@Woodwarde

Is there any update on Townley? I see that there is a Dulwich Community Council meeting this coming Weds evening, 7pm at Christ Church, Barry Road. Details here, Townley may get a mention. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=5156&Ver=4 There is a deputation at this DCC from Melbourne Grove residents to propose making part of Melbourne semi-permeable and prevent it being used as a rat run. There seems to be a very significant volume of cars using it - some 15,000 per week. This is somewhat ironic, because Southwark eventually agreed that Melbourne would be used as an alternative if the No RHT on Townley went ahead and they 'forgot' to measure the existing traffic there already.

The Dulwich Society additionally note: It is listed for the following principle reasons: Historical interest: as a tangible and evocative reminder of crime and punishment during the Georgian period. Rarity: as a rare and particularly early example of an 'improving' biblical text used to embellish a now demolished village lock-up. Survival: the plaque survives in a very good condition with crisp lettering. I lean towards it being left in place; well preserved and not likely to be damaged by disinterested parties lodging it in a wall. It seems it was discovered and housed safely in its current place sometime in the 1970s. Why not leave it there for posterity - in the open and as a statement - as it was originally intended to be.

A new Planning Notice has gone up on Calton Ave with response date by 17th June. See attached. :: EDIT Photo added I had only just read in the Dulwich Society Newsletter that it had been granted English Heritage Grade 2 listing yet immediately there is an application to move it and mount it on the wall of the new planned housing development. Reference 15/AP/1772 Application Received Fri 08 May 2015 Address THE WORKSHOP SITE, LAND BOUNDED BY GILKES PLACE, GILKES CRESCENT AND CALTON AVENUE TO THE REAR OF 25 DULWICH VILLAGE, LONDON, SE21 7BW Proposal Relocation of the Grade II listed stone plaque to be mounted in the garden wall of the 3-bed dwelling proposed as part of planning application ref:14/AP/3104. Status Registered as valid application To respond - follow this link http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9560322 Not sure how to respond to this one? If anyone knows how best to flag this to English Heritage then please do so and also highlight link to respond to the Planning Application before the 17th June as you see fit.

TFL were putting in 'gadgets' to monitor the traffic and queuing in Townley Rd at the junction this morning it seems. Pic attached. 3 traffic lights at the junction have equip and it looks like the pelican beacon just outside the entrance gate to Alleyns also has one (or two in fact!). Nothing on Calton it seems so far.

The comments in para 19 have also been the subject of residents' email exchanges with Mark Williams: ________________ Further to the email posted earlier I can confirm that my additional recommendations on air quality monitoring and seeking further changes through the detailed design to alleviate queuing on Townley Rd, also apply to Calton Avenue. Best wishes, Mark ______ Dear Cllr Williams I have not seen any response to my email below, seeking clarification as to whether your additional recommendations apply only to Townley Road, or to both Townley Road and Calton Avenue. Are you able to provide that clarification please? Yours sincerely ------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for your representations on the Townley Rd/East Dulwich Grove junction scheme. In answer to the questions that have been asked about the decision making process, I can confirm that all representations made, either directly to me or to officers, have been seen and considered by me. I understand that some people still have some concerns with the proposals as set out in the report which I considered. After reviewing the report again, in conjunction with the representations received, I have decided to proceed with the recommendations set out in the report with two further recommendations. The first is that there will be pre and post implementation monitoring of air quality/pollution on Townley Road, this is so that we can assess whether there has been any impact on air quality as a result of the scheme being delivered. If the post implementation monitoring does show an increase in air pollution then we will of course identify funding and take mitigating measures accordingly. Secondly, as the detailed design work is being undertaken I have instructed officers to consider further minor amendments to the scheme to alleviate queuing on Townley Road. Concerns were also raised about waiting 18 months before a report was brought back to Dulwich Community Council (DCC) with a review of the scheme?s impact. DCC requested this be done after 6 months, after discussing this with officers they confirmed that 12 months of data is required to make an accurate assessment of the impact of the scheme, this will then have to be analysed and reported back to the next scheduled DCC. However, I would like to assure you that the impacts of the scheme will be monitored as soon as it is implemented, and should there be any problems caused by the scheme we will review them before the full 12 months of data has been collected. With the two additional recommendations set out above, this decision now proceeds to the five day Overview and Scrutiny Committee call-in period. The decision has now been published online, see : http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDecisionDetails.aspx?IId=50006298&Opt=1 this includes an appendix that summarises all of the representations received along with a response. As we discussed at cabinet there will be a Dulwich-wide consultation on the future of transport in the area, with a focus on how we can increase walking and cycling, where these routes can go and how they fit in with existing demands on the road network. There are a number of schemes coming forward, including the Southwark Spine and the Mayor?s Quietway. This wider consultation will allow us to hear the views of residents and businesses and to consider all of the schemes together. Details of this wider engagement will be published alongside the council?s cycling strategy in June. If you have any suggestions for how we can reach as many people as possible please send these on. If you have any further questions on the Townley Rd decision or process do let me know. Best wishes, Mark

