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

[Zebedee Tring]

The patronising nonsense issuing forth from Safer Routes For Schools (no doubt penned by Lorry Driver) is wondrous to behold. As if none of us gave a damn about the safety of children. How dare they!

[intexasatthe moment]

And actually it ( the patronising stuff ) rather implies " the children's voices must be heard " that their parents are deaf/non existent/not interested .

[edanna]

I'd like to know what was presented to the schools. 'Do you want the junction to be safer for your pupils to cross?' No school is going to say no to that.

[intexasatthe moment]

Quite .What are the schools supporting ?

[@Woodwarde]

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,

[Tessmo]

Five more days to say it again?

Day 1 This scheme will cause congestion on Townley Road..

Day 2 ...and all the surrounding streets...

Day 3 ...making cycling and walking more dangerous...

Day 4 ...and polluting the air...

Day 5 ...for all the children going to school

I should talk to Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School. Oh, hang on a minute...

[hopskip]

Worth looking at the papers on the link highlighted in the email from Mark Williams:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50006298&Opt=0

There is time to to submit your points directly to Mark Williams before 30th March if they have not been addressed and do copy your local councillors who will then formally track. ([email protected]; [email protected])

Note the final report:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53066/Report.pdf

now OMITS the reference to the support by the [3000] Dulwich Society members....

See also the General Exception Notice:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53055/General%20Exception%20Notice.pdf

Extract:

Title of Report

Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove / Green Dale Junction Improvement

Scheme

Description/Nature of matter requiring Key Decision

Implementation of proposed strategic highway improvement scheme,

subject to statutory procedures

Decision taker Cabinet Member for Regeneration Planning and Transport

Date by which Key Decision must be taken

March 2015

Reason why it was impracticable for decision to be on the Forward Plan

Scheme was originally considered non-key. However due to strength of

local feeling and high level of community interest, now considered key.

Being non-key it was not on the Forward Plan. Regardless of this, the

scheme required a re-consultation and this consultation was reported to

Dulwich Community Council on 17 March 2015, preventing an earlier IDM

decision

Reason why the decision cannot wait for inclusion in the next Forward Plan

The next forward plan relates to decisions to be taken in May 2015.This

decision cannot wait for the following reasons:

1. Funding: The external funding from TfL for the scheme (?200,000)

is restricted to 2015/16. It has already been held over one year

already so would not be held over again by TfL. Given the

sensitive location of the scheme, it is only practical to implement

the works in the school summer holidays. Private schools break

up in early July so officers are planning to be on-site in first week of

July. If this date can?t be met, the funding will in effect be lost as

there is no other window in 2015/16.

2. Streetworks permits: To be on site in first week of July, we have to

get the necessary streetworks permits which have a 3 month lead

in. Therefore, without a prompt decision we would have to seek

permits ?speculatively? without the scheme being approved which

goes against best practice.

3. Traffic Management Orders: We would also need to advertise

Traffic Management Orders without having the final go-ahead on

the scheme which goes against best practice.

4. Programme: Perhaps most importantly, we need to programme the

signals works with TfL signals team, and pay for these in advance.

They will not place orders for equipment without advanced

payment. Therefore to give them sufficient time to programme

their aspects of the work, we need to place orders and commit

funds in April. If we do this without a firm decision on whether to

proceed, we would be paying them at risk. If the scheme did not

then proceed, we would most likely be unable to recover this

money from TfL and this would cost the authority upwards of

?50,000 for which there is no budget.

[Tessmo]

Interesting, @hopskip. It seems to me that these are just reasons for having a definite scheme, rather than for choosing the one they've recommended. Option 8A is likely to have all sorts of knock-on effects that haven't been properly modelled. Better not to rush through a scheme at all than to impose one on the local community that could make the whole situation worse...

[holymoly]

As posted above, there is one day for any final feedback to Mark Williams who has made a decision in principle to progress Option 8A unless any points are raised. 30th March deadline.

I don't recall this being said at the DCC - but I will reply as I am still unhappy that the increased congestion for Townley and Calton will be pushed through.

Direct your queries to

[email protected] (cc [email protected];[email protected], [email protected])

@Woodwarde Wrote:

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

> 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.)

> 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,

[Bicknell]

The final report can be read here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53066/Report.pdf

Third point in the Recommendations is; Notes that levels of opposition and response rates were significantly reduced from the previous consultation.

