All Activity

I used our internal business application to give me a synopsis of the file. Compliance is also part of my job so I understand the necessity on non bias but also the importance of process. Please have a full read through and I'm sure you will have a different opinion.

I think there needs to be better oversight of this carpark, if it is being misused. A few large fines might help....

Sorry Angell, I was being facetious about Honest Burger. I agree, its a much better offering. Re Tesco, they've turned that round quickly since actually starting work. Seems to have a cash machine too, which will be useful as the other two are sometimes empty.

It is. Southwark Labour are treating residents with utter contempt. They have been doing it for years over LTNs and clearly thought they could get away with it again. This is what happens when organisations get away with abusing their power - they keep doing it. To be fair @Earl Aelfheah I saw your summary and then opened one of the documents (emails and other reports pdf) and saw far more aligned with @Lebanums summary than yours - did you not upload that file? That's where the juicy staff is! It may also have struggled as so much of it is redacted.

The summary I provided is the result of the following prompt: "Please give a brief summary of the contents of the attached file" (I uploaded the FOI file). It is an objective summary, with no agenda. Anyone can try it themselves if they doubt this. What prompt have you used to get that output @Lebanums? Because it was almost certainly leading in some way. And this is the problem with FOI as fishing expedition - if you set out to trawl hundreds of pages of documents and private emails looking for something to feed a prejudice (or ask AI to do it), then you will well feel 'vindicated' in your suspicions. But it's cherry picking and confirmation bias, not enquiry.

The whole thing is pitiful

Ha ha, looks like @Earl Aelfheah got some, ahem, AI hallucination thrown in to their summary....

Here's what co-pilot omitted 1. Pre-determination and outcome-driven approach The emails show that the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) was treated internally as a priority scheme with a predetermined outcome, rather than an open options-based process. Officers and senior figures discussed how to achieve implementation quickly, rather than whether the scheme should proceed. There is repeated emphasis on: Speed of delivery Avoiding delay until after elections Managing reputational risk rather than addressing substantive objections This gives the appearance that process was shaped around a desired result, not the other way around. 2. Explicit discussion of bypassing governance Several emails explicitly reference: Bypassing or streamlining normal governance Avoiding informal consultation and governance boards Fast-tracking through IDM/LMB with concurrent sign-offs Drafting and mobilising the ETO during the call-in period This is important: it shows awareness that normal safeguards existed, and a conscious decision to circumvent them to meet a January implementation date. 3. Known risks acknowledged internally The FOI clearly shows that officers and councillors: Anticipated resident backlash and bad press Recognised a risk that legal justification might not be sufficient Acknowledged traffic displacement and volume concerns Understood the reputational parallels with unpopular 2020 ETMOs Despite this, the scheme was progressed on the basis that senior figures were: “willing to accept and own backlash and bad press” This is significant because it demonstrates that risks were known, documented, and accepted, not unforeseen. 4. Internal disagreement and warnings ignored At least one council officer: Withdrew from the process entirely Explicitly cited issues they had raised with the scheme Warned of reputational risk and governance concerns Others recommended informal consultation specifically to mitigate those risks — advice that appears to have been overridden or side-lined. This supports an argument that professional concerns were raised but not acted upon. 5. Consultation treated as tactical, not substantive Where consultation is mentioned, it is framed as: A reputational safeguard A way to potentially slow or derail the scheme politically Something to give councillors “cold feet” rather than to shape policy This undermines the credibility of any claim that consultation was intended to be meaningful or influential. 6. Weak evidential basis The documentation: Acknowledges risk that legal justification may not be met Does not demonstrate a clear causal link between the measures proposed and the outcomes claimed This matters for public law fairness, proportionality, and rationality. 7. Concentration of influence While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show: A small number of elected members driving urgency and direction Officers framing decisions around political priority Escalation being discouraged once senior backing was confirmed This creates a reasonable perception of undue influence, particularly when combined with: Lack of consultation Accelerated governance Acceptance of known risks