Southwark have advised that the decision has NOT been called in. Mark Williams has advised that air quality for Calton and Townley will be measured to establish a base. No date given.

I have had confirmation from Southwark, that it is for the councillors who are members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to make a case for call-in. They would have to be in by midnight tonight (13th April). If Southwark do receive a call-in, then the officer concerned has a formal role of assessing whether it is a valid request in terms of the council?s procedure and rules. The officer has one working day to do that. So, we should therefore be in a position to be advised tomorrow (Tues 14th) or latest Wednesday (15th) of the outcome. I will update this thread when I hear more.

I have a set stored as released, yes.

Has anyone encountered situations where the DCC reports have been changed retrospectively? I have seen that this has happened for the final DCC report on Townley Rd. Originally it stated under the list of Stakeholders consulted that the Dulwich Society has approved the development. This was pointed out as incorrect at the 17th March DCC meeting. Looking at the document on the website now, the statement has disappeared rather than the error being noted and annotated. This seems to be extremely poor practice because it is changing reports and records issued into the public domain, with no traceability of that change. I wondered how prevalent this is.

A group of local residents and res associations sent this letter following the DCC 17th March meeting. A similar message went to Mark Williams at Southwark Council - the Cabinet Member who will make the final decision. Note that Cllr Williams has already APPROVED the recommendations (see email below.) Note the reply TODAY (and today because of our correspondence perhaps), there are 5 DAYS to make any further input. Do you recall any explanation of the next steps at the DCC? If this information was not drawn to your attention here, would you have been able to locate it on the Southwark website? Direct your queries to [email protected] it seems, should you know in time that this is even an option. Assuming of course you feel that your input is to be given due consideration and therefore worthwhile your effort .......... __________________ Townley Road junction We are writing to you as chair of the DCC to express concerns about councillors? support for option 8A at the recent meeting on Tuesday 17 March. As you know, this was our first chance to see any formal reports following the original consultation and then the re-consultation. We have now had the chance to read them carefully. It is clear that sustained local opposition remains. As Des Waters? report dated 16 March makes clear, the majority of respondents (51%) from within the defined consultation area are against option 8A. There are a few points of detail on this issue that should be noted. The Dulwich Society did not respond, even though the report states that it offered full support for the revised scheme. The 39 ?anonymous? paper responses were not treated as being from the defined consultation area, even though paper questionnaires were delivered only to addresses within that defined consultation area. In addition, there is no distinction made between addresses just outside the area but likely to be strongly affected by changes at the junction (Turney Road and Melbourne Grove, for example), and those some distance away that would not be directly affected at all (for example, the 19 responses from Winterbrook Road, where the chair and secretary of Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School both live). Finally, although we know that many local people responded in great detail to both the first and second consultations with specific concerns, none of these have been addressed. These include how the large pavement build-outs will affect the speed and turning capability of large vehicles, especially school coaches; the request for the LinSig modelling figures to be checked, particularly as this modelling has been heavily relied upon to promote 8A over options 10A or 10B (despite the fact that 8A exacerbates congestion on all legs of the junction in the morning peak, and is worse for Townley Road, and consequently Calton Avenue, at all times); and the plea for a trial period to see whether local fears about increased congestion and a resultant reduction in air quality are justified. The overall impression given in the reports is that option 8A must go ahead at all costs despite local concerns. We are very disappointed that our local councillors did not support the local community. All we want is a practical solution that delivers strong improvements in cycling and pedestrian safety but does not introduce new traffic problems. This has been dismissed in the rush to secure the TfL funding. In summary, we believe the preference for 8A over either 10A or 10B is flawed because of the increased congestion in Townley Road and Calton Avenue. If you as our local councillors insist on supporting 8A, even though it does not have the backing of the majority of local people, we ask you to seek written assurances from the Council that: 1. traffic performance and air quality measurements will be taken in the roads surrounding the junction, but particularly in Townley Road and Calton Avenue, before and after completion of the works, and that there will be sufficient financial provision made for remedial measures, including design adjustments, if necessary; 2. the detailed design of 8A (because we have so far seen only an outline) must take into account, and remedy as far as possible, the predicted increased congestion in Townley Road. It goes without saying that we hope very much that Cllr Williams will have listened to local concerns, and will make a final decision on the junction that makes these assurances unnecessary. We believe that 10A or 10B, with a softening of the pavement build-outs to allow for easy movement of school coaches, would be an acceptable compromise for all parties, including the stakeholders identified in the re-consultation report, and particularly local schools. A public statement from Cllr Williams that he has listened to the concerns of residents who live near the junction, and supports a slightly modified solution that takes these concerns into account, would be very welcome and would go a long way to restoring faith in the political process. ________________ The reply said: FROM DCC: ________ Following last week's Dulwich Community Council meeting the next stage in the decision making process lies with Mark Williams. I have therefore formally referred these comments on to him so that he can take them into account as part of the decision making process. Very happy to give you a ring to go through these issues, all of which we covered in detail at the Community Council. From Mark Williams: ___________ Dear ........, Thank you for your email, and for the deputation to council cabinet last week. Following a report from officers which takes into account all consultation to date on the Townley Road junction scheme, and the views of Dulwich Community Council. I have now approved the report recommendations for this scheme. This is the first step in the decision being formally taken, further details and the supporting papers can be found here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50006298&Opt=0 This decision is now open to public consultation for five days, after which I will consider any representations received. Once I have considered these I will review the report again, if I decide to proceed as set out in the report, there is then a further period of five days for the council?s Overview and Scrutiny Committee to call the decision in for them to consider and make any recommendations to me as the decision maker. Following this the decision is then implementable. I note the points raised below and these will be considered as a formal representation. If there are any further points you wish to raise please let me know by midnight on 30th March. Best wishes,

