Published response to the Sheen Low Traffic Neighbourhood proposals, from Deanhill Road Residents Association, Sheen.

1. The Committee of the Deanhill Road Residents’ Association
Deanhill Road
SW14
Email: deanhillroad@hotmail.com
14 September 2019
Environment and Community Services
Robert Parsey
Senior Engineer
By email: trafficandengineering@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk
Dear Mr Parsey
Re: Introduction of measures to support a low traffic neighbourhood in East Sheen (Parkside)
The Committee of the Deanhill Road Residents’ Association1
welcomes the opportunity to respond
on behalf of residents of our street to your consultation document (the “Consultation”) relating to
the introduction of measures to support a low traffic neighbourhood in East Sheen (Parkside) (the
“Proposals”).
Residents of Deanhill Road strongly support the aim of the Proposals – i.e. to reduce traffic in the
area, to improve congestion, road safety, air quality and the environment.
However:
• we do not believe that East Sheen is a suitable location for a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (ie a
mini-Holland). We have set out our reasons for this in Section 1 below.
• we do not believe that any of the four options in the Proposals will achieve the aim of
reducing traffic Parkside, yet alone overall. We believe that each option will instead create
new traffic jams along Christchurch Road, Sheen Common Drive and Sheen Lane and will
worsen the already terrible traffic along the Upper Richmond Road. Other impacts on
residents include: increased pollution in our community’s heart and around our children’s
schools and nurseries, cutting our community in two; damaging our local businesses; worse
parking. We have elaborated on the negative consequences of the Proposals in Section 2
below.
For these reasons, we strongly disagree with and object to the Proposals.
We make the following additional comments and suggestions:
• Traffic restrictions and other measures recently imposed Parkside (Palmerston and
Observatory no left / right turns and Coval Road and Temple Sheen Road one-ways): these
1
Deanhill Road Residents’ Association is the residents’ association for Deanhill Road. As such, it represents the
interests of 46 households on Deanhill Road. Deanhill Road is a Parkside cul-de-sac off the Upper Richmond
Road with a connecting alley through to Coval Gardens. Many of the residents are families with children at
Sheen Mount. The objectives of the Association include: to serve as a forum for the exchange of views on local
matters; and to seek improvements to access including to seek improvements to the road network and traffic
planning in the area. In July, approximately half the households of the road met to discuss the council’s traffic
measures (for Palmerston, Observatory, Coval, etc.) and the idea of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood. The meeting
was unanimous in objecting to these measures. We have canvassed opinion of residents and we believe that
the street overwhelmingly objects to the Proposals and supports this letter.

2. measures have caused a surge in traffic Parkside as traffic has been displaced to other roads
(Christchurch Road, Berwyn, Sheen Common Drive, Sheen Lane). They have also worsened
congestion along the Upper Richmond Road. We urge the council to remove all of these
measures and to address the legitimate concerns of the residents of Palmerston Road with
more proportionate measures (ie Palmerston could be one-way and have upgraded speed
bumps).
• Process: We take issue with how the council has carried out the Consultation. In our view,
the Consultation document itself is not balanced or transparent in how it presents the LTN,
the LTN itself is a technical concept that is not adequately explained, the process for
responding is confusing and the communication with residents has been inconsistent and
inadequate. We have set out our thinking on the lack of balance in Section 3 below. We will
not detail how confusing the online process is as we note that this has been flagged to you
by others. We will detail in Section 3 some of our concerns about the lack of clear planning
and data gathering in connection with the LTN.
• Co-ordination with TFL: we strongly believe that any solution to the traffic situation in East
Sheen needs to be effected in conjunction with TFL. We elaborate in Section 4 below.
1. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (“LTNs”) or “mini-hollands” are areas where traffic restrictions (such as
bollards, one-ways and pedestrian-only zones) are introduced to an area in order to restrict traffic
and reduce or eliminate through-traffic. An example commonly-referenced is Waltham Forest. Local
traffic within the LTN is funnelled to a reduced number of exit points to the perimeter roads of the
LTN, which are A roads with sufficient capacity to absorb, without the creation of long traffic jams,
the local traffic that previously flowed out in more numerous routes. The oft-cited example of
Waltham Forest was launched with £30m of investment in cycle routes and other non-car
infrastructure; and with an extensive community consultation and data-gathering effort.
