One Dulwich and Dulwich Alliance response to the June 2021 Equality Impact Initial Assessment Desktop Review (also known as ‘Equality Impact Assessment’ on the Dulwich Streetspace Review site) prepared for Southwark Council by the Centre for Accessible Environments (CAE)
26 July 2021
- Executive summary
This Equality Impact Review, which appeared on or around 16 July 2021 on Southwark Council’s website, is a disappointing and inadequate initial assessment of the equality impact of the Dulwich Streetspace measures on those with protected characteristics (including the elderly and the disabled).
This initial assessment is long overdue, as Southwark should have considered the impact of the scheme on vulnerable people in the community before the first measures were implemented in June 2020. Over the past year, many local people have emailed local councillors, cabinet members and council officers to outline the severe problems the measures have caused to those with protected characteristics. This feedback is not referenced in the review. No changes have been made to mitigate the problems people have raised, apart from exemptions to the camera restrictions (but not, obviously, to the 24/7 closures) for those with Blue Badges who live within the LTN.
This initial report is called a ‘desktop review’, which appears to mean a limited assessment of information available online undertaken by someone sitting at a desk. Meetings with stakeholders and a site visit, according to the report, will happen at ‘the next stage’.
Despite the limitations of this approach, a desktop assessment should have identified the specific impacts of these particular Streetspace measures on those with protected characteristics living and working in Dulwich, rather than making broad generalisations about travel, LTNs and disability.
It would have been helpful, for example, to consider the key issue of access to health provision and essential services. By looking at the geographical locations of GP surgeries, health clinics and hospitals in Dulwich, and essential services such as pharmacies, grocery shops and post offices, it would have been possible to assess whether – in the context of both 24/7 and timed closures – those with limited mobility both inside and outside the LTNs could reach these destinations without stress and delay. This is the kind of detail that should be informing Southwark’s decision-making and helping the council to understand issues of inequality and discrimination.
The main failings of this initial assessment are:
- There is no analysis of local conditions, or references to specific Dulwich reports like the Steer Davies Gleave ‘Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study’ April 2018, commissioned by Southwark Council
- Different protected groups are considered together, contrary to advice from the government’s Equality Advisory Support Service, with no recognition of their separate and diverse needs
- A number of generalisations are made about LTNs in Southwark as a whole, and in other parts of London, but no explanation is offered of how these observations are relevant to the impact of the Dulwich scheme on those with protected characteristics
- London-wide (TfL) and Southwark statistics are used rather than data relevant to the Dulwich area
- Research is selective and biased, focusing mainly on information from lobby groups, including Living Streets and Wheels for Wellbeing
- The report’s brief
According to the report, dated June 2021, ‘This review is the start of a process of co-evaluation…’ The Streetspace measures were implemented over a year ago, between June and October 2020, with the major intervention (the closure of Dulwich Village junction) made in June 2020. A decision on the Dulwich Streetspace measures is due in three months’ time, in October 2021. Has CAE no view on why this review was not started much earlier?
- The report’s executive summary
Commenting on each of the sections in turn:
3.1 There is no recognition of local Dulwich conditions, specifically what public transport is available and accessible (Dulwich has no tube, there are no lifts at local railway stations, there is no East-West bus service, and Dulwich Village has a particularly poor PTAL rating of between 1 and 2).
The issue of ‘travel to schools’, and particularly ‘school buses’, is confused. In Dulwich, ‘school buses’ means the private service run on behalf of the three large independent schools (Dulwich College, JAGS and Alleyn’s). Children attending the many state schools, however, do not have this option: for them, buses are public transport. The timed ‘bus-gates’ in Dulwich Village benefit only one public bus route, the P4, while all other public bus routes – on, for example, Croxted Road, East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common – run along roads with no bus gates (and significant displaced traffic).
While we appreciate that this is a report commissioned by Southwark Council on the Streetspace measures it has introduced, it might have been appropriate, in a report on the impact of the measures on those with protected characteristics, to include – in the map on page 16 – Turney School in Turney Road for children on the autistic spectrum, and Michael Tippett school in Heron Road for children with severe learning difficulties. Both of these local schools are just within neighbouring Lambeth, but very much affected by the Southwark Streetspace measures.