whatever this may mean to Townley and/or Cycling developments through Dulwich... http://road.cc/content/news/146542-tfl-scraps-cycle-school-partnership-it-scrambles-cash-pay-superhighways-and Transport for London (TfL) has dropped its cycle to school partnership programme - designed to allow boroughs and schools to bid to improve safe routes to school for cycling. Although the total cycling budget for the capital for 2013 - 2022 is ?913m, TfL has had to slash some projects to to able to afford an expanded cycle superhighways network and the Quietways programme. Funding provision for the cycle superhighways programme has been increased from ?150m to ?189m, while the Quietways programme has increased by ?7m from ?115m to ?122m - thanks in part to the ending of the 33m cycle to school partnerships programme. But by far the biggest benefit to TfL?s coffers have been the lower costs for the new Serco contract for operating the capital's cycle hire, down from ?149m to ?81m, according to TransportXtra. TfL has also announced that 270 full-time staff are now working on the city's cycle vision.

You can see the very quick turn around (2 days) on the reconsultation. Papers for the DCC are supposed to be available 5 days in advance and the Townley reconsultation has been rushed through. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s52876/Townley%20Road%20community%20council%20report.pdf It is clear that residents' opinions are less valuable to Southwark than those outside the area. If you do have a view then come to the DCC tomorrow evening 7PM Venue: St Barnabas Church (Community Suite) Calton Avenue, London SE21 7DG RECOMMENDATIONS of the REPORT That the Dulwich Community Council: 1. Notes the response to public re-consultation on the proposed Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove / Green Dale junction Improvements, noting a majority of support taking into account all consultation responses received during the consultation period, the support of all stakeholders who responded, and the improved level of support from the previous consultation. 2. Comments on officers? proposed recommendation to the cabinet member for Regeneration, Planning, and Transport to agree implementation of the revised proposals, subject to the outcome of necessary statutory procedures. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3. In accordance with Part 3H paragraph 19 and 21 of the Southwark Constitution, community councils are to be consulted on the detail of strategic parking/traffic/safety schemes. In practice this is carried out following public consultation. 4. The council previously consulted upon a design option for the junction that included banning the existing right turn movement out of Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove. There was considerable opposition to the proposal from local residents, mainly due to the proposed right turn ban. Given this lack of local support, this option will not proceed. A revised option has been developed that retains all existing turning movements at the junction, whilst still providing significant benefits for cyclists and pedestrians. 5. Full details of all results associated with the both consultation exercises can be found in Appendix A the ?Option 7 Consultation Report? and Appendix B ?Option 8a Consultation Report?. KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 6. Informal public consultation took place for Option 8a with all residents and businesses within the defined consultation area from 20 February 2015, with a return deadline of 13 March 2015, allowing 3 weeks for the consultation period. A total of 406 responses were received ? 222 from within the consultation area and 184 from elsewhere. . The following summarises responses to the questions contained within the consultation document: a) Total Response 54.93% of respondents are in support; 43.35% of respondents are opposed; and 1.72% of respondents have no opinion. b) Response from consultees within the defined consultation area 45.50% of respondents are in support; 51.35% of respondents are opposed; and 3.15% of respondents have no opinion. c) Response from consultees outside the defined the defined consultation area 66.30% of respondents are in support; 33.70% of respondents are opposed; and 0% of respondents have no opinion. Recommendations to the cabinet member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport 8. The community council is asked to comment on the draft recommendation to be made to the cabinet member for Transport, Environment, and Recycling, as follows: 9. Noting the positive response to the consultation, the significant improvements in levels of support from the previous proposals, and the overwhelming support of relevant stakeholders, the Cabinet Member is recommended to approve the implementation of the proposed improvements associated with Option 8a at the Townley road / East Dulwich Grove / Green Dale junction subject to completion of statutory procedures. Policy implications 10. The proposed measures are also closely aligned with council policy including the borough?s Transport Plan, Road User Hierarchy and Cycling Strategy. 11. The officer recommendations contained within this report are consistent with the polices of the Transport Plan 2011 (TP/11) and principles emerging Cycle Strategy (SCS), in particular:- TP/11 Policy 1.1 - pursue overall traffic reduction Policy 2.3 - promote and encourage sustainable travel choices in the borough Policy 4.2 - create places that people can enjoy Policy 5.1 - improve safety on our roads and to help make all modes of transport safer. SCS Principle 1(Stress free cycling) ? Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Principle 2 (Cycling as a priority) ? Objectives 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.7 Principle 3 (Cycling for everyone) - Objectives 3.6 and 3.7 Principle 4 (Cycling for health and wellbeing) ? Objective 4.3 Principle 5 (Cycling as an investment) ? Objective 5.2 Community impact statement 12. The implementation of any transport project creates a range of community impacts. All transport schemes aim to improve the safety and security of vulnerable groups and support economic development by improving the overall transport system and access to it. Cycling infrastructure proposals also have the added advantage of improving the environment though reduction in carbon emissions and social health and fitness benefits. No group has been identified as being disproportionately adversely affected as a result of these proposals. Cyclists and pedestrians will benefit. 13. The proposals are not solely for current cyclists, but also for pedestrians and people are put off cycling by the thought of sharing the road with high volumes of cars, vans, buses and lorries. Resource implications 14. This report is for the purposes of consultation only and there are no resource implications associated with it. 15. It is however noted that this project is funded by the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 TfL programme which has an allocated budget of ?8K for the current financial year and a further ?200K in the following financial year. Consultation 16. Informal public consultation was carried out in February 2015 / March 2015, as detailed above. 17. This report provides an opportunity for final comment to be made by the community council prior to a non-key decision scheduled to be taken by the cabinet member for Environment, Transport and Recycling following this community council meeting. 18. If approved for implementation this will be subject to statutory consultation required in the making of any permanent Traffic Management Orders. If any objections are received to that statutory consultation, that cannot be informally resolved, a further decision by the cabinet member will be required to consider and determine those objections. REASON FOR LATENESS 19. A further public consultation was undertaken on a revised option due to lack of popular support for previous consulted scheme. The closing date for this consultation was Friday 13 March. Full results of the consultation were not therefore available in time. REASON FOR URGENCY 20. Constitutionally, the community council must be consulted prior to the cabinet member deciding on implementation of the scheme. If it is to proceed, the scheme must be on site in July 2015 to comply with TfL funding restrictions and he need to construct the works during school summer holidays because of the sensitive location. There is no community council meeting scheduled for April, and any later meeting will be too late to take the required decisions and arrange lead in times for streetworks permits, and works orders.

