Earl Aelfheah

This is absolute nonsense. There is no evidence that the LTN increased congestion. Vehicle counts show the opposite - traffic decreased in the year after the LTN was implemented. There is no evidence that the LTN increased pollution, air quality modelling pre-implementation predicted a fall in pollution, and air quality monitoring post implementation confirmed that pollution did indeed fall. It's as predictable as it is tedious. Something Rocks made a big thing about, but now washes over for convenience. Much like he smears academics, who he then quotes as authoritative sources when it suits his predetermined view on something. He's not remotely interested in good faith debate.

Yeh, I agree. There is no way (that I can think of) that you could easily disaggregate those different factors. It's correlation, rather than causation. That said, pre-LTN implementation they modelled the likely impact on pollution, which predicted falls in NO2. There were falls in NO2. So whilst the causes of these falls will be multi-factor, it seems likely that the LTNs contributed to them / had a positive impact, especially when combined with traffic monitoring data which showed falls in traffic across the wider area a year after implementation. Of course, Rockets will be here to tell you again (with no evidence at all) that pollution has increased. It hasn't.

On NO2 (I know not exactly what you asked, but it's the air pollution data available). I transposed the data for the local monitoring sites from the report above, to make it easier to engage with (they use reference numbers, but not site names, and obviously its jumbled in with multiple sites across SouthwarK:

Here is the provisional air quality report for 2024: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/Southwark_air_quality_status_report_2024.pdf

What then?

Don't know about particulate pollution, but there is published data on local NO2, which shows pollution falling year on year. A year of monitoring traffic on boundary roads to the Dulwich LTN post implementation, showed a decrease in the number of vehicles on average. These two facts taken together suggest other vehicle related pollution is likely to have fallen also. Think this is all I can find on particulates specifically, but is for the whole of Southwark so doesn't really answer the local question: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Air Quality Status Report Southwark 2023.pdf I would suggest writing to your councillor, before putting in an FOI.

Agree - it's really not on.

Embarrassing Talk about Trumpian

@first mate Here’s the problem: it’s absurd when someone publishes something that claims to be an objective summary of an FOI when it plainly isn’t, for you to then insist that people respond to that summary rather than the FOI itself. If that distinction isn’t obvious, then we really have jumped the shark. Please don’t talk about things feeling trumpian whilst being complicit in such obviously bad faith / dishonest tactics.

It's not a summary. Are you suggesting that Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique? Or are you saying you don't care that it's not the truth? I've told you my view on the information in the FOI - engaging with the full content, not a fake 'summary'.

Yes, you've ducked the question again. Are you suggesting that @Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique, or that you don't think he's telling the truth, but you don't care?

@Rockets You constantly mock the large body of academic research, but offer no peer reviewed research to support your many 'alternative' claims. You've smeared academics repeatedly, including individuals you've previously cited favourably when (you've mistakenly thought) their work aligns with your position. You've repeated claims of increased pollution in the area many times, including on this thread, which are demonstrably false. And you have ducked this question. It would be good to know whether you're defending what you know to be deliberately misleading statements, or whether you actually believe that they're true.

It isn't a summary. Are you suggesting that @Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique? I would love to know whether you are actually claiming to buy that / don't understand how AI prompts work, or are simply saying that you don't care that he's been deliberately misleading. I do appreciate your concern on this. The fact is however, that the trial is likely to proceed. I would advise you to put pressure on the council to do a lot of baselining and proper monitoring of the impacts. There is a lot of misinformation around the impacts of these types of measures. A well managed trial will demonstrate whether or not there is a negative impact on surrounding streets.

A transparent untruth you seem to be comfortable defending whilst talking about things feeling 'Trumpian'. Oh dear.

The emails suggest it's due to the statutory process, the governance timetable, and the need for monitored real‑world data... Delaying implementation would delay the wider traffic strategy, compress the legal modification window (the earlier the scheme can start, the more time there is for monitoring, community feedback, and possible adjustments before the legal modification window closes), and would risk undermining the procedural integrity of the scheme. If you read the whole thing, instead of fake AI summaries, or the bits you think might vindicate the view you've already formed, it's clear what their reasoning is. Whether you agree with their reasoning is then a legitimate point of debate.

