Dartmouth Park Healthy Neighbourhood Co-Design Engagement Report

22 December 2025

Summary

Last month we provided our first comments on the Dartmouth Park Healthy Neighbourhood (DPHN) co-design engagement report published by Camden and Islington on 28 November 2025. See https://highgatesociety.com/traffic-studies/ The co-design phase was launched in Summer 2024.

The scheme title “Dartmouth Park” continues to cause confusion as it includes nearly all the Camden side of Highgate, as well as Dartmouth Park and part of Kentish Town. In this January newsletter we comment further on the report particularly what is not included as well as further thoughts on what is included.

The Commonplace website says that [Camden] “will continue to work with local people to develop proposals to make the areas around Dartmouth Park better for all.” However, we do not know what further redesign has been undertaken and if or how any scheme will proceed. The report and appendices are linked  here: https://dartmouthpark.commonplace.is/en-GB/proposals/v3/phase-2-co-design-engagement-report?step=step1  )

The co-design engagement report should be an important step covering Camden’s understanding of the feedback received and a basis for making improvements to the scheme. However, the report focuses on analysing the questionnaire responses and does not look beyond the limited scope of those original questions. The result is a report which is generalised and vague, and the impression is that nothing useful has been learnt about how to improve the design of a scheme. If anything useful has been learnt, it is not covered in this report.

Main first review conclusions

The main conclusions from the first review of the report are summarised below. These were covered in our 1 December newsletter. See https://highgatesociety.com/traffic-studies/

• Concern about the engagement questions asked, which didn’t allow residents to express views in ways they wished. There were 781 emailed responses and the large number of emailed responses indicates residents’ frustration with the questionnaire.
• Lack of consideration and consultation of Highgate residents on the Haringey side. The area of the Highgate Neighbourhood plan and forum was ignored.
• No comments from amenity groups, neighbourhood forums, resident associations or other groups have been included.
• Simplistic and erroneous application of data on car ownership and car use, as well as on use of other modes of transport.
• Presentation of views both for and against but with little or no indication of where the weight of opinion lay.

The appendices to the report are now available and appendix 2 shows the coded responses provided by respondents to the questionnaire. These show 309 respondents expressing general support for the traffic management plan and a further 259 expressing support for aspects of it. However, there were 378 who expressed general opposition and an astonishing 2,715 objections and concerns about particular aspects. (These total numbers exceed the numbers of questionnaire responses because respondents could oppose or support several of the individual proposals.) The overwhelming balance of opposition is clear. 

Communications

Residents who signed up on the Commonplace website have been sent information and links to the Co-Design Engagement Report. However, those who simply wrote by email to safetravel@camden.gov.uk have not been sent any update. This is a serious omission since these residents have not received any communication in response to their emails, except a standard acknowledgement. They are often the residents who have the greatest interest in the topic and demonstrated this through the time they took to write in detail. We believe they are entitled to a substantive reply. 

Deadlines and timescales

The co-design phase ran from 8 July 2024 to 18 August 2024, though the co-design report states it includes comments through to the end of September 2024. The decision to “send the scheme back to the drawing board” was announced on 18 March 2025, and between end September 2024 and 18 March 2025 residents, and groups continued to make comments on the scheme. It appears these may not have been taken into account.

At the time of the “drawing board” announcement, Camden said they expected to publish the results of the co-design engagement in Spring 2025 but in fact it was published in November 2025. There has been ample time to include comments after the end of September, and we think that should have been done.

Constraints of the report structure

The report is constrained by the original questionnaire and the framework set by the original proposals. While residents of Camden and Islington both inside and outside the DPHN area had boxes to tick, there was nothing for nearby residents of Haringey who seem not to have been considered in the questionnaire design.

The report does not take the opportunity to properly consider the feedback as a whole. Many residents share concerns about traffic, pollution and road safety but will have felt the proposals didn’t properly address these. They will also feel that this report doesn’t demonstrate any genuine attempt to understand and address those concerns in a fair and balanced way taking account of boundary and neighbouring roads and areas.

The report covers the 14 roads inside the area where traffic management proposals had been set out in the proposals, and on cycle and bus proposals on boundary roads. The most northerly of the traffic management proposals is at the entrance to Highgate Cemetery suggesting that the traffic issues of the wider Highgate area including implications for the Haringey side are not a concern. However, many of the emailed responses the Society has seen cover the issues of traffic in this area as well as concerns about diversion of traffic from further south in the DPHN area.