As posted somewhere above on this thread, TfL have been more willing to supply information under FOI than Southwark. TfL at least could show the funding bid analysis and correspondence. Oh dear, Southwark not very good on its record keeping. Southwark say: Re: Internal review: FOI 473764 Thank you for your email dated 17 February 2015 in which you requested: 1) I have of course got the documents that were up on the website. Also my FOI request went in in November last year and I am more interested in the correspondence that has taken place since Nov 2012 and specific to Townley/Green Dale and anything with Green Dale and Quietways, and as described in my points 1 and 2. 2) I have the Southwark Council submission to Tfl that won the bid but there must be some internal correspondence around that confirming the win and the conditions attached to it and verification of any aspects of the bid and that has not been provided. 3) The Cycling strategy correspondence that you have sent is a limited set and specifically on the interactive map and from Dec 2014. There will of course be further earlier general correspondence about the routes selected and why and again I am interested in Green Dale and Townley. What is the reason why this is still being withheld? ______ I apologise for the delay in providing you with a response. Under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ('the Act') the council is not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates that the cost of complying with the same would exceed the 'appropriate limit' prescribed in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. For local government the 'appropriate limit' is set at ?450 and calculated on a standard rate of ?25 per hour based on estimating how long it takes one person in: (a) determining whether the authority holds the information, (b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the information, © retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information, and (d) extracting the information from a document containing it. The information which you have requested for points 1, 2 and 3 above is not available in a readily accessible form and it will take more than 18 hours to locate, retrieve and extract the same. To obtain the answer to points 1, 2 and 3 would involve determining, locating, retrieving and extracting relevant correspondence held in electronic format and hard copy archives going back to November 2012 (i.e. an estimated total of 1,000 items). As the council estimates that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the ?appropriate limit? it is therefore not obliged to answer the same. We estimate the cost of providing you with the information to answer points 1, 2 and 3 to be ?1,250 i.e. the total number of hours taken to obtain the information requested (50) multiplied by the standard rate of ?25 per hour based on estimating how long it takes one person to determine, locate, retrieve, and extract the information. The total number of hours taken to obtain the information requested (50) is calculated, firstly, by multiplying the estimated total number of correspondence items (1,000) by the time we estimate it would take one person to determine, locate, retrieve and extract each relevant correspondence item (i.e. 3 minutes). The result is then divided into 60 to give the total number of hours. If you are not content with the outcome of your appeal, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have first exhausted our internal appeal procedure and you should contact him within 2 months of the outcome of your internal appeal. Further information is available through the Information Commissioner at the: Information Commissioner's Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire. SK9 5AF

rch - sent PM to you

NEW POLICY AFFECTING PARKING - from Turney and Burbage Res Association website. More consultation , less local awareness, more impact for Dulwich.............. New policy on road markings adjacent to crossovers Response from Southwark Council to Member enquiry from Cllr Jane Lyons regarding the proposed implementation of double yellow lines adjacent to crossovers to private drives. Our Reference: 495472 Dear Councillor Lyons Thank you for your enquiry dated 9 February 2015 in which you requested information regarding the policy on road markings adjacent to crossovers on behalf of your constituent Mr Ian McInnes (Chair of the Dulwich Society). The council has three Design Standards that are pertinent to your enquiry: ??DS 002 Yellow line and blip waiting road markings ??DS 007 H-Bar markings ??DS 114 Highway Visibility I can summarise these standards as follows, the council: ??will not install any new white H-Bar markings and will remove existing features as opportunity arises (eg. road resurfacing or a highway project) ??will apply double yellow lines across new vehicle crossovers ??will extend those double yellow lines for a length not less than 2 metres beyond the extent of the crossover (length will depend upon road classification) For clarity, these policies mostly concern themselves with new crossovers. For the reasons given below, we do plan to remove existing H-Bars as opportunity arises but these will not be replaced by yellow lines unless a specific need is identified (and any new yellow lines will be subject to consultation). I note Mr McInnes?? concern that double yellow lines remove some flexibility about house owners allowing friends etc to park in front of their existing drive. Historically H Bar markings were placed on streets as the council did not have the power to enforce against vehicles which were parked over a dropped kerb. The council now has the power to enforce such illegal parking. As such, the council considers the advisory H-bar to be an unnecessary road marking that brings little benefit. Most dropped kerbs are very obvious and therefore do not require additional signage to point them out. Consequently, the Council has ceased the installation of H-bar markings and now undertakes a policy of removing the existing markings when practicable. For residents that are concerned that their driveway will be blocked in the absence of an ??H bar??, the council will take enforcement action against vehicles that block access, however this service requires the explicit ??opting in?? from the resident concerned. More details of this policy and how to request the service can be found here. In respect of Mr McInnes?? question about consultation, the Southwark Streetscape Design Manual (SSDM) was approved by Individual Decision by the relevant Cabinet Member in December 2012 after a public consultation and Equality Impact Assessment. The approved structure authorises the Head of Public Realm to agree individual design standards via the council??s scheme of delegation. The three standards you are enquiring about (DS. 002, 007 and 114) were approved in May and December 2013. Should you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me on 02075252021 or email [email protected]. Yours sincerely, Tim Walker Senior Engineer Tooley St ?C Third Floor, Hub 1 PO Box 64529 London SE1P 5LX [email protected]