The whole framing of Lebanums so called 'synopsis' is dishonest (something you seem unconcerned about). I'm not going to engage with a misrepresentation of the content of the FOI. My balanced view of the the actual information contained within the FOI however, is that firstly there is no evidence of conspiracy, but rather robust statutory compliance, and strong alignment to Southwark's publicly declared and democratically mandated policy. Secondly, they've considered potential displacement impacts, and potential impacts around waste collections - and are instituting a trial, with planned monitoring; This seems to be reasonable and proportionate way to proceed. They've also undertaken equality and health impact assessments, and there is clear cross‑departmental governance in place with transparent reporting. The absence of informal consultation, and compressed timelines are obviously things they're aware of themselves as being potential areas for criticism. I think it's not ideal, but also, as they're doing this as a trial and in the context of the above), not totally unreasonable. You can tell they're mindful of the FOI / One brigade, who are more interested in wrecking tactics, than genuinely engaging with what works, as amply demonstrated on this thread. What is clear (and rather depressing) is how a handful of people who post regularly on this section and have a very particular agenda, have given up on any attempt at objectivity, or in some cases, even pretence of good faith debate or honest dialogue.

Nope. One is a summary, one is not (but has been dishonestly portrayed as such). My recent post above, is tongue in cheek - it's an illustration of how one can easily produce a completely biased response through a directed prompt (that one obscures). This thread is embarrassing. You've got Lebanums being transparently dishonest about the prompt he's used to produce what he claims is an objective summary of the material in the FOI, but clearly is not, and people who seem to either not understand how prompting works, or simply don't care about what's true, whilst calling for accuracy 🤣.

Oh I see. We're not discussing the full content of the FOI objectively, or even pretending to have an honest debate? OK. here is an AI generated 'synopsis' of the FOI emails. @first mate which of these statements is untrue? (See how easy it is if you don't use an open or objective summary of the whole document as your premise?) 1. Clear Legal Basis and Strong Procedural Compliance The documentation explicitly grounds the scheme in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (Sections 6, 9, 94, 122, 124) and the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996, demonstrating a high level of legal awareness and procedural structuring. The report details exactly how ETMOs can be made, their permissible scope, and their time‑limited nature (18 months + possible 6‑month extension), showing officers are working within statutory limits and ensuring transparency. Requirements for notices, deposited documents, inspection rights, consultation with statutory consultees, and publication in the London Gazette and Southwark News are all spelled out and planned for—the hallmarks of careful statutory compliance. 2. Transparent Documentation and Thorough Policy Alignment The reports clearly show alignment with the Streets for People Strategy 2023, including objectives on safety, public realm, active travel, and reduced dependence on car use. This demonstrates that the proposal is linked to democratically adopted policy frameworks. The scheme is also explicitly connected to the Climate Change Strategy, including carbon reduction and active travel encouragement—again showing that decisions are anchored to council wide strategic goals. All costs, funding sources, and resource implications are disclosed, including the £15k estimated implementation cost and confirmation that existing Highways budgets will cover it. This represents strong financial transparency. 3. Use of Evidence and Data to Inform Decision-Making The inclusion of Automated Traffic Count (ATC) data across multiple local roads (mean speeds, 85th percentiles, AADTs) demonstrates an empirical foundation for understanding traffic patterns and identifying pressures on Ryedale. Officers offer an analysis of how traffic behaves in relation to local junctions, indicating that the proposal is grounded in observed patterns rather than assumptions. Evidence from other Low‑Traffic Neighbourhoods (e.g., safety benefits, modal shift) is referenced to support assessment of likely outcomes, showing use of broader research context. 4. Comprehensive Equality Impact and Needs Analysis (EINA) The documents include a full Equality Impact and Needs Analysis, aligned with the Public Sector Equality Duty. This ensures decision‑makers are aware of impacts on protected groups and mitigations needed. The EINA explicitly considers socio‑economic aspects, added duties under council policy, and the need to ensure decision‑makers have sufficient information—an indicator of maturity in equality governance. Officers concluded that the measures advance equality of opportunity for vulnerable road users (children, elderly, disabled individuals) due to reduced traffic volumes—a positive, proactive equality consideration. 5. Cross‑Departmental Input and Multi‑Disciplinary Engagement Multiple teams provided comments or input—Highways, Waste, Legal, Climate, Governance & Assurance, Strategic Resources—showing collaborative governance rather than siloed delivery. The Waste department’s detailed operational feedback is explicitly recorded, demonstrating willingness to engage with operational realities and incorporate service impacts into decision‑making. The involvement of the Climate Change Director, Strategic Director of Resources, and Governance/Assurance teams demonstrates a high level of organisational oversight. 6. Built‑In Monitoring, Proportionality, and Adaptability The scheme is experimental, showing a proportionate, “test‑and‑learn” approach. Rather than implementing a permanent change, the council intends to monitor effects and adapt accordingly. Officers plan regular traffic counts in the first six months, ensuring continuous feedback to inform decisions on permanence. The ETMO framework enables modifications (within statutory limits), demonstrating institutional openness to refinement. Officers explicitly identify potential displacement impacts and propose monitoring adjacent streets—an important indicator of responsible, systemic thinking. 7. Structured Governance Pathway with Defined Sign-Offs The documents outline a clear pathway: IDM → Delivery Board → Strategic Board → LMB → Cabinet Member approval, showing transparency around internal governance stages. Responsibilities are clearly assigned: Cabinet Member decision‑making authority, officer report authorship, and legal/finance sign‑off all appear in the audit trail. Detailed timelines (ETMO drafting, publishing notices, implementation periods) are provided, supporting clarity, accountability, and predictability. 8. Strong Emphasis on Safety, Accessibility, and Public Health The scheme prioritises vulnerable road users and aligns with safety evidence from similar interventions—this is a core statutory consideration under highways and traffic management law. The health impact assessment links the proposal to improved air quality, increased physical activity, and reduced noise—consistent with public health obligations. Emergency vehicle and refuse access are retained or considered explicitly, demonstrating awareness of essential services. Summary Taken together, the Ryedale ETMO documentation demonstrates numerous governance strengths: a clear statutory basis, transparent documentation, cross‑departmental engagement, equality and health considerations, structured approval pathways, data‑driven analysis, and a proportionate experimental approach with built‑in monitoring and adaptability.

