Camden Passage

• I READ with interest Michael Edenborough’s letter regarding Islington Council’s consultations for the market development, (So-called consultation on Chapel Market is a sham! March 31).

As a resident of Charlton Place, I have been party to similar consultations for the changes now being implemented around Camden Passage.

The consultation process is presumably intended to validate the PFS, people-friendly streets, initiatives and associated LTN, low traffic neighbourhood, controls.

The Camden Passage/ Charlton Place consultation and subsequent outcomes illustrate the pitfalls in achieving that.

Comparison of the Camden Passage consultation findings with the measures now being employed throws up some concerning disconnects.

The most unpopular measure with businesses and residents is introduction of a new “vehicle traffic filter” aka a vehicle ban twice a day (welcome ANPR), ostensibly to reduce vehicle volumes on Charlton Place.

But current traffic volumes, increased since 2019 after introduction of similar filters in nearby streets, are not a major source of concern for most residents or businesses. Another blocked-off street and restricted access certainly is.

Many elderly and disabled residents live on Charlton Place, and there are few car owners. The consultation report notes that these groups were under-represented in the report.

It’s the most vulnerable, households without cars, and businesses, that will be most affected by their council’s actions to address the climate emergency on their behalf.

Twice a day those that rely on taxis, borrow-cars, friends or family to transport them, and have less to spend on the costs of specific delivery times or vehicle types, will find themselves cut off from, or trapped, in their homes, or missing deliveries.

Partly the problem is that conducting effective consultation is undeniably difficult. Lots of people are hard to reach. Many won’t engage until the effect on them is apparent.

Finding, explaining, and listening, to people takes an awful lot of time. The PFS team have considerable resources up their sleeves: in-person workshops (chatting to passers-by), online surveys, Zoom meetings, lots of leaflets. But much of it ineffectual.

Housebound, wheelchair users, and extremely elderly residents are not joining a street workshop, nor are absentee landlords.

The online survey? Eleven of the 120 businesses and market traders responded. Only 13 per cent of individual respondents live in the affected streets and those that do were split 50:50 on whether vehicle traffic “was a problem”.

“Problem” was as much defined by noise from vehicle speed and late-night waste collection, neither of which are addressed.

Zoom online consultation? Seven attendees: five from the council, one business representative, one resident (me).

After about eight hours knocking on doors and talking to my neighbours, it’s clear, at least to me, that despite the consultation efforts, many remain unaware or unclear of the measures about to be imposed or of the impact on them.

Nevertheless study the consultation report and some consistent themes emerge: risks from cycles travelling too fast, need to maintain business delivery access, and better waste disposal.

Outcome: cycles encouraged (route legalised), delivery black-out periods and vehicle restrictions.

Better waste disposal? Nope. But we do get vehicle bans and yet another ANPR.

Here’s the thing: crucially, even if the consultation process is flawed you do need to be prepared to respond to what you actually learn, even if that’s contrary to initial aims or perceptions.

Announcing a different set of measures that were not discussed, and that defy the feedback received, isn’t consultation, it’s information.

Camden Passage/ Charlton Place residents and businesses are now providing their feedback loud and clear. Let’s see if Islington Council listens and responds.

Other neighbourhoods Having Your Say? You have been warned.

MELISSA BLISSETT
Charlton Place, N1