People are fed up... attached from Townley junction

TfL FOI info below and 2 docs attached: the original bid assessment by TfL and confirmation from TfL that the ?285k is awarded Our ref: FOI-xxxx Thank you for your email received on 16 January 2015 asking for information about Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove junction. I am sorry for the delay in replying. Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold the information you require. 1. Please supply copies of all formal documentation, plans and correspondence related to funding bids, analysis and funding confirmation that cover in whole or in part, the Townley Road/East Dulwich Grove/Green Dale junction in SE22, from 2011 to date. Please find attached the following documents ? Southwark?s Cycle to School Partnership bid containing a request for funding for improvements to the junction of Townley Road, East Dulwich Grove and Green Dale. (on Southwark website) ? The Southwark Bid Assessment (NEW) ? The Southwark ? Cycle to School Partnership funding confirmation letter (NEW) ? The original Proposed Junction Improvement plan (submitted as part of Southwark?s bid) (NEW) ? The revised Townley Road ? Consultation Layout produced for consultation (on Southwark website) ? The Safer Routes Map containing possible local routes in Southwark (submitted as part of Southwark?s bid) (NEW) 2. Please supply all correspondence, bids and analysis related to the following TfL fund allocation http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1449/285_000_of_funding_awarded_to_support_cycling_in_dulwich_and_herne_hill ? All information available is provided in the attached documents as listed above. 3. Please supply copies of all correspondence with Southwark Council in relation to London Cycle Design Standards and their use at the Townley Road/ East Dulwich Grove junction. ? There have been meetings with Southwark officers to discuss design options in the context of the LCDS. There are no minutes available from these meetings. 4. Please supply any information and documentation in relation to communications, meeting minutes and involvement with, whether direct or via Southwark Council, the Southwark Joint Cycle Steering Group. ? We are not aware of any communications with the Southwark Joint Cycle Steering Group. If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you are not satisfied with this response please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal. Yours sincerely FOI Case Management Team Transport for London