The statement that this is an objective summary of the information in the FOI is untrue. If we're not going to be straight forward about that, then it's very difficult to have a good faith discussion. Above is a genuine summary of the content of the emails. If you want to critique them, let's consider them in their entirety, with the full context, not starting from a dishonest premise.

It's not a summary. Let's be honest about the premise first.

That's not an AI 'summary' of the FOI is it? Let's try and be honest. I shared an objective summary of the entire content of the FOI. I was transparent about both the prompt and the LLM used, so you can see that I did not introduce bias, and you can replicate it yourself. What Lebanums has shared is a critique, which has been produced by cherry picking information to make a directed argument.

My concern relates to the entire content of the FOI. For that reason, I summarised it in an objective and comprehensive manner, rather than selectively extracting a small number of statements out of context while disregarding the remainder. Your assessment of the material has been misleading. What has been presented as a “summary” does not accurately reflect the documents, and you’ve not been straight forward about the bias you appear to have intentionally introduced into its production. The email highlighted by Rockets (selected from the FOI materials), in which an individual raises questions about the potential impact on refuse vehicles, is illustrative - It’s a single message among many, and the corresponding response has not been included. Taken in isolation, it demonstrates only that potential impacts have been considered. Yet it’s presented as evidence of some sort of council impropriety / conspiracy? It’s just searching for anything that might validate a judgment already made. Rocket's has again smeared academics who have published expert, peer-reviewed research (including individuals previously cited favourably when their work aligned with his position), and repeated claims of increased pollution that are demonstrably false. This lack of objectivity, and clear dishonesty - it has nothing to do with good-faith enquiry or ethical concern.

A synopsis is a concise neutral summary. If you ask an LLM for a synopsis or a summary of material, it doesn’t critique the actions or motivations of the authors. Your so called synopsis is nothing of the sort. You’re clearly not being honest about the prompt you used. You want us to believe that you asked for a synopsis and the opening line in the response was: “1. Pre-determination and outcome-driven approach…”? Embarassing.

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 The suggestion that you asked for a synopsis (a concise, neutral summary of the material) and it produced an exclusively negative critique of process, is laughable. Why not be honest about the prompt you used? Is it because you asked for AI to identify misconduct (as this response suggests: "While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show...")? Because again, that's not enquiry, it's confirmation bias.

Which general-purpose LLM? Because what you say it's provided is not a summary. It's not a synopsis. It's a critique (and sounds a lot like a directed critique). You do not ask for a synopsis (a concise, neutral summary) and get an response along the lines of "While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show....".