to block access between the A2 and A206 during peak hours due to complaints by some residents since 2018. However, your Authority and local Councillors frequently refer to it as a ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhood’ or LTN. The Scheme is not an LTN for the following reasons.
Applicable guidance provides for:
Using local knowledge about the suitability of surrounding ‘major’ roads for traffic displacement. Displaced traffic should not increase congestion and pollution. The A2 and A206 do not have the capacity to carry the expected displaced traffic.
Community involvement in the proposals at a formative stage. No such involvement took place and when two options were decided on by the Council designed to block access between the A2 and A206, an online survey in November 2019 found that a majority of residents opposed both.
Access to the LTN for all local residents: The scheme introduced on 20 August truncates the area along a line on the south side of Royal Hill (and Blissett St). This means that more than half of the area is not part of the LTN and no residents have access to the entire area.
LTNs are supposed to restrict traffic movement via speed limits, including narrowed entries. There are no speed restrictions either in the LTN portion or the non-LTN portion of the area. Even where a 20mph limit exists, there has been no enforcement. This is dangerous. The roads are not safer for being in the area.
LTNs are intended to provide opportunities to walk and cycle by improving previously traffic-dominated environments: Greenwich Park borders the traffic area on Crooms Hill. Parallel routes for walking and cycling already existed on the doorstep of residents on Crooms Hill, King George St, Hyde Vale, Gloucester Circus and beyond. At the same time no such opportunities have been afforded to people living on Dabin Crescent and Blackheath Hill, where the traffic environment has been made worse by the scheme.
Separately, or taken together with other elements of guidance, your authority’s LTN policy was irrational and disproportionate. It was also unfair, displacing traffic from streets with that already enjoyed a good environment and comparatively low traffic, to other residential roads that were already congested, noisy and excessively polluted.
2. Legitimate expectations of residents
The West Greenwich scheme became part of the London Streetspace scheme in or around June 2020. TfL’s Streetspace was designed for local authorities to take advantage of the government’s emergency travel fund. Streetspace embodied features of LTNs but was also defined as a response to the pandemic. No consultation was provided for.
The West Greenwich scheme was deemed part of RBG’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including Streetspace, as a result of an executive decision by your Authority dated 29 July 2020. Documents appended to the decision said, in summary, that with the reduction in seating on public transport due to the pandemic, the scheme would ‘provide’ for other modes of transport designed to reduce the use of cars. The only alternative modes proposed were ‘walking and cycling’. No provision was made for people with disabilities.
The Scheme was announced to residents by a letter dated 12 August 2020. The scheme was composed entirely of modal filters, thus preventing access through the area for residents, visitors and emergency services. It displaced all local traffic to Royal Hill and surrounding streets, the A2 and A206. The letter contained untrue and misleading information, specifically:
It said the Scheme was necessitated by an expected ‘40-50% increase in car usage compared with pre-COVID levels’. Your Authority already knew by that time that no such increase had or would occur. During the first lockdown (March-April 2020), all London traffic decreased by 60% compared with 2019 levels. Traffic flows increased after the lockdown by a small percentage, so that by October 2020, ‘traffic (all types) on main strategic routes throughout Greater London was 91% of normal demand’ and in inner London were '92% of normal demand’ (see paragraphs 29-31 of the Judge’s Decision in R (United Trade Action Group Limited, Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Limited) v Transport for London, May of London, 20 January 2021 or ‘Taxi Drivers’ case).
The letter stated the scheme should bring about an immediate change in mode of travel from driving, to walking and cycling. Residents in West Greenwich already have among the highest rates of active travel in the borough. The LIP ‘walking potential’ map demonstrates that the area has the least potential in the Borough for ‘switching’ mode of transport (LIP Figure 2.4, p 26). Even if cycling journeys were doubled, it would only account for just 3% of all road use. Cyclists have a good serviceable route through Greenwich Park and no need of parallel roads in the area. No account was taken of the dangers and challenges of the area’s steep gradients, and no measures were introduced to improve safety for cyclists at ‘severance’ points and internally.