Sorry - this is a lengthy post but provides the answers to questions put to Southwark as mentioned earlier on the thread. May be of interest. Sent: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:07 Subject: RE: FAO TW : One hour free parking in local shopping parades Thank you for your emails and apologies for the delay in my response. My reply provides response to your questions (10/2) and (19/2). Q1 In many cases, the suggestion on the surface, purports to change 1/2 hour free parking to 1 hour free parking. No mention is made of the Mon-Fri change - to Monday-Sat. In those cases, the introduction of restrictions on Saturday is a much more significant change that has not been properly advised nor made clear on the consultation documents. The consultation packs (letter and drawing) made our proposals clear. The covering letter included a list of bullet points summarising the changes and each drawing had text boxes that annotated the specific location of the proposed changes. Those text boxes gave details, where relevant, of any proposals to amend the times or days of operation. Q2 It is confusing and not transparent to include within this consultation both changes to timings for existing restricted bays with unrestricted bays becoming restricted. These could be made far clearer and would allow for objective input if separated out. No detail is provided on the assumed impact of these changes. The project objective is to secure the availability of short-term on-street parking at small retail parades as a means of supporting local businesses. Some of the in-scope parades have existing pay and display, others have 20 or 30 minute free parking, others have yellow lines, others are unrestricted. There are also a variety of operational times and days. It is normal in parking schemes to consult upon the type of parking, the layout of bays and the times of operation. As mentioned above, the exact proposals for each bay were clearly labelled on the drawings issued and the consultation document provided opportunity to comment on this. I therefore disagree that this was confusing. At this stage, we don?t know exactly what impact the proposals may have. As parking is not a pure science and human behaviour plays a huge part, post-implementation monitoring for traffic schemes is usually the best approach, if this is considered necessary. An overview of impact was provided in the Community impact statement in the consultation scope report presented to community council and the Cabinet member. Q3 There is no evidence provided for the individual areas and why this change may be necessary in all 45 cases. In some areas such as Dulwich Village, this may push commuter parking, possibly teachers, onto surrounding roads and no modelling of this is given or assumptions made in terms of displacement. It is also unclear on p56 for Dulwich Village, if this becomes parallel parking. If so, what is the assumed loss of spaces and the impact of parallel parking on that stretch of the road. Before going out to consultation, we consulted with each community council on whether or not we had identified the correct 45 locations. Some community councils made changes to the list of parades (Dulwich did not) that officers had identified during an initial scoping exercise. You can read about this scoping process in the ?Project Scope? section of the report to Dulwich Community Council on 4 December http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=4837&Ver=4 As mentioned above, an overview of impact was provided in the Community impact statement in the consultation scope report presented to community council and the Cabinet member. In regards to Dulwich Village, the proposal is to provide parallel parking. Currently the arrangement is informal (ie no road markings) but motorists choose to park at an angle. This isn?t actually lawful and doesn?t reflect how the inset parking bay was designed. We were unable to keep the echelon (angled parking) because the reversing manoeuvre is dangerous into a cycle lane and at the approach to the traffic signals. The proposal would reduce the capacity of the bay from 17 to 10 spaces. However, with the introduction of a time limit, this would increase the minimum number of parking slots per day from 17 to 100 (10 spaces x 10 hrs of operation). Q4 For Lordship Lane, the mix of timings is not consistent, some ending at 7pm, some at 6.30pm and some at 4pm and these differences are not explained nor the displacement effect quantified. Where the parking bays on Lordship Lane are situated within a bus lane, we need to link the hours of operation together, ie parking cannot be allowed when a bus lane is in operation. Lordship Lane has an existing bus lane that operate: ? Monday to Friday 7-10am (northbound) ? Monday to Friday 7-10am and 4-7pm (southbound) This means that parking must be banned during the peak hours; hence those bays end at either 4pm or 7pm during the week. The side roads parking bays have