3.2 The report says, ‘Walking and travelling by bus are the main means of travel for disabled and older people, low-income people, women and people from a Black, Asian and ethnic minority background.’ According to the Equality Advice and Support Services (EASS), it is not acceptable to put together different protected groups in this way, as if they all have the same or similar needs. Diversity within, as well as between, groups should be considered, and an EqIA should examine the Streetspace measures in relation to specific barriers and needs. For example, it is well-known that people with disabilities should not be viewed as a homogenous group. The difficulties faced by those on the autistic spectrum, for example, are very different to those experienced by people with severe arthritis, and an EqIA will not be useful unless it recognises this.
It is also not clear why the decision has been taken to include ‘low-income levels’ in this report (see page 33 of the report for a list of the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act).
3.3 The report says, ‘Disabled, older people and those from Black, Asian or ethnic minority groups are more likely to walk for most journeys.’ Again, groups are gathered together as if their needs are the same. But the assertion itself – that Streetspace measures have the potential to increase levels of walking – is just a vague generalisation, unrelated to local data, specific barriers or needs, or the detail of the Dulwich scheme.
The report also says that restricting traffic may increase cycling levels, which ‘will assist many disabled and older people who find it easier to cycle rather than walk’. This is a puzzling statement, and needs to be supported by statistics showing the percentage of disabled and older people (nationally, or in London) who find it easier to cycle rather than walk.
3.4 The assertion that the scheme has ‘the potential’ to have a negative impact on disabled people is a huge understatement. It is clearly a major drawback that must be addressed.
Throughout the report (see also page 11), there are references to exemptions for Blue Badge holders, and how these will mitigate the negative impact of the measures on disabled people and their carers. There are a number of reasons why this is misleading. Firstly, only Blue Badge holders within the LTN are allowed through the camera restrictions. There are no exemptions for Blue Badge holders living immediately outside the LTN – even those within view of a road restricted by cameras. There are also no exemptions for Blue Badge holders who are visiting or caring for family or friends. Secondly, it is well-known that not all people who are mobility impaired have Blue Badges, as the qualifying criteria are very strict. Thirdly, the 24/7 hard closures allow no one through, even those with Blue Badges. This not only prevents access for those with mobility problems, but also for the emergency services, GPs, community nurses, midwives, carers, First Responders, etc, who care for them. (It is rare for those who need carers to rely on just one person.)
3.5 The issue of traffic displacement is significantly under-researched and relies on an article by lobby group Living Streets. This is a contentious issue, and an EqIA should not be relying on opinion pieces. See later comments on Appendix 1.
3.6 This section on access to green space fails to understand that Dulwich as an area already has many public green spaces, and that most flats and houses without private gardens have green space nearby. In this context, it is unreasonable to put forward planters as providing a much-needed community benefit that has a positive impact on disadvantaged groups.
- Sections 4 to 6 of the report, covering ‘New experimental traffic measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic’, ‘Streetspace measures implemented in Southwark’ and ‘Streetscape measures in relation to equity in Southwark’
Sections 4 to 6 of the report merit only brief comments.
The report makes the point that Southwark’s schemes in total impact a higher proportion of deprived residents compared to other London boroughs. While this may be true, this is not relevant to an assessment of the schemes in Dulwich, which is Southwark’s least deprived area.
The section on public seating is poorly researched. In Dulwich Village, for example, those with mobility problems would benefit more from seating that is evenly spaced out (as the current old-fashioned benches are), rather than the majority of the temporary installations being sited in one place (outside Au Ciel café).
The caption refers to ‘Dulwich Square Parklet’, even though the term ‘Dulwich Square’ is used only by those who support the current 24/7 closure to all vehicles. This suggests that CAE relied on specific sources for its information.
- The report’s assessment of the potential equality impacts of the Southwark Streetspace measures
The report identifies Age, Disability, Gender, Pregnancy/Maternity, and Race as the relevant protected characteristics to assess, and also considers deprivation and low income levels. The response below looks at some of the more obvious omissions.