Benefits of LTNs include an increase in active living for residents (more cycling and walking), an
enhanced perception of the local environment (on account of reduced traffic and pollution) and a
change in attitudes to investment in non-car infrastructure.
We fully accept that LTNs can be a positive and may make a wonderful impact on a community. We
wholeheartedly laud and agree with their aims and objectives.
We do not agree that Parkside is a suitable location for an LTN. We do not agree that the Proposals
offer the chance of a successful LTN. Our reasoning is:
a. Unlike all the other schemes that we are aware of, the main perimeter of the proposed LTN
is an A-road (the Upper Richmond Road) that is already so gridlocked that it has no capacity
to absorb quickly additional traffic from the proposed funnel roads (Sheen Lane and Sheen
Common Drive). The LTN will increase pressure on the Upper Richmond Road and the
gridlock there will create traffic jams down the funnel roads.
b. Congestion on the Upper Richmond Road is likely to become worse and not better as and
when major developments (the Brewery, Homebase) start and are completed; and there is
no prospect of Hammersmith Bridge re-opening soon. So congestion is likely to remain.

3. c. Unlike the other schemes that we are aware of, there is no suggestion that the LTN will be
co-ordinated with TFL. So the underlying cause of the traffic in the area is unaddressed, as
there will be no improvements to the Upper Richmond Road.
d. Unlike all the other schemes that we are aware of, the Proposals funnel local traffic to two
unclassified residential roads that are not sufficiently wide (in 3 places) for two cars to pass
(Christchurch Road and Sheen Common Drive); and to Sheen Lane, a residential road
classified as a B road. As they will be feeding into a gridlocked Upper Richmond Road; and as
they themselves (in particular the unclassified residential roads) are unfit for additional
traffic, they themselves will become gridlocked.
e. There is no suggestion that the launch of the LTN will be accompanied by any additional
infrastructure funding (let alone the millions received by Waltham Forest) So residents stuck
in traffic (whether by car or by bus) will not be given any new alternatives to get around or
to get to work. Trains already run at well beyond capacity and bus journeys will be slowed by
the increased congestion on the Upper Richmond Road.
f. As a result of the additional traffic jams created in Parkside by the LTN, we do not see any
likelihood of a reduction of traffic or a reduction of pollution Parkside. To the contrary, we
expect that these will increase.
g. Our community’s centre is not at the heart of this LTN. The community’s centre lies along
Sheen Lane and the Upper Richmond Road, by their cross-roads. In contrast, the heart of the
LTN is a small group of residential roads. The LTN may possibly reduce traffic within those
roads. (We have our doubts – we think that Palmerston and Observatory will suffer from
traffic as drivers try to avoid the gridlock along Christchurch Road.) In any case, the LTN will
increase traffic in our community’s centre and also around our schools (Sheen Mount and
Tower House) which lie on the funnel roads for this LTN. For this reason, there will not be
environmental benefits to the community as a whole and to the contrary the heart of our
community and its schools will become more polluted and unpleasant.
h. We do not think that the Proposals will achieve the typical objectives of an LTN, namely:
they will not see an increase in active living for residents (more cycling and walking) or an
enhanced perception of the local environment (on account of reduced traffic and pollution),
or a change in attitudes to investment in non-car infrastructure. In the first 2 cases, this is
because the traffic and pollution will be made worse by the LTN – and it will make both
Parkside and our community’s centre around the Sheen Lane / Upper Richmond Road cross-
roads a less attractive area to cycle or walk; and in the third case, there is no accompanying
investment in non-car infrastructure that could cause a change in attitudes.
But Low Traffic Neighbourhoods reduce traffic!
