Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale

[@Woodwarde]

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.

[first mate]

It is interesting how Southwark can use support for schemes from those outside the affected areas when it suits them. Yet on the 'free parking' consultation only those within 50 m of the affected area could be counted.

What a slippery lot they are down at Tooley St.

[Zebedee Tring]

Perhaps it's time to remind those Labour members of the DCC that a General Election takes place in a few weeks time and that their party is desperate for every vote within the "affected area"

[Green Goose]

Do not believe their figures as I was able to make 305 opposed votes, as a local resident,using their on-line system!!

Their system was a farce.

[fazer71]

Socialist just more fantasy fairy tales as who is surprised ?

[mockingbird]

For those who did not attend the DCC meeting Tues 17th March ? you can guess how it ran. 8a seems to march on for fear of losing TfL funding.

There was a deputation from a women representing Dulwich SafeRoutes to School. A predictable pitch consistent with the emails DSRS send out to portray a scene of carnage at the junction. Who the speech was intended for is hard to guess. Certainly not for the normal, intelligent and reasonable people trying to seek compromise and a solution that works for all. People with common sense who take the need for safety as a given and don?t need patronising. One person asked about congestion and whether DSRS advocated congestion, at which point it became clear that the deputation was all about getting something done (at any cost)and not losing the funding. Lots of reasoned and reasonable input pointing to solutions that would work but falling on deaf ears.

Matt Hill ? the Southwark planner- made a jaw dropping statement about Calton. The new option 8a extends the cycle lane to Calton ? and guess what ? no modelling done to consider impacts on that road. His words.

Our 9 councillors crumbled under the pressure of 8a or losing the funding. No cojones. But take a look at the consultation response from within the consultation area. The majority DO NOT support 8a. Why should this be pushed through when this is evident?

If you have a view ? express it quickly to Southwark Council leader ? Peter John ? and ask what can be done. ([email protected]). And consider how you exercise your vote.............

[Zebedee Tring]

The DSRS woman (Lorry Driver?) was exceedingly patronising and addressed us as if we were a collection of "challenged" eight year olds - or indeed 90 year olds suffering from dementia. I was tempted to ask her if she was so worried about the safety of the children on their way to school what she personally was going to do about all the bloody coaches and Chelsea Tractors bringing the kids to school. But several other people who were annoyed by her tone got in first and I left it to them.

I hope that I'm wrong but I await with interest to see how Southwark will handle the fall out after the scheme proves to be a massive cock up.

[hopskip]

Zebedee, you've cast the dice.. Lot's of egg on face to come.

Southwark will loose face at massive cost to the tax payer; our 9 Councillors have their credibility in question anyway so time will tell who wants their representation.

DSRS - get real and get someone in touch with the community - and who is not in the pocket of JAGS.

[fazer71]

It all about the money... forget anything else this is insane ...

[intexasatthe moment]

Good and accurate accounts of the CC meeting . I wondered if the spokesperson for Safe Routes to School had spent much time practising her speech or whether the tone was habitual to her . Like mockingbird ,I couldn't work out who she was addressing .

All parties have failed massively here ,ignoring people's wishes regarding preferred options , Calton Avenue not part of the modelling exercise ,the coaches will have to swing out cutting into oncoming traffic ,JAG's new building plans ignored . But no doubt the filter for " nervous " cyclists can be used as evidence of the safe and caring environment that the private schools provide for their priveleged pupils .

Why can't measures be put in place so that the coaches use the the drive at the front of Alleyns to pick up and drop off ? ( as suggested at the mtg )

[Zebedee Tring]

If the likes of DSRS are so concerned about the welfare of the kids going to school, the likely increase of car fumes called by the Chelsea Tractors caught up in a traffic jam at the junction won't actually do wonders for their health - nor indeed the health of older pedestrians in the area, but they don't matter as far as Lorry Driver and her DSRS chums.

[Jennys]

I too felt very patronised by Laurie. She made me want to scream. I would hope everyone locally cares for the safety of the children as well as considering the safety of cyclists and pedestrians, young or old. That is why many of us opposed the suggestions which would have increased dangers for everyone in other local roads by encouraging rat running by motor vehicles trying to find quicker ways through Dulwich and increasing pollution at the junction as vehicles wait to get through it.

[skylorikeet]

Well said Jennys

[fazer71]

The insane language of meetings in order to sound impressive without ever truly saying what they mean. Like it?s a win-win situation when we actually know that it?s a win-lose one. These sneaky weasel words affect every aspect of our lives. Any fool can take something complex and make it sound difficult. It takes courage and leadership to cut through the bullshit and reduce tough problems to their simplest elements ? and to then reach clear, understandable, occasionally unpalatable decisions based on common sense.

Like...

If it's not broken don't f?&ing fix it!

[edanna]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before - I haven't got the dedication to read all 27 pages - but has there been any mention of the lollipop people at the junction? I hope the redesign isn't a way of getting rid of them by stealth? They do a great job and in my view any crossing that has lots of kids using it regularly needs a lollipop person.

[Tessmo]

Hello, Edanna. The idea that this was a way of getting rid of lollipop people was mentioned right at the beginning, but it all got lost in the miserable mess of the Council pushing through plans that nobody local wanted. I don't know the answer. Maybe contact the planner [email protected] and see if he knows? Please post up what he says - it's a good point, and it would be good to find out what the plans are.

[edanna]

Thanks Tessmo. I've emailed and await his response.

