This short survey is designed to test the water on the Dartmouth Park community’s views on traffic and travel in our area in response to the twin emergencies of coronavirus and safeguarding our environment.

Whilst the past few months have been difficult, many people have appreciated the lack of traffic and the noticeable improvement in air quality.  People are also worried that traffic levels will return worse than before if people are reluctant to use public transport.  And they want to make the trading environment for our local businesses as attractive as possible as the recovery gathers pace.

Communities across London are seeing benefits of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. These are where through traffic is cut from an area whilst access for residents, visitors, deliveries is freely allowed. Where they have been implemented in Waltham Forest, streets are safer, air quality has improved, businesses are thriving, and more people are making greener, healthier travel choices. You can see more information in this short film:

The Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum’s Neighbourhood Plan passed a local referendum in February with over 1000 votes cast, 88% in favour. The Plan includes several policies and projects that support walking and cycling, traffic reduction, our local businesses and healthy lifestyles – all of which have become more important since then.

The findings of this survey will be passed to Camden Council to allow them to consider what, if any, interventions they can make on a temporary or trial basis.

The survey will close on 31 July.  It should take less than 10 minutes to complete. 

One respondent will receive a voucher worth £20 to spend in the local shop or business of their choice!

We would love to hear your views on how we can make Dartmouth Park an even better place to live.

Please take the survey here.


  1. Thomas Anthony

    I struggle to see how traffic reduction in one area can be achieved without heaping further pressure on neighbouring areas. For example Chetwynd Road disproportionately bears the brunt of the local traffic problem, because cars are blocked from passing through Dartmouth Park via Dartmouth Park Road.
    Turning cars away from Dartmouth Park altogether is a really sad NIMBY approach to the problem. Tufnell Park, Gospel Oak and Archway will all suffer, and let’s not forget that motorists have feelings too!
    The Four Roads proposals contained some well thought out solutions. I would prefer to see the DPNF focusing their energy on engaging with Camden Council to implement these changes rather than asking for more ideas.
    Tom – Chetwynd Rd.

  2. Gerald Runcorn

    Overall objections to tone and aims of proposals:

    1. Traffic volume is NOT a local issue which can be solved by small-scale tinkering. While it is possible that minor benefits to Dartmouth Park residents may result from such schemes (dare I suggest that the possibility of increased house prices will not have gone unnoticed, particularly on my road!), there can be no net benefit to the wider community from insular, small-minded, Trumpesque thinking (see points B & C below). I am sure all Dartmouth Park residents would like to decrease the levels of chemical and noise pollution, but surely our ambition is to achieve this on a wider scale than Dartmouth Park?

    2. Let’s not waste council money on pointless infrastructure such as unnecessary zebra crossings and instead encourage Camden to prevent libraries and community centres shutting, resource schools and nurseries properly, or reduce housing and business rates.

    3. The attempt to link this to coronavirus is outrageous, either a political manoeuvre to bring this issue back to the surface (DPNF has previously consulted on essentially the same issue, including proposals to send as much traffic as possible past a series of schools!) or an immoral attempt to access emergency funds released to councils as a response to the crisis (see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-emergency-funding-for-local-government). Or it’s simply stupid…

    Specific objections to “Traffic would not be displaced onto other local residential streets” statement in proposals:

    A: how is this to be achieved? It is utterly irresponsible to canvas opinion for schemes without detailed descriptions of the method to be employed and a detailed analysis of the consequences. The EU referendum surely serves as reminder of this – regardless of which way they voted surely most people
    would agree that the consequences of voting on an idea rather than a plan are undesirable? I would also point out that sending round a plan when it is formulated does NOT mean publishing it on an obscure website that the majority of people are not going to bother visiting in the hope that it is not properly scrutinised.

    B: this will increase pollution significantly on non-residential streets, which have much higher footfall, consequently increasing exposure to pollution for the majority of people. Does the fact that not all of these people will be Dartmouth Park residents mean that they matter less?

    C: increasing journey distances and times necessarily increases net pollution if we consider a wider region than Dartmouth Park.

  3. Claire Kavanagh

    I live on Chetwynd Road. Up to 5000 vehicles go up and down this street every 24 hours. That is 1.8million vehicles per year. 20 per cent of those are large vehicles, ie largely diesel. There are 103 residential properties in this street. The figures speak
    For themselves.
    This road should stop being used as a cut through for good. It is a local road which now has illegal levels of pollution, and is dangerous for pedestrians.

  4. Claire kavanagh

    Finally, the LTN could improve shopping/dining on York Rise, encourage more cycling & walking to work and schools and make the streets around the locals schools and nurseries safer.

Comments are closed.