Protected characteristic: Age
This section repeats the same assertions about ‘safer streets’ but without any detailed investigation into how these particular Streetspace measures in Dulwich affect the elderly. For example, local GPs have highlighted the difficulties elderly people face in reaching their surgeries and the Tessa Jowell Health Centre, as well as the problems they themselves face in reaching housebound patients. As the report says, driving levels may drop as people get older, but carers, community nurses and family (all crucial to the health and well-being of elderly residents) are likely to rely on cars because public transport is so poor. Access for ambulances is also key for this age group.
The report does not examine how or whether road closures might increase social isolation for this age group, even though loneliness is a well-known problem for elderly people.
It also doesn’t examine how new road layouts and signs, and significant fines, might affect those who find changes in local environments less easy to navigate.
Protected characteristic: Disability
Again, this section uses London-wide data that puts all disabled groups together. This is not helpful.
For example, the report says that disabled Londoners are much less likely to use a car as a driver (24%) compared to Londoners overall (53%). It also says, ‘Buses provide a more accessible form of public transport than rail or Underground for disabled people.’ But neither of these statements apply to all forms of disability. They also may not be true of Dulwich, with its poor public transport.
The statement ‘The Streetspace scheme will potentially benefit those with disabilities who use the street on foot, particularly those with mobility impairments that require mobility aids’ is hard to understand, as the experimental measures do not offer any obvious benefits to anyone who needs to use a mobility aid like a stick or cane.
The report quotes the Wheels for Wellbeing Annual Survey 2018. This was a survey of 202 disabled people across the UK who were already cycling, so may not represent the needs or views of those in Dulwich with a variety of different mobility problems.
Protected characteristic: Gender and Pregnancy/Maternity
The report fails to mention some of the most obvious drawbacks of the measures for pregnant women and new mothers. The road closures, and delays because of congestion, make access for community midwives harder, which may be a crucial and life-threatening issue in emergency situations like home births. Women are also more likely to be responsible for getting babies and small children to nursery or school before they themselves go to work, so may be disproportionately affected by measures that make travel in the Dulwich area more time-consuming.
Protected characteristic: Race/Diversity
The data used is again from TfL rather than local to the Dulwich area, so it is hard to know whether the potential impacts identified are relevant to people living in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill.
- The report’s comments on consultation
The report states that Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) introduced in response to the Covid-19 pandemic are orders that ‘allow measures to be put in place on a trial basis with consultation happening concurrently during the implementation period’. This is not correct. As the statutory guidance (updated 25 February 2021) on network management in response to COVID-19 says:
Accessibility requirements apply to all measures, both temporary and permanent. The Public Sector Equality Duty still applies, and in making any changes to their road networks, authorities must ensure that elements of a scheme do not discriminate, directly or indirectly, and must consider their duty to make reasonable adjustments anticipating the needs of those with protected characteristics, for example by carrying out Equality Impact Assessments on proposed schemes. Engagement with groups representing disabled people and others with protected characteristics should be carried out at an early stage of scheme development.
An interim (unfinished) EqIA published three months before the end of an 18-month Experimental Traffic Order does not represent engagement carried out at an early stage of scheme development.
The report also makes no comment about Southwark’s reliance on online platforms for engagement, given the known likelihood of excluding groups with protected characteristics by doing this.
- The report’s conclusions and recommendations
The report says that ‘Streets with less motor traffic will be safer for cycling, and will potentially encourage more people to cycle, including children, older and disabled people.’ The barriers to cycling for those with limited mobility are much greater than whether or not streets are busy: this is an unhelpful generalisation.
- The report’s recommended actions
Three points to note (following the report’s numbering):
- The report recommends ‘Further focused consultation…to work out ways to mitigate any negative impacts and enhance positive impacts of Streetspace measures.’ Would it not have been better for a neutral and objective interim EqIA report to allow for the possibility that the measures might need to be taken out altogether?
- Taxis and private hire drivers are unwilling to come to Dulwich because of the traffic congestion and fines – communication and maps won’t change this.