The 12 August letter falsely suggested that the Metropolitan Police approved of the scheme when this was not the case. The London Ambulance Service and Fire Brigade also objected to modal filters. In an email to your Authority on 8 July the South East London Ambulance Service (LAS) said that modal filters posed cogent risks to life and safety in responding to emergency calls, that MFs were not acceptable to the service and that the many similar schemes being implemented were ‘overlapping and impacting’ each other. The LAS also made it clear to your Authority that the needs of people for home-based care and medical treatment, including carriage to hospital for dialysis and chemotherapy, not only by the LAS but also by community-based medical services and carers would be compromised by the Scheme. Why did you ignore the response of all three emergency services and conceal both this and the responses from local residents?
The 12 August letter referred to an online survey and suggested 'key feedback' included rejection of ANPR cameras, and that the road closures should be placed as far north as possible (permitting free access to the A2 for the traffic controlled or LTN part of the area). In fact a clear majority of residents rejected both road-blocking options put to the community in 2019 (both reliant on modal filters). Only 5 responses requested opening A2 access to the 'Hills' area, and 26 objected to ANPR, out of 855 responses. Much greater numbers of comments recorded on the survey told your Authority that the scheme would increase traffic via displacement. The actual results of 'feedback' were not made available until the letter was received by residents.
3. Administrative obfuscation
The 12 August letter did not set out the statutory powers under which the Scheme would be made. It was introduced under the emergency travel fund legislation (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s14(1)). No pandemic protections were included in your scheme, even though this was the purpose of that legislation. Royal Hill, a local shopping street, and home to James Wolfe Primary School, was excluded from the traffic-controlled area, along with all roads to the north and west. No measures were introduced to permit social distancing on Royal Hill around local shops or the school. The scheme did not respond to the pandemic ‘emergency’ in the area.
Within 10 days, your Authority changed this order to an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) making the same changes. This means that the original s14(1) order was a sham. ETOs have a different effect from temporary orders. Despite requests, the Reasons for the Order and a subsequent modifying Order on 11 November, were withheld for a significant period from those requesting them despite your statutory duty to make them public. (The Greenwich (Prescribed Routes) (No. 204) Experimental Traffic Order 2020 and The Greenwich (Prescribed Routes) (No. 205) Experimental Traffic Order 2020.)
The 12 August 2020 letter and accompanying Order created a legitimate expectation on the part of residents that:
The statements therein were true.
The scheme was temporary and would come to an end after the pandemic emergency.
The scheme improved safety.
The Royal Borough of Greenwich would comply with its statutory duty to uphold the Equalities Act.
The scheme was not an ‘experiment’ in that your Authority knew already that 40-50 per cent increase in traffic had not and would not materialise. No realistic capacity for additional walking and cycling existed or could possibly substitute for existing local traffic needs.
There was no capacity for additional traffic on Blackheath Hill, where many residents live, to reduce traffic or provide safe pandemic protections. Monitoring of an 'experiment' during the unusual conditions of a pandemic with the intention of making a Permanent Order was unreasonable and impractical.
A sudden and temporary influx of ‘pandemic traffic’ should surely, in logic, not have led to the closing of traffic space. The scheme was therefore a disproportionate and inappropriate response to any anticipated problem.
Further requests under the Freedom of Information Act have received the response that administrative consideration, review or changes have been considered in ‘unminuted’ meetings.
4. People with disabilities
The Scheme has not been lawfully assessed within the meaning of the Equalities Act public sector duty.
Although the LAS and others have pointed out to your Authority that people with disabilities are likely to be harmed by the scheme, the Equalities Assessment available via an internet link, Local Implementation Plan 3 Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) Royal Borough of Greenwich Document Reference: 1000005074 Date: November 2018, assumes that disabled people are ambulant and simply require help with street layout and access to public transport. The assessment states ‘people with disabilities may be more dependent on private motor cars for their transport needs’ and would only be negatively impacted by limiting or reducing car provision ‘without improvements to public transport.’ The Scheme does not improve public transport. Additional displaced traffic on the A206 and A2 is impeding the operation of the following bus routes: 386, 53, 188, 129, 108 177 180 286.
The detailed explanation in the EqIA acknowledges the need ‘to ensure disabled people have access to facilities such as hospitals and GP surgeries’, that ‘taxi ranks should be located close to public transport links and shopping and leisure facilities’. But people with disabilities also require vehicular access to their homes, particularly during the pandemic if shielding or during lockdown. The EqIA assumes that wheelchair users 'wheel' when the majority need door to door transportation for longer journeys.