We would like to take the opportunity to elaborate on why we think that the Proposals will increase
and not decrease traffic Parkside. We have been told and we have read repeatedly that LTNs reduce
traffic. This is repeated as a mantra: it has worked elsewhere so it will work in Parkside. The main
argument is that traffic in and around an LTN reduces over time as people’s behaviours change in
the face of the LTN: so, i.e, a Parkside LTN would cause rat-runners from out of town to choose a
different route [excellent]; the Parkside resident fed up with sitting in traffic will don lycra and cycle
to work [excellent]. And in time, this will cause a reduction in traffic.
We disagree with this argument in the case of Parkside.
Firstly, data on LTNs is self-selective and so carries a bias in that LTNs are generally only
implemented in areas which are well-suited to LTNs (ie because they are astride A-roads that can
absorb traffic quickly, etc.) and are accompanied by new funding in infrastructure, etc. (see above).

4. We do not think that one can simply look to the success of those other, suitable and well-funded
schemes and be confident that a Parkside scheme will be a comparable success.
Secondly, we re-iterate just how awful the Upper Richmond Road is. And just how ghastly the traffic
jams will be on the (unsuitable) funnel roads if the Proposals are implemented. If 10% of traffic
evaporates as a result of an LTN Parkside, then 90% will be displaced – over longer distances – to the
funnel roads where they will sit in traffic jams to access the Upper Richmond Road and then sit in
traffic jams on the Upper Richmond Road. It is very hard to see how this will do anything other than
increase traffic overall.
Thirdly, we have a real life mini-example of an LTN in Parkside: when the council implemented one-
way traffic restrictions down Coval Road and Temple Sheen Road, to accompany the measures
applied to Palmerston, Observatory and Sheen Gate Gardens. The Consultation stated misleadingly
that these measures had seen a decrease in traffic across the area [on which, more below]. In fact,
the council did not have any useful data on the impact of these measures across Parkside as a whole,
because it did not measure the before-and-after levels of traffic in Berwyn Road or Sheen Common
Drive. Residents of those roads – who never had a traffic problem before – will tell you that these
measures created the worst ever traffic jams down those roads. Residents have seen with their own
eyes that there was a clear increase in traffic overall in Parkside.
Fourthly, the scope for residents of Parkside to change behaviours is limited. The many residents
who commute into London generally do so by public transport. School catchment areas are small
and most (but not all) walk to school. We are lucky enough to be adjacent to Sheen Common,
Palewell Park and Richmond Park and we regularly use those green areas, whether walking or
cycling. We do however have some journeys that need to be taken by car: commutes out of or
across town; activities for small children; every day journeys for the old or infirm. There is no
infrastructure at hand to replace the car journeys in these cases.
But the volume of traffic on the Upper Richmond Road won’t be affected by these changes – it’ll be
the same cars making the same journeys! So congestion on the Upper Richmond Road won’t change!
No, this is not correct.
Firstly, the Proposals will cause many local journeys that would previously have avoided the Upper
Richmond Road entirely, to be displaced to the Upper Richmond Road.
Secondly, more journeys still will be re-directed to join the Upper Richmond Road at Sheen Lane and
then turn west along the Upper Richmond Road, instead of joining the Upper Richmond Road
directly at Coval Road or Temple Sheen Road. Where they join the Upper Richmond Road makes a
big difference to the effect on congestion. If a car making a local journey from Parkside to Richmond
or to (ie) Deanhill Road exits Parkside onto the Upper Richmond Road at Coval Gardens or Temple
Sheen Road, then that car may drive along the uncongested left-hand lane without getting stuck in
the grid-locked right-hand lane. If, in contrast, that car must travel down Sheen Lane to join the
Upper Richmond Road at rush hour, then it must join the gridlocked single lane west-bound and
there it adds to congestion, until the car gets past Sheen Gate Gardens when it is able to move into
the left-hand lane and proceed.
Thirdly, traffic joining the Upper Richmond Road at Coval Gardens or Temple Sheen can filter into
the A road as and when there are spaces. This is more efficient than cars being funnelled onto the
Upper Richmond Road at Sheen Lane, where cars must wait for the traffic lights to turn green, at
which point cars can then turn onto the Upper Richmond Road only insofar as there is room for

5. them to do so. At peak times, only a handful of cars may be able to join the Upper Richmond Road at
each sequence. Inevitably this causes traffic to back way up and down Sheen Lane. This is
exacerbated yet further by two features of Sheen Lane: on the north side, a level crossing which is
“down” for long periods at rush hour – even more now due to longer trains passing through the
station; and on the south side, some narrow one-car sections.