Car ownership v car use

Our 1 December comments highlighted that some areas of Highgate have low accessibility by public transport, and typically the areas of lower accessibility have higher car ownership. Car ownership near to places of excellent public transport such as Archway is much lower. The comparison made with car ownership in other parts of the boroughs of Camden and Islington, is faulty because areas to the south in these boroughs typically have better public transport than areas to the north.

The report states that 71% of respondents own or have access to a car, and the car ownership / access information of respondents to each question is cited. However, car ownership and access has little relevance. As we noted last month, one respondent may use several modes of transport over the course of a week or month. Ownership or access to a car does not necessarily imply regular use of a car. Therefore, the focus of the report on car ownership and access in the analysis of questionnaire responses does not provide relevant and useful information.

Emailed responses

The report states that 773 emails were received by safetravel@camden.gov.uk and a further eight were received by Islington. The table on pages 51 and 52 of the report seeks to capture the main themes. There are 29 themes listed which are summarised in a sentence each. The small number of themes listed in comparison with the number of emails, and the very short summaries in a sentence each, mean that the themes are very high level and give little useful information. For example, there is no mention of any specific road in the themes listed, which contrasts with the proposals which were specific for particular roads. For this reason the themes listed are of little value and do not properly reflect the content, detail and reasoning of the emailed comments we’ve seen. The emails we were copied on amount to over 280 pages. It is not helpful or realistic to summarise these into 29 themes of a sentence each.

Clearly it is time consuming to properly understand the emailed comments, but respondents very often spent a lot of time considering the issues, and we believe a more comprehensive analysis with a real attempt to understand concerns is sorely missing.

The Highgate Society and the DPHN Joint Action group were copied on 280 pages of emails that were sent to safetravel@camden.gov.uk and the Islington equivalent. To understand better what information has been missed, we took the first 20 pages of emailed responses and based just on those 20 pages (19 emails), we identified nearly 50 traffic management design related comments, which are  listed in appendix 1. These clearly show, based just on a small sample that the co-design engagement report is seriously incomplete.

Comments from resident groups

Normally a report such as this would include comments from amenity groups and resident associations. In response to this phase 2 co-design engagement, the Highgate Society provided well considered comments and disappointingly, they have not been mentioned in this co-design engagement report. We objected to the proposals based on factors explained under the headings listed below. Our engagement response is linked here.

No clear statement of the scheme’s aims

No whole-of-area consideration

Very poor engagement and explanation of the scheme

Proposal not based on proper data or projections

Scheme seems extremely likely to cause even greater congestion in boundary areas and may have adverse consequences for businesses

No consideration of pollution or where most congestion is experienced:

No consideration of how far residents and businesses can adopt alternative travel or specific characteristics of the area

We see no evidence to suggest that traffic will just disappear

We believe there are several legal issues with this proposal:

The Highgate Society is listening to the concerns of our members and other residents and businesses across the whole area

We included quotes from a small selection of the objections to this proposal residents and businesses have shared with the Highgate Society

The boundaries, and surrounding areas are treated as an afterthought

Relying heavily on an experimental traffic order is not a satisfactory way to proceed or a proper use of public funds: residents and businesses must not be involuntary subjects in a poorly-designed traffic experiment

We remain ready to engage with the councils on any properly formulated proposal, addressing the above points and allowing sufficient time for everybody to understand and engage

We appreciate this is a co-design phase, but with the poor data for the proposal it is not practical to propose any meaningful improvements. the whole plan needs to be reconsidered

While Dartmouth Park traffic discussions have been happening for several years, this co-design phase is the first time residents and businesses have seen any substantive proposal

We accept that traffic management is necessary, and we are hugely concerned about the environment, congestion, and pollution

Looking at the whole area, this proposal is highly likely to have adverse consequences in relation to the environment, congestion, and pollution

The area deserves better than this

Comments provided by TTC (professional transport consultants)

On behalf of the DPHN Joint Action Group, comprising 21 resident associations throughout the DPHN area, the Highgate Society commissioned TTC Transport Consultancy. TTC  sought to engage with local highways officers in both Camden and Haringey and  consider the adequacy of the information for developing the scheme. Significant gaps in baseline data were identified and documented in the report.  TTC’s report is available here.