There is no reference in the EqIA to the role of visiting carers, help from family and friends, GP visits, ambulance transportation and the like. All of the facilities mentioned above are compromised by the deliberate traffic displacement, re-routing and delay caused by the scheme and are likely to cause detriment and harm.
There is also no reference to the needs of people with disabilities or chronic illnesses likely to be exacerbated by pollution resulting from traffic displacement and congestion.
5. Net accessibility and communications
Your authority has kept public information about the scheme to a minimum. It has relied almost exclusively upon internet accessibility to inadequate information on your web site. This also means that some older people and others who are less likely to be able to access information online have been completely excluded from any information or consultation process.
No portal has been provided for formal objections to the ETOs. ‘Streetspace’ online feedback limits criticism of the scheme to a single short ‘general’ comment.
Conclusion
The scheme did not meet the legitimate expectations raised by the letter to residents on 12 August 2020 (or prior engagement on a scheme to reduce peak hours traffic). I have detailed above the level of obfuscation, misleading and tendentious material your Authority has produced in connection with the Scheme. Your Authority:
The Scheme was an irrational, disproportionate and inappropriate response to the pandemic or whatever traffic problems might be perceived to exist. The actions of your Authority demonstrate an unacceptable lack of transparency, and lack of respect for evidence-based, lawful and compliant behaviour.
Yours sincerely,
[Insert name]
[Insert address]
The Chief Executive
Royal Borough of Greenwich
Woolwich Town Hall,
Wellington Street,
Woolwich SE18 6PW
[email protected]
Dear Ms Warren,
Re: The West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme (introduced on 20 August 2020)
I am writing to make a formal complaint about the introduction, information provided, and management by the Royal Borough of Greenwich of the traffic management scheme for part of West Greenwich (the Scheme).
Scheme prevents, impedes and displaces vehicles, most of which have legitimate reasons for entering or leaving the area. This contravenes the Road Traffic Regulation Act, by denying free movement on the streets.
1. The Low Traffic Neighbourhood policy and guidance has not been followed
The area was the subject of ill-defined plans to block access between the A2 and A206 during peak hours due to complaints by some residents since 2018. However, your Authority and local Councillors frequently refer to it as a ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhood’ or LTN. The Scheme is not an LTN for the following reasons.
Applicable guidance provides for:
Using local knowledge about the suitability of surrounding ‘major’ roads for traffic displacement. Displaced traffic should not increase congestion and pollution. The A2 and A206 do not have the capacity to carry the expected displaced traffic.
Community involvement in the proposals at a formative stage. No such involvement took place and when two options were decided on by the Council designed to block access between the A2 and A206, an online survey in November 2019 found that a majority of residents opposed both.
Access to the LTN for all local residents: The scheme introduced on 20 August truncates the area along a line on the south side of Royal Hill (and Blissett St). This means that more than half of the area is not part of the LTN and no residents have access to the entire area.
LTNs are supposed to restrict traffic movement via speed limits, including narrowed entries. There are no speed restrictions either in the LTN portion or the non-LTN portion of the area. Even where a 20mph limit exists, there has been no enforcement. This is dangerous. The roads are not safer for being in the area.
LTNs are intended to provide opportunities to walk and cycle by improving previously traffic-dominated environments: Greenwich Park borders the traffic area on Crooms Hill. Parallel routes for walking and cycling already existed on the doorstep of residents on Crooms Hill, King George St, Hyde Vale, Gloucester Circus and beyond. At the same time no such opportunities have been afforded to people living on Dabin Crescent and Blackheath Hill, where the traffic environment has been made worse by the scheme.
Separately, or taken together with other elements of guidance, your authority’s LTN policy was irrational and disproportionate. It was also unfair, displacing traffic from streets with that already enjoyed a good environment and comparatively low traffic, to other residential roads that were already congested, noisy and excessively polluted.
2. Legitimate expectations of residents
The West Greenwich scheme became part of the London Streetspace scheme in or around June 2020. TfL’s Streetspace was designed for local authorities to take advantage of the government’s emergency travel fund. Streetspace embodied features of LTNs but was also defined as a response to the pandemic. No consultation was provided for.
The West Greenwich scheme was deemed part of RBG’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including Streetspace, as a result of an executive decision by your Authority dated 29 July 2020. Documents appended to the decision said, in summary, that with the reduction in seating on public transport due to the pandemic, the scheme would ‘provide’ for other modes of transport designed to reduce the use of cars. The only alternative modes proposed were ‘walking and cycling’. No provision was made for people with disabilities.