We understand that an LTN seeks to dis-incentivise driving and that causing a short term increase in
congestion is a deliberate strategy. But the level of disruption and additional congestion must be
proportionate to the benefits to residents as a whole. Pro-LTN literature describes the trade-off as “a
couple of minutes extra on some resident journeys as they have to drive further round the edge of
the cell before entering, but little substantive change to main road congestion”.2
If that were the
case, then we could support this LTN. But we know that for Parkside’s LTN the added waiting times
would be far longer than a couple of minutes. We have experience of a mini-LTN already: the recent
Coval Gardens / Temple Sheen Road changes caused journey times to increase by between 20
minutes and 40 minutes at peak times, as residents sat in gridlock traffic.
This level of additional waiting times are not proportionate, reasonable or acceptable to residents.
Especially when the supposed “benefit” is simply more traffic jams around East Sheen.
This is why these Proposals will cause gridlock in Parkside. They will not reduce traffic. They will
increase traffic and pollution, infuriate residents and make our community a less pleasant place.
2. The four options presented by the Consultation
We have set out above why we think that each of the Proposals will cause an increase in traffic and
pollution Parkside. We will add the following additional comments:
• Community: East Sheen is one community and these Proposals cut our community in two,
restricting Parkside from getting out of their homes and restricting non-Parkside from
getting home from visiting Parkside or the park. We need to be able to get around in our
community and sometimes by car. There are no alternative infrastructure arrangements
being proposed. Residents will have access to other sections of this community reduced or
removed.
• Parking: we have already seen (as a consequence of the Coval Road / Temple Sheen Road
one-way restrictions) that residents do not wish to get stuck “the wrong side” of the divide.
So they park “outside” and walk in or vice versa. This has already had a serious and
detrimental effect on parking in our road. School-run parents for instance can now park in
Deanhill Road and walk through the alley to Coval Gardens in order to avoid the lengthy
traffic jam to get back out to the Upper Richmond Road. And some residents of Parkside
have taken to leaving their cars in our road in order to avoid the congestion. It can now be
hard to park in our road. It wasn’t before.
• Businesses and driving customers: the heart of our community is not the residential roads
that are the centre of the LTN but the shops, restaurants and amenities along Sheen Lane
and the Upper Richmond road around the cross-roads. Our community’s businesses are
being hard-hit by congestion and reduced parking that these traffic measures have
exacerbated. Shops and restaurants on the Upper Richmond Road have reduced earnings
and the owners say that customers are not willing to sit in traffic to get to them; to have to
park up a side road and get “stuck” the wrong side of the divide and then get stuck in traffic
2
A Guide to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

6. coming back out of Parkside. The LTN will make things even worse. These businesses are
important for our community and they are threatened by additional congestion. The LTN will
only make it worse.
• Pedestrians (and local businesses and the community): the heart of our community is not
the residential roads that are the centre of the LTN but the shops, restaurants and amenities
along Sheen Lane and the Upper Richmond road around the cross-roads. The main
pedestrian routes to it are along the Upper Richmond Road and Sheen Lane. The proposals
include a widening of Sheen Lane which will make that route to the town centre (and from
there to the park) more hazardous and more polluted. All of the proposals increase pollution
and make walking (or cycling) to the shops, library or health clinic more hazardous and
unpleasant.
• Nurseries: several of our residents have children in nurseries on the Upper Richmond Road:
these proposals will make our children’s journey to nursery (and their time at nursery) less
pleasant and unhealthy.