[hopskip]

I recommend asking a local school if you have children there. They seem to have supported the request from Dulwich Safe Routes to School. You would HOPE they had asked this question.

http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/

Safe routes to shcool advocating the option 8a in the reconsultation

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s52880/Appendix%20B_Option%208a_Consultation%20Report.pdf

the final Consultaiton report which includes Dulwich Safe Routes and the local schools comments as follow:

g) Dulwich and Herne Hill Safer Routes to School replied stating strong

support the proposed scheme for Townley Road junction. The Council has

evidence that the junction is dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and this

evidence has been available to the Council and community for years. It takes

two lollipops to mitigate the dangers. The Council's data shows that there are

1,450 child pedestrian movements at this junction between 8:00 and 9:00 am

every school day. During each movement, a child's safety is potentially at

risk. This statistic demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of vulnerable

users of this junction are children. It is the duty of responsible adults to keep

children safe. Inconvenience to vehicles should never outweigh the safety of

vulnerable road users, particularly pedestrians and child cyclists. The junction

currently is designed solely for the convenience of vehicles, at the expense of

the safety of other road users. This point is epitomised by the green man

showing on the west arm of East Dulwich Grove at the same time that traffic

is turning right from Greendale across that arm. It is both sensible and fair to

redress this imbalance and so to ensure the safety of all road users. We

particularly support the scheme's provisions for direct, shorter crossings for

pedestrians; the all green phase for pedestrians which protects them from

turning vehicles; protection for cyclists on entering the junction; protection for

cyclists from turning vehicles. If the junction is made safe, more children may

be encouraged to walk and cycle to school. This will benefit the entire

community, particularly through a reduction of traffic congestion and noise

and air pollution. We note the Council has consulted widely and at length and

has listened carefully to local objections. This is demonstrated by the

retention of the right turn from Townley Road.

h) The Dulwich Society replied confirming full support for the revised scheme.

(THIS IS NOT TRUE. THE DULWICH SOCIETY CHAIRMAN ASKED FOR THIS TO BE CHANGED AT THE DCC 17TH MARCH MEETING AND SOUTHWARK APOLOGISED for MISREPRESENTING)

i) Dulwich Young Cyclists replied stating that Dulwich is hopelessly

congested and cycling for many - particularly the young is not an option as it

is currently too dangerous. Our mission is to improve safely for cycling

through infrastructure improvements and get more children cycling. We

therefore support the new Townley Road Junction Scheme as this is in line

with our mission. We hope the changes to this junction may be the start of

future improvements in Dulwich to support children, teenagers and young

people to get on their bikes and be able to cycle safely in the area.

a) JAGS (including the Preparatory School and Pre-Pre School) on East

Dulwich Grove replied in full support stating that the proposals are excellent

and will enhance the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. The

simplification and shortening of the pedestrian crossings and diagonal

pedestrian crossing will be of great benefit and the school very much

appreciates the safety improvements made for cyclists, as JAGS are trying to

encourage more staff and pupils to cycle to school.

b) Alleyn?s School (and Junior School) in Townley Road replied indicating

support for the scheme but questioned the need for the two stage right turn

for cyclists and upgrading sections of single yellow lines in Townley Road to

double.

c) Dulwich Village C of E Infants School replied in strong support of the

scheme stating that the proposals allow for easier and safer crossing and use

by pedestrians and cyclists alike. School children will be better catered for on

their walk to school each day.

d) The Charter School located on Red Post Hill replied stating full support for

the scheme and noted that the right hand turn had been reinstated and that

the scheme still included considerable improvements for pupils walking and

cycling to school and trust the Southwark will be able to carry out those

changes raised in the re-consultation swiftly.

e) Bessemer Grange Primary School replied in full support of the changes to

the Townley Road/ Greendale junction.

[@Woodwarde]

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.

[Mugglesworth]

hopskip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the final Consultation report which includes

> Dulwich Safe Routes and the local schools comments

> as follow:

> ...During each movement, a child's

> safety is potentially at

> risk...

This phrase deserves applause on its own. At once meaningless, obvious and yet conveying menace and anxiety. I am potentially at risk from developing RSI while typing this.

[intexasatthe moment]

Have just reread qoute posted by hopskip . I was at DCC mtg and read this orginally then .Am I the only person stupid enough to be confused ( Haven't been following this quite as carefully as others ) but ....all the schools supporting " the scheme " . Which scheme ? Which proposal exactly ,there were several ?

Although pointless question I know as Southwark have decided to go with an option not favoured by the residents .

[BrandNewGuy]

Hear, hear. "Won't anyone think of the children?" And I made it clear in my reply to the consultation that having crossing wardens is *not* a sign that there's a big problem that can be engineered out. It's a sign that there are hundreds of kids trying to cross a number of roads at the busiest time of day. Crossing wardens are an essential part of that. I'm sure the schools have deep enough pockets to pay for them. If they get rid of the crossing wardens, that will create more risk than any engineered solution.

[Tessmo]

Personally, I would have thought that a scheme that introduces more congestion in the morning, and more congestion on Townley Road, and therefore Calton Avenue, throughout the day - which 8A will - is likely to cause harm to children rather than keeping them safe...

Good point @BrandNewGuy about lollipop people. I wonder what Safe Routes to School thinks about crossing wardens, and what they'll do if the funding for them suddenly disappears...

[slarti b]

@BrandNewGuy

Completely agree that crossing wardens are essential, not because of danger but just to herd children across during the pedestrian green phase. I have spoken to one of the wardens who made this point quite strongly. Basically children are often too busy chatting to friends etc to bother paying attention to green lights.

Maybe the schools should carry out safety training?

[edanna]

Re lollipop people, I received this reply from Matthew Hill this morning:

There are no plans to change the level of school crossing patrol provision at this junction as a result of proposed works.

When/if the works are completed, a risk assessment and site review will be carried out with the staff to ensure that they are providing the appropriate service to reflect the changes to crossing patterns and pedestrian behaviour.