• CAMDEN Council cabinet last week decided, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that the Tavistock-Torrington corridor should remain one-way east-bound permanently. This was in direct contravention of the public inquiry held in November 2017.

This month-long inquiry, at which detailed evidence was presented and scrutinised by experts, concluded that the disadvantages of the east-bound direction out­weighed the advantages, and that the council should consider making the route west-bound, rather than east-bound.

The independent inspector accordingly recommended that the east-bound route should not be made permanent. And yet the council has now done the opposite.

This formal inquiry, which was triggered by a council administrative error, cost Camden Council taxpayers £298,577 – not including the cost of officer time which could be in the region of another £100,000.

And yet the council has treated it as a pointless cosmetic exercise. This was a shocking waste of public funds; and demonstrates a worrying lack of respect for independent evidence.

The council’s own evidence proved, according to the analysis referred to in cabinet, that a west-bound route would offer a reduced risk of collisions and casualties, fewer vehicle miles driven and shorter traffic queues. And yet the council has chosen the opposite.

The cabinet papers claim that those closest to the corridor would prefer to retain the east-bound scheme. However, a careful look at the council’s own data, shows that people living around the corridor east of Byng Place, who were severely affected by the congestion and pollution caused by displaced traffic, were more in favour of west-bound than east-bound; but the data was aggregated, in the report to cabinet, to disguise this.

The cabinet papers recognised that the east-bound route has disadvantages for disabled people but dismisses these as ‘relatively minor’.

Last Wednesday I asked the cabinet, why they would choose an option which has a higher risk of accidents; which would cause more queueing traffic and therefore pollution; which would make life more difficult for wheelchair users; which is not preferred by affected residents and voters; and which flouts the conclusions of a formal and costly public inquiry? No one answered.

NICKY COATES
Co-Chair, Bloomsbury Residents’ Action Group