The Scheme was announced to residents by a letter dated 12 August 2020. The scheme was composed entirely of modal filters, thus preventing access through the area for residents, visitors and emergency services. It displaced all local traffic to Royal Hill and surrounding streets, the A2 and A206. The letter contained untrue and misleading information, specifically:
It said the Scheme was necessitated by an expected ‘40-50% increase in car usage compared with pre-COVID levels’. Your Authority already knew by that time that no such increase had or would occur. During the first lockdown (March-April 2020), all London traffic decreased by 60% compared with 2019 levels. Traffic flows increased after the lockdown by a small percentage, so that by October 2020, ‘traffic (all types) on main strategic routes throughout Greater London was 91% of normal demand’ and in inner London were '92% of normal demand’ (see paragraphs 29-31 of the Judge’s Decision in R (United Trade Action Group Limited, Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Limited) v Transport for London, May of London, 20 January 2021 or ‘Taxi Drivers’ case).
The letter stated the scheme should bring about an immediate change in mode of travel from driving, to walking and cycling. Residents in West Greenwich already have among the highest rates of active travel in the borough. The LIP ‘walking potential’ map demonstrates that the area has the least potential in the Borough for ‘switching’ mode of transport (LIP Figure 2.4, p 26). Even if cycling journeys were doubled, it would only account for just 3% of all road use. Cyclists have a good serviceable route through Greenwich Park and no need of parallel roads in the area. No account was taken of the dangers and challenges of the area’s steep gradients, and no measures were introduced to improve safety for cyclists at ‘severance’ points and internally.
The 12 August letter falsely suggested that the Metropolitan Police approved of the scheme when this was not the case. The London Ambulance Service and Fire Brigade also objected to modal filters. In an email to your Authority on 8 July the South East London Ambulance Service (LAS) said that modal filters posed cogent risks to life and safety in responding to emergency calls, that MFs were not acceptable to the service and that the many similar schemes being implemented were ‘overlapping and impacting’ each other. The LAS also made it clear to your Authority that the needs of people for home-based care and medical treatment, including carriage to hospital for dialysis and chemotherapy, not only by the LAS but also by community-based medical services and carers would be compromised by the Scheme. Why did you ignore the response of all three emergency services and conceal both this and the responses from local residents?
The 12 August letter referred to an online survey and suggested 'key feedback' included rejection of ANPR cameras, and that the road closures should be placed as far north as possible (permitting free access to the A2 for the traffic controlled or LTN part of the area). In fact a clear majority of residents rejected both road-blocking options put to the community in 2019 (both reliant on modal filters). Only 5 responses requested opening A2 access to the 'Hills' area, and 26 objected to ANPR, out of 855 responses. Much greater numbers of comments recorded on the survey told your Authority that the scheme would increase traffic via displacement. The actual results of 'feedback' were not made available until the letter was received by residents.
3. Administrative obfuscation
The 12 August letter did not set out the statutory powers under which the Scheme would be made. It was introduced under the emergency travel fund legislation (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s14(1)). No pandemic protections were included in your scheme, even though this was the purpose of that legislation. Royal Hill, a local shopping street, and home to James Wolfe Primary School, was excluded from the traffic-controlled area, along with all roads to the north and west. No measures were introduced to permit social distancing on Royal Hill around local shops or the school. The scheme did not respond to the pandemic ‘emergency’ in the area.
Within 10 days, your Authority changed this order to an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) making the same changes. This means that the original s14(1) order was a sham. ETOs have a different effect from temporary orders. Despite requests, the Reasons for the Order and a subsequent modifying Order on 11 November, were withheld for a significant period from those requesting them despite your statutory duty to make them public. (The Greenwich (Prescribed Routes) (No. 204) Experimental Traffic Order 2020 and The Greenwich (Prescribed Routes) (No. 205) Experimental Traffic Order 2020.)
The 12 August 2020 letter and accompanying Order created a legitimate expectation on the part of residents that:
The statements therein were true.
The scheme was temporary and would come to an end after the pandemic emergency.
The scheme improved safety.
The Royal Borough of Greenwich would comply with its statutory duty to uphold the Equalities Act.