- Again, it’s not clear why this point on the advisability of introducing Streetspace schemes in areas of high deprivation has been raised in an EqIA on the Dulwich schemes – unless it is to make the point that Dulwich doesn’t fit Southwark’s criteria for an LTN.
- The report’s appendices
Appendix 1
Response of disabled people to recent Streetspace measures in London (Pave the Way, Transport for All, Jan 2021)
This is a highly selective and at times misleading summary of an extremely valuable report that makes clear that many disabled people feel that LTN measures are unjust and unfair.
For example, the EqIA mentions only two of a wide number of negative impacts, which include the 77% of respondents who reported an increase in journey times (with consequent problems of fatigue and pain). The positive impacts the EqIA cites were mentioned by very small percentages (figures that aren’t included) – for example, only 14% reported easier or more pleasant journeys, 6% an increase in independence, 18% a decrease in traffic danger, 5% benefits to physical health, and 6% benefits to mental health. In all categories apart from those who were neurodivergent (where it was a 50/50 split), the majority of respondents agreed that LTNs had negatively impacted their sense of independence.
A Pave the Way recommendation that is not mentioned by this EqIA is: ‘For schemes that have been implemented with no consultation and no EqIA, a retrospective equalities analysis should be undertaken by a professional with expertise in disabled access, and co-produced with disabled residents where possible. The EqIA should be specific to the scheme, and detailed and thorough enough to identify the problematic areas and put forward solutions to mitigate impact.’
Evidence on impact levels of active travel, injury risk and street crime
It is not useful to compare Dulwich with Waltham Forest. Waltham Forest council was given £27 million by TfL in 2014 for its ‘mini-Holland’ schemes, which included new street lighting, cycleways, and extensive landscaping to make streets more attractive. Evidence of benefits is highly contested by residents, and nearly all of the published research has been carried out by Dr Rachel Aldred and Dr Anna Goodman, academics who have a particular interest in active travel (as Appendix 2 makes clear).
In Dulwich, we know from FOI requests that the LAS has told Southwark about numerous instances of ambulance delays, many directly attributed to the 24/7 closures or to associated traffic congestion.
How motor traffic has affected residential streets compared to main roads in London
Whatever ‘studies’ show about differences between ‘residential’ and ‘main’ roads in London, in Dulwich all streets, including A-roads, are residential. The A-roads have a higher proportion of social housing, multiple-occupancy dwellings, and houses/flats much closer to the road. Displacement caused by Streetspace schemes is therefore likely to pose social equity issues.
Evidence of traffic evaporation
The relevance of this section to an EqIA of the Dulwich Streetspace measures is not clear. But, in any case, it is not reasonable to cite opinion from lobby group Living Streets as evidence in an EqIA. The traffic evaporation argument is again highly contested, especially in relation to traffic displacement on to main residential roads. As Phil Goodwin, co-author of the original 2002 study, said on social media last year, ‘I support those who complain that sometimes schemes provide improvements for leafy areas where rich people live, but divert traffic on to “traffic roads” where poorer people live, and this is not fair. Reallocation of capacity should be done in a way that supports the most needy.’
It is true that there has been research from King’s College London on air quality in Waltham Forest, but – as the report says – this relies on modelling, not data.
Relationship of car traffic and population health, Road safety relevance to ethnic minorities and low-income households, and Impact of Introducing Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on Road Traffic Injuries
It’s not clear how any of these last three sections relate specifically to the impact of the Dulwich Streetspace schemes on those with protected characteristics.
- Conclusion
- We believe that Southwark Council has not engaged in a sufficiently rigorous process to ascertain how those with protected characteristics are affected by the experimental Streetspace measures in the Dulwich area, even though this is a requirement of its Public Sector Equality Duty.
- This long-awaited assessment is woefully lacking as it is not based on data or knowledge that relate specifically to the Dulwich scheme. It is therefore not fit for purpose.
- As far as we know, there is no published process explaining how and when those in the Dulwich area with protected characteristics have been, or will be, able to make their views on the Streetspace measures known to the Council, or how these views will be considered and assessed.
- In the absence of this published process, it appears that the consultation is not inclusive or genuinely seeking the views of all local stakeholders, including those with protected characteristics.