Appendix 1

Based on a review of a sample of 19 emails covering 20 pages of emailed comments, we identified nearly 50 design relevant points, which are listed below. The emails reviewed are about 7% of those we were copied on.

Email 1

Possible increased traffic and congestion on perimeter roads due to closure of Dartmouth Park Hill and Swains Lane.

Email 2

Concern that a one-way system proposed for Churchill Road and Spencer Rise will cause extra traffic to be shifted from Chetwynd Road.

Need to work to reduce traffic not displace it.

Additional speed cameras needed.

Email 3

Concern from an elderly resident about access and need to use a car.

Email 4

Concern about diversion causing additional pollution, congestion and noise.

Email 5

Lack of clarity about how to give feedback.

Email 6

Concern about Cholmeley Park as a link road to Archway Road given single vehicle width in places, and proximity to school.

Email 7

Support for active travel and the need to make car use more difficult to achieve this.

Email 8

Concern about traffic diversion onto Highgate West Hill

Email 9

Concern scheme will increase traffic in Highgate.

Concern about the absence of traffic counts in Highgate.

Email 10

No reference to health in the document, nor the word “pollution” suggesting doubt that the scheme has any link with either.

Unwise to reduce route options given frequency of road works, which may close or restrict routes.

Comments made on the phase 1 stage being ignored and concern that this would be the case again in phase 2.

Insufficient room capacities for attending in person events.

Email 11

Concern that already heavy traffic on Hornsey Lane, and relatively heavy traffic on Cromwell Avenue and Cholmeley Park would be increased.

The proposals are expensive and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Email 12

Swains Lane and Dartmouth Park Hill are historic through roads and should remain open, in order not to push traffic onto the other route options of Highgate Hill and Highgate West Hill.

Email 13

Comment that a statistical analysis of the interactive map supplied during phase 1 showed a majority of residents would be against turning Chetwynd Road into a one way street.

Comment from a Croftdown Road resident that traffic and speeding on West Hill is worse than on Chetwynd Road. Comment is from the perspective of a resident who walks on both roads.

Concern that the proposals would increase pollution on roads frequently used by pedestrians. Comment that no data or research has been provided on this aspect.

Email 14

Scheme will push traffic onto surrounding roads.

Email 15

Scheme would simply shift traffic and pollution to the perimeter roads.

Email 16

The aim of reducing overall traffic volumes will not be achieved by the scheme.

Pressure at the junction of Hampstead Lane, Highgate West Hill and Highgate High Street where there is already significant congestion and pollution. Also Fortess Road and Highgate Road.

The area is already effectively a cluster of small LTNs.

Data is needed to support the proposals.

Information on origins and destinations of trips is needed.

Concern that traffic will not simply disappear.

Many vehicles are service vehicles and there is no reasoned assessment as to whether these journeys will shift to other modes of transport.

Absence of traffic data in the Highgate area.

Inside the LTN, deliveries and service vehicles will suffer delays and additional costs.

Due to the penalty fines raised, the LTN may simply be a fundraising exercise.

Residents have a right to know how much the taxpayers’ money is being spent on the scheme but no implementation costs have been provided. Concern that no cost-benefit analysis has been done.

Serious accidents on West Hill not addressed in a meaningful way.

Recently installed zebra crossing outside St Josephs School will become redundant and hence a waste of public funds.

Cycle lane on Highgate Road would reduce parking and hence put greater pressure on parking in nearby roads.

Email  17

Allowing both eastbound and westbound traffic through Highgate is inconsistent with the scheme’s apparent objectives.

No information on how the traffic counts have informed the plan. Information on peak time traffic is not provided.

Creative steps needed to reduce traffic in the whole area.

Email 18

Closing Swains Lane to traffic north of the entrance to Highgate Cemetery would make it less safe for women walking from the bus stops in Highgate, because the road is not overlooked.

Email 19

Comments that the scheme permits access and egress via South Grove and Bisham Gardens and that some of the roads are unable to support simultaneous two way traffic.

Traffic congestion likely to be caused in the surrounding areas. Risks to the open space and quiet amenity of Pond Square.

Proposals do not reflect a comprehensive understanding of the needs and preferences of those who live and work in the area.

Potentially damaging economic impact on local businesses.

More thorough consultation needed in order to develop an effective plan.

Poor choice of time for the co-design over the summer period will have reduced the opportunity for comment.