The scheme was not an ‘experiment’ in that your Authority knew already that 40-50 per cent increase in traffic had not and would not materialise. No realistic capacity for additional walking and cycling existed or could possibly substitute for existing local traffic needs.
There was no capacity for additional traffic on Blackheath Hill, where many residents live, to reduce traffic or provide safe pandemic protections. Monitoring of an 'experiment' during the unusual conditions of a pandemic with the intention of making a Permanent Order was unreasonable and impractical.
A sudden and temporary influx of ‘pandemic traffic’ should surely, in logic, not have led to the closing of traffic space. The scheme was therefore a disproportionate and inappropriate response to any anticipated problem.
Further requests under the Freedom of Information Act have received the response that administrative consideration, review or changes have been considered in ‘unminuted’ meetings.
4. People with disabilities
The Scheme has not been lawfully assessed within the meaning of the Equalities Act public sector duty.
Although the LAS and others have pointed out to your Authority that people with disabilities are likely to be harmed by the scheme, the Equalities Assessment available via an internet link, Local Implementation Plan 3 Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) Royal Borough of Greenwich Document Reference: 1000005074 Date: November 2018, assumes that disabled people are ambulant and simply require help with street layout and access to public transport. The assessment states ‘people with disabilities may be more dependent on private motor cars for their transport needs’ and would only be negatively impacted by limiting or reducing car provision ‘without improvements to public transport.’ The Scheme does not improve public transport. Additional displaced traffic on the A206 and A2 is impeding the operation of the following bus routes: 386, 53, 188, 129, 108 177 180 286.
The detailed explanation in the EqIA acknowledges the need ‘to ensure disabled people have access to facilities such as hospitals and GP surgeries’, that ‘taxi ranks should be located close to public transport links and shopping and leisure facilities’. But people with disabilities also require vehicular access to their homes, particularly during the pandemic if shielding or during lockdown. The EqIA assumes that wheelchair users 'wheel' when the majority need door to door transportation for longer journeys.
There is no reference in the EqIA to the role of visiting carers, help from family and friends, GP visits, ambulance transportation and the like. All of the facilities mentioned above are compromised by the deliberate traffic displacement, re-routing and delay caused by the scheme and are likely to cause detriment and harm.
There is also no reference to the needs of people with disabilities or chronic illnesses likely to be exacerbated by pollution resulting from traffic displacement and congestion.
5. Net accessibility and communications
Your authority has kept public information about the scheme to a minimum. It has relied almost exclusively upon internet accessibility to inadequate information on your web site. This also means that some older people and others who are less likely to be able to access information online have been completely excluded from any information or consultation process.
No portal has been provided for formal objections to the ETOs. ‘Streetspace’ online feedback limits criticism of the scheme to a single short ‘general’ comment.
Conclusion
The scheme did not meet the legitimate expectations raised by the letter to residents on 12 August 2020 (or prior engagement on a scheme to reduce peak hours traffic). I have detailed above the level of obfuscation, misleading and tendentious material your Authority has produced in connection with the Scheme. Your Authority:
- Did not provide an effective scheme under its own terms and did not provide appropriately for a ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhood’.
- Failed to fulfil the terms of the Temporary Order of 12 August, in that no pandemic protections were provided.
- Failed to inform residents that the 12 August 2020 Temporary Traffic Order was no longer current.
- In relation to the ETOs, you failed to make statutory information about the Reasons for the Orders, or formal objections to them, publicly available at all or in a timely way.
- Made Experimental Traffic Orders, despite the fact that Scheme was not capable of being an ‘experiment’.
- Gave misleading information to local residents and others, but failed to share or act upon evidence-based, vital and relevant information.
- Ignored the expressed views of local residents and failed to consult residents in neighbouring areas. You ignored the needs of the disabled and failed to fulfil your public sector Equalities Act duty. You also failed to communicate with those who are not net accessible, or who do not read English.
- Ignored and misrepresented statutory consultees and the Metropolitan Police on the risks posed by the Scheme.
- Relied on reference to a series of ‘unminuted’ meetings in response to FOI requests.
The Scheme was an irrational, disproportionate and inappropriate response to the pandemic or whatever traffic problems might be perceived to exist. The actions of your Authority demonstrate an unacceptable lack of transparency, and lack of respect for evidence-based, lawful and compliant behaviour.
Yours sincerely,
[Insert name]
[Insert address]