An objective summary of the email correspondence (created by Copilot), for those not interesting in wading through all of it, or just looking to cherry pick bits that may fit a prejudice [prompt was: "Please give a brief summary of the contents of the attached file" (I uploaded the FOI file)]: Summary of the Attached Files The document is a comprehensive technical and policy pack concerning a proposed Experimental Traffic Management Order (ETMO) for Ryedale, in the London Borough of Southwark. It combines drawings, analysis, equality assessments, consultation notes, and a full cabinet‑member decision report. 1. Engineering Drawings and Design Information The file includes several AutoCAD‑generated plans, maps, and swept‑path analyses showing: Proposed modal filter on Ryedale. Associated planters, bollards, and traffic signs. Proposed one‑way systems on Balchier Road and Cornflower Terrace. Master plan and technical layout drawings. Swept path analysis for various vehicle types (cars, vans, refuse vehicles). These illustrate the physical layout and operational design of the scheme. 2. Experimental Traffic Measures Proposed The scheme intends to prohibit through‑traffic on Ryedale by installing: A modal filter between Underhill Road and Balchier Road. One‑way directions with right‑turn‑only restrictions on Balchier Road and Cornflower Terrace. Physical barriers (planters, bollards). Purpose: to reduce excessive traffic volumes and improve safety. 3. Data and Traffic Analysis The file contains Automated Traffic Count (ATC) results from April 2025 showing: Ryedale has significantly higher daily traffic volumes (~1000 vehicles each direction) than neighbouring roads. Traffic is believed to be using Ryedale as a rat‑run to avoid signals on Dunstans Road. No recent collision history; speeds not considered a primary issue. A pros/cons assessment is also included, highlighting potential displacement to neighbouring streets. 4. Equality Impact and Needs Analysis (EINA) The document includes a full EINA covering: Compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty. Expected impacts on protected groups (none deemed negative). Positive impacts for vulnerable road users (children, elderly, disabled people). Consideration of socio‑economic and health effects. 5. Cabinet Member Report (Decision Document) A 12‑page formal report summarises: Background to resident concerns reported since March 2025. Rationale for selecting an experimental approach. Policy alignment with Streets for People, Climate Action Plan, and safety objectives. Resource and legal implications (ETMO under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). Timeline for implementation (ETMO drafting Dec 2025 → Implementation Jan/Mar 2026). 6. Waste Services Concerns The waste and recycling service provided detailed feedback, warning that: The changes could increase heavy vehicle movements, especially refuse trucks. The proposed design may significantly complicate collection routes. Alternative design suggestions (e.g., ANPR filter with exemptions) were proposed. 7. Risks and Consultation Requirements The report highlights: Risks of insufficient informal consultation. Potential resident objections. Risk of increased speeds (suggested mitigation: sinusoidal humps). Need for statutory consultation per the 1996 Regulations. 8. Appendices Appendix 1: Outline design drawings. Appendix 2: Full Equality Impact and Needs Analysis. Process map for the ETMO stages. In Summary The document brings together all technical, legal, policy, equality, and procedural evidence required to support an experimental road closure (modal filter) on Ryedale. It documents the justification, expected impacts, traffic data, formal decision process, and next steps toward implementation.

Sorry if my post was misleading, I certainly wasn't intending to encourage it. Quite the opposite. But maybe some are doing it already. This morning i had an appointment at tessa jowell and there was nowhere to park, not for the first time. In fact i did the opposite - I parked on Lordship Lane and ran!

FOI Response for anyone who is interested.

I'm looking for someone to do some repairs to gutters and drainpipes too. Will keep an eye on this thread. Thanks.

Ronni grant Roofing replaced our flat roof very recently. Extremely good value and high quality job. [email protected]

Another recommendation for Kam. He painted our built-in wardrobe last week and he did a great job! Photo attached.

To be fair, we don't actually know you do - we will just have to take your word for it. But your posting history does arose suspicions.... All we have to go on is that you registered on the forum recently, have only posted about your support for the Ryedale LTN, yet claimed to not know what an LTN is, yet when you do start decide to start repeating activist research on how "good" LTNs are, you then claim to be an academic yourself and have experience of peer-reviewed research yet you apply results from said activist research as an example of what the Ryedale LTN will do yet have not acknowledged that the Ryedale LTN is very, very different from what the research surveyed - you're basically taking research for apples and applying it to pears and I am not sure that's sound academia. Has TFL ever funded any studies not by Aldred, Goodman et al......? Perhaps it might be a good time for them to start- oh sorry they can't can they as the multi-million pound pot for it was all given to them.....;-) Bottom-line remains that those who have fast-tracked this through, seemingly trying to by-pass proper process and scrutiny, have a lot of questions to answer.

If full thought had gone into why there is additional traffic then we would be better placed but one standard cookie cutter reaction does not fit all.. The data count on this occasion is showing that the heavier traffic and higher % of speeding is on those streets with speed cushions (that even a mini can avoid) and not full carriage way speed bumps as per the others measured. If there is opportunity to avoid speed bumps then it will surely be the preferred route.

Looking for a roofer to come and look at our flat roof. Any recommendations greatly appreciated! Thanks.