existing operational times of Mon ? Sat 8.30-6.30pm. We have proposed that controls operate on a Saturday on Lordship Lane, as they already do on the side roads. We have recommended that the hours on LL match those existing bays on the side roads. This would ensure consistency - on a Saturday ? so that all short-term visitor bays around LL operate at the same times. This does mean different start/end times, in the same parking place, depending on the whether it is a weekday or a Saturday. However, we think this is a much better option, with less impact upon residents, then being having Saturday controls that match the weekday times (eg. on Saturdays between 7am and 7pm). Q5 The input form drop down selection and associated comment box will not allow adequate input. For example people will park at any of the bays on Lordship Lane as might be available at the time of parking and the form allows input only for the individual bays, which is unrepresentative of normal parking patterns and prevents objection to the whole. The form allows for respondents to give input about defined parades, not individual parking bays. The consultation across the borough was broken down into 44 defined parades and views sought on a number of parking changes at each parade. In terms of Lordship Lane we identified three separate parades ? Location: P95 ? Lordship Lane (between Zenoria Street and Blackwater Street) ? Location: P96 ? Lordship Lane (adjacent to Landell?s Place) ? Location: P98 ? Lordship Lane (outside St Thomas More?s RC church) We considered that these 3 areas were logically grouped and have different characteristics in terms traffic and parking. Respondents were able to respond to more than one parade by filling in a form for each location. Alternatively, they could have selected "other- please specify" and told us about a geographic area (eg. all borough, all Dulwich, all in the Lordship Lane area etc.) Q6 The consultation form does not provide details for an alternative mechanism of response to Southwark (for example, an email address) to permit more comprehensive responses. The form does not have contact details on it because it is expected that once you have reached the form, you are wanting to fill in that form. However, the consultation pack that was posted out contained email and phone details, as did the street notices installed at each parade, and also on the council's parking projects http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/2766/local_parking_amendments landing page which gives details about all live parking projects. Q7 There is no explanation of the selection of one hour free parking periods over for example limited parking over the lunchtime period as works for Herne Hill at present and which may not need or benefit from the change . The consultation stems from the council's Fairer Future promises that was to "deliver an hours free parking in our shopping parades". In regard to Herne Hill, this area has a parking zone that operates Mon ? Fri Noon to 2pm in residential streets. However, the short-term parking bays in front of shops (eg. Half Moon Lane) and within this zone, operate throughout the day (8.30-6.30pm). This is necessary to ensure turn-over of space throughout the day. If those bays operated for just two hours per day you would find that the bays were fully occupied during the uncontrolled hours, which would prevent customers for stopping and parking close by. A. could you also explain simply for me the next stages about IDM and call in, together with timings for both and when the TMO is scheduled to run. I am trying to see the complete picture and timetable. You can read about how individual decision making works here. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/3158/how_individual_decision_making_works The timetable of "what happens next" is on the webpage here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/onehourparking which we will update as the project moves forward. B. Could you please send me via email, a copy of the consultation documents that went out through the post together with the details of the addresses mailed. Letters for Lordship Lane attached. Mailing list attached. C. why do the Peckham and Nunhead Community Council decide on parking issues within their patch, why cannot Dulwich Community Council do likewise? (http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50004906&Opt=0) Who takes decisions is defined by Part 3 of the Council Constitution http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/375/councils_constitution, it is not related to geographic area. As mentioned in my answer to Q3 above, Dulwich Community Council considered a report in December that was very similar to the Peckham and Nunhead example you give. Finally, and to confirm what I said when we spoke, your comments along with all other feedback received will be included in the report to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport. Yours sincerely