• Increased rat-running across East Sheen: we have seen the Coval Road / Temple Sheen Road
one-way restrictions trigger congestion not only down Christchurch Road, Sheen Common
Drive and Berwyn Road, but also all across the north side of the Upper Richmond Road. We
conjecture that the council anticipates that residents of these roads will seek to create LTNs
of their own in order to reduce this new traffic and that such additional LTNs will further
reduce traffic and pollution across East Sheen and lead to further improvements to active
living and the environment across East Sheen. We think that this is misguided. For the
reasons set out in Section 1, any such LTNs on the north-side will suffer similarly from the
fatal flaw of this LTN: that our community’s main route is gridlocked and cannot absorb
additional traffic. Any such LTNs will make the traffic worse.
3. Process: issues with the Consultation
We raise the following issues with respect to how the Consultation has been carried out:
1. The Consultation document itself is not in our view sufficiently balanced or transparent with
respect to how it weighs up the proposed LTN or the pro’s and con’s of the Proposals. There
is a built-in assumption in the Consultation that any of the Proposals will reduce traffic and
pollution and be a benefit to residents. We recognise that this is the heartfelt belief of the
officers and councillors, based on a conviction that LTNs are a good idea and have been
successful elsewhere. But unfortunately we disagree that it is correct, for the reasons set out
in detail above, and in our view it should not have been presented as such.
The very name “Low Traffic Neighbourhood” gives the impression that it will reduce traffic.
It is a technical conceptual term but it is not clearly presented as such.
This is compounded by the Consultation’s misleading and incorrect statement that the
restrictions around Palmerston, Coval and Temple Sheen Road had reduced traffic Parkside
by 10%. The council did not have data to support this claim (as there was no before-and-
after data gathering down Berwyn Road and Sheen Common Drive, which were gridlocked
as a result of these changes).
The council sets out Advantages and Disadvantages of each option but its list of
disadvantages is completely inadequate. By way of example: Option 2 lists as its sole
disadvantage that it does not stop rat-running from the Upper Richmond Road to the Park. It
fails to mention (by way of example):
a. That it displaces traffic onto unclassified roads Christchurch Road and Sheen Common
Drive and onto Sheen Lane

7. b. Loss of connectivity for residents who will get stuck in traffic jams as they try to get out
of Parkside
c. Loss of parking spaces and pavement space in Sheen Lane
d. Increase in traffic around the two schools in Parkside
We are concerned that some residents might take the Consultation on face value and take it
on trust that these Proposals will lead to the improvements that are to be expected of a
good and successful LTN.
Similarly, we know of residents who submitted responses in favour of an LTN whilst being of
the view that none of the options are viable – and who are now regretting it as they did not
fully understand that they were expressing a preference for a technical concept and not
merely a wish (which we all share) for less traffic.
2. Lack of sufficient data gathering
As stated above, the proposed LTN will involve a lot of additional traffic disruption and
residents will suffer slower journeys. This is a deliberate part of the strategy for the launch
of an LTN. In our view, it would have been a valuable exercise to seek to understand where
residents’ daily journeys by car take them and whether there is scope for residents to
change their behaviours away from using a car. It is not apparent to us that any such
exercise has been undertaken. In this case, the council does not have a clear picture of the
impact that the LTN will have on residents.
4. Co-ordination with TFL
We re-iterate that the root of the congestion facing Parkside is the Upper Richmond Road, which is
gridlocked at peak hours. We urge you to work with TFL for a solution. Such a solution could include:
a. Improve the train services
b. Re-opening Hammersmith Bridge to traffic as soon as possible
c. Consider widening the Upper Richmond Road west-bound between Sheen Lane and Sheen
Gate Gardens so that there is a second lane for local traffic and Richmond traffic during peak
hours
d. Improve the flow of traffic from Clifford Avenue through Chalkers Corner.
5. Recommendations for traffic planning
We make the following recommendations:
• Remove all the newly-imposed one-ways and no left / no right turns.
• Palmerston to be one-way with upgraded speed bumps [solving the legitimate complaints
that they have about 2-way “conflicts” without an increased risk of speeding]
• Consider the ANPR ideas being floated by some residents. We would urge that the
geographical scope of those included in the ANPR zone include the whole of Sheen. We are
one community and so this is important so that it does not cause an access divide.
We would be happy to discuss any aspect of this submission with you further – please contact us at
deanhillroad@hotmail.com.