As a specialist tutor with a 12-year experience, I am committed to my students and their needs so they can indeed succeed in a confident and friendly learning environment. In the last round of exams, I am proud to say that all my students secured places at the best private and/or grammar schools in South-East London (Alleyn’s, St Dunstan’s, Dulwich College, Colfe’s, JAGS, Whitgift, Trinity, Eltham College, Wilson Grammar, Wallington High School, St Olaves, Newstead Woods, etc.) My sessions offer a: - one-to-one focus to address your child's unique ways to learn so he/she can attain the expected level of attainment in all subjects (English, including Persuasive and Creative Writing; Maths, Verbal and Non-Verbal Reasoning; interview coaching.). - thorough knowledge of the requirements for each specific selective test. - the in-depth study of those subjects and exam techniques. - parents and children support for what can be a daunting process. - Consultation about grammar and independent schools in the local area available. With a life-time in education and teaching, I believe in providing strong foundations, so that students not only succeed in entering the school of their choice, but also to flourish once there. I teach online and in-person. My contacts: [email protected] / 0749 7767 661. I am always happy to have an initial conversation if required. Please find some references: “We've just accepted one of the school offers for our son and are happy the whole 11+ process is over! If you're looking for a safe pair of hands, I'd highly recommend Caroline Perret as an 11+ tutor. She covers all the 11+ topics in 1:1 sessions on Zoom. She tutored our son weekly from the beginning of year 5 until the exams. As our son was in a state primary school and we/parents don't have experience with 11+, we relied on Caroline's guidance. She taught him lots of techniques and stretched him to be at the right level for the schools he wanted to go for. She also managed the ups and downs of his mood and motivation well to keep it stress free. The homework was also reasonable. My son got an offer in all 3 schools he applied to as well as an academic scholarship: Highgate school (in North West London), Alleyns and Eltham college.” "If you’re looking for tuition for your child (for the 11 plus, entrance exams or to support primary school curriculum learning) we can recommend Caroline Perret who tutored our son. Caroline is filled with a love of learning herself and makes the sessions engaging and enjoyable while at the same time identifying the areas in which the child needs support. A recipe for stress free success." “Caroline tutored my son over Zoom prior to him sitting exams for senior school. Their sessions were always very calm and focussed and Caroline managed to cover a lot of content with him in a short time including maths, English, verbal and non-verbal reasoning. If you are looking to support your child through these 11+ / senior school exams, as well as persuasive and creative writing, I would highly recommend Caroline.” "If you're looking for tuition for your child (for the 11 plus, entrance exams or to support primary school curriculum learning), we can recommend Caroline Perret who tutored our son. Caroline is filled with a love of learning herself and makes the sessions engaging and enjoyable while at the same time identifying the areas in which the child needs support. A recipe for stress-free success." "Caroline is a kind, warm and inspiring tutor. My 10-year-old daughter always looked forward to her sessions with Caroline and she became very well prepared for her 11+ exams." "We were very happy indeed with Caroline - Imogen and Bailey both got offers from all schools applied for, and Bailey has two academic scholarships and a third scholarship interview, so they have done wonderfully - thank you!" "When tutoring my son Theo, Caroline was really committed and was brilliant for keeping him motivated. They had a really nice relationship. She has an amazing ability to make the lessons fun and was always coming up with inventive ways of teaching. I've just asked my son if he wanted to add anything and he said: "She knew me really well." "I have known Caroline for around four years and she has taught two of my four children. In terms of teaching content, I have found her to be a very well-prepared and diligent teacher, with creative ideas about how to engage the children, taking into account differing needs. She is very personable and popular with the children - they have always very much looked forward to seeing her. On the practical side, she is organised, punctual and communicative." "I am the parent of a child whom Caroline has recently tutored. She has adeptly guided my daughter through the 11+ content required for some competitive local secondary schools and taught her even more besides! Just as importantly, my daughter has loved her sessions with Caro and they have helped instil what I hope will be a lifelong love for learning, in her! Caroline is awesome and I shall use her for my younger children, when the time comes!" “Caroline has great expertise in guiding and preparing children for their 11+ and academic scholarships whilst ensuring that the process remains fun and stress-free. Our daughter was eventually offered an academic scholarship to the school of our choice and so we were delighted with the outcome and would recommend Caroline wholeheartedly.”

A number of people here, by their own admission, including some of the loudest voices, don’t actually live in this area. If you don’t live on Rydale, Underhill, Dunstans, Cornflower, Balchier or St Aidans Road, I’d kindly ask you to give some space to the people who do. When pages get filled with antagonistic back-and-forth tied to a specific agenda, it makes it harder for actual residents to have a constructive discussion. On the topic of “biased research”: I work in academia, in a different field, but the research and peer-review process is similar. I’ve spent the last few days reading up on LTNs. The studies people call biased mostly rely on real-world measurements like traffic counts, air quality sensors, and accident data, not opinions or politics. People can argue about interpretation, but similar patterns show up across different cities, with different researchers, and in repeated studies. Traffic inside LTNs tends to drop, walking and cycling often increase, and road injuries often fall. The methods are transparent and the results are replicable. So the issue isn’t whether research is “for” or “against” LTNs. It’s about looking at what the data show and how schemes can be designed to work well for residents. As an academic, I fully support scrutiny of research. If anyone has credible, peer-reviewed studies that strongly contradict these findings, please share them. That’s how good debate works. But claiming that all peer-reviewed evidence is part of a coordinated agenda doesn’t reflect how peer review works. Reviewers are independent and their role is to find flaws, not promote policies. The idea that large numbers of unrelated reviewers are all colluding isn’t realistic and doesn’t help the discussion. Let’s keep the conversation grounded in evidence and focused on what works best for the people who live here.