Villager, I was part of a group speaking with Chris M who said that he is not a modeller and that he could not answer detailed questions on it. He had the answers to a few 'anticipated' questions on his mobile that he was able to refer to, but that did not cover the detail that was being asked of him. Chris said that the person who does the modelling is with Aecom and that this same person works for TfL 2 days per week. I understand this is the person that Chris will refer to for queries from the meeting. No name given. One person speaking with Chris at the same time as me, specifically asked for information on large vehicles, turning circles and (importantly) what was assumed for their turning time. I am not sure how those answers will be provided as it is not clear how the meeting discussion will be reported.

Q. Who is responsible for making sure this junction operates effectively. A. All Councillors and Southwark Council. Tfl will walk away quite happily. Q. Who is going to make sure this happens. A. They must or we will

All parties are in favour of a sustainable environment, more cycling, walking etc as are the general public. Yes Zebedee, agree, this is not a party issue per se. This is an issue of proper consultation (or lack of it in this case), sensible and realistic goal setting and use of public money in a responsible way. So it is not a 'party issue' but our politicians can steer this on a sensible course. They seem totally incapable of doing so. It no longer surprises me how public money can be spent and re-spent to get something right. So let's get this junction proposal suitable for use first time; safe for cyclists and pedestrians and not used as some sort of 'trial'. It is a junction that accommodates unusual volumes of young children at peak times that cyclists and traffic (some of that traffic delivering those pupils) need to travel alongside. If we spend some of the ?200k but not all of it - is that a problem for TfL or Southwark? I hope that the answer is no. I am sensing that the answer is yes. The diagonal crossing seems too much of an ask. Do we really want young children thinking that's a great way to cross? Someone posted above, and I think it's correct, that the barriers (sheep pens) were a major factor that made the diagonal 'desire line' prevalent at the junction. They can be taken away. I checked (following slarti b's post) and it does seem to exceed permit limit for crossing length. As the longest crossing, it also is the main factor in setting the traffic light timing length. I am going to ring the Institiute Of Highway Engineers and get their view. Option 10b looks a far better one to me of the options examined.

Are these the only consultees? http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=consulteeComments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9558549 Environmental Protection Team Formal Consultation [Noise / Air Quality / Land Contamination / Ventilation] Design and Conservation Team Transport Planning Team

WHound, I can help on that. An email exchange with the Southwark planners touched on LCDS Question: Can you also please confirm whether the LDCS have been specified by TfL for the original and revised Townley designs, and if so, when was this requirement imposed? Southwark ANSWER "No" Question: LCDS were approved in Oct 2014 as far as I can see. Can you advise where else they have been used to date? Southwark ANSWER LCDS was officially released in December 2014. Southwark has not formally adopted them at this stage. You make an important point about the coaches whose turning circle is changed with the large build outs. Are you going to ask for the swept path drawings for the various roads used by the coaches?

I will just add to that statement that Cllr Andy Simmons, Chair of the Dulwich Community Council, was involved in that planning application and has confirmed that the modelling for Townley has NOT taken into consideration any extra traffic volume and movement. This new parking area is to be built where the Scout Hut currently sits. So traffic on EDG going east and west and traffic emerging from Townley will also see more traffic approaching and turning into Green Dale and that has not been accounted for - but it is known that it will happen. Figure that...

Yes, that is odd - not clear why one is Strategic and one is not. Perhaps one of the Councillors can reply.