IMHO, it's all relative. Normally you get about three people responding to anything. First consultation, 722 responses. The reconsultation had 406 responses. That's still a lot of people.

Even more important, A MAJORITY 51% of local people objected. So much for listening to the community.

[Tessmo]

Just to add my voice to everyone else's.

We're allowed one more day (end March 30) to make objections. If you don't feel what you've said has been properly addressed in the summing-up report, and you still have worries about how the new design will affect safety at the junction, email your concerns to:

[email protected] (cc [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected])

So many of us asked for the LinSig figures to be checked, as they don't make sense, and yet Southwark is relying on them to promote the new design...No mention has been made of that at all...

So many of us are worried about whether the coaches will be able to manage the new sharp turns without running over the pavements or edging into other traffic lanes...This has been dismissed, even though no modelling has been done...

We asked for a trial of the new design...That's been dismissed, too...

We said we were worried about increased congestion...That's been dismissed as well...

Reconsultation report said "all points of objection on technical grounds have either been overstated or are not valid"...

Patronising responses from a council that refuses to listen.

[MarkT]

I have just sent an email as follows,

MarkT:

Dear Councillor Williams,

With regard to the proposed works at the Townley Road Junction, DCC applauded the proposed removal of the pedestrian pens, and noted the recurrent damage to the existing railings by vehicles, as evidence for the risk to a child caught outside of an overcrowded pen.

The proposal introduces railings between the main roadway and the cyclist holding pens. Leading up to each of those railings is a line of armadillo humps. The stated purpose of these structures is the protection of cyclists but I believe that this will also create a new hazard for cyclists.

Any cyclist has an option to avoid an overcrowded cycle lane and to remain in the main highway with the motorised vehicles.

A driver of a motorised vehicle may, however, consider that the cyclist should move to the dedicated cycle lane.

Councillor Williams, have you considered the risk to a cyclist of such a difference of opinion at speed? I consider that there is a high risk that a cyclist will be forced into a crash with other cyclists or crushed between a vehicle and the railings.

As the cycle pens are an integral part of the option 8A now presented, I urge you to reject it entirely.

[first mate]

Tessmo that phrase should be remembered and used:

"Southwark Labour, the Council that refuses to listen"

[Jennys]

I have also emailed Mark Williams. Perhaps if enough people contact him today he might look again at the proposals.

[Tessmo]

Well done, Mark T and Jennys. We've got until midnight, everyone....

[Jennys]

Yes come on everyone. Today is perhaps our last chance to influence Southwark's thinking on this junction.

[Zebedee Tring]

In the words of the late Eddie Cochran "C'mon Everybody". Illegitimi non carborundum (not actually another Eddie Cochran song).

You have four and a half hours to email Southwark.

[Scootingover]

I have also addressed my continuing concerns and unanswered questions to Mark Williams as the decision maker

[email protected]

Not sure who wrote the DCC 17th March summary but I am pretty sure there were more points than those recorded in this report for 'decision'. See point 19, final bullet. Preposterous and if you are minded to reply this evening, make sure that you demand the 6 month review brought back to the DCC within 6 months. No way should we wait longer and tolerate turmoil and problems displaced to other areas. Or is that the intent - make them wait long enough for it to be forgotten and for a whole set of issues to develop elsewhere.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53066/Report.pdf

Members requested that the scheme be monitored post-implementation

and that a monitoring report be brought back to the Community Council

after 6 months.

In response, the scheme will be closely monitored post-implementation by

both the council and Transport for London to ensure the junction is

operating effectively in traffic capacity terms and to identify any potential

issues that may have arisen following implementation. It must be noted

that the scheme will also have a Stage 3 road safety audit undertaken.

Monitoring will also include usage/mode share statistics and working with

the adjacent schools to understand any changes to travel patterns for the

journey to school. Officers will prepare a post-implementation monitoring

report for Dulwich Community Council within 12-18 months of completion

of works (6 months is considered too soon to produce reliable data).

[hopskip]

I have responded to Mark Williams as advised in the email that he sent out and that was flagged up more widely on this forum.

I now understand that there may be some debate about the process for responding as outlined in his email. And so it is worth anyone who did respond, to ask for confirmation that your input has been received and will be considered as part of this 5 day consultation phase.

@Woodwarde Wrote:

> 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,

[fazer71]

Most people have given up the will to live having been ground down by the process.

The professional political system will always beat us idiots.

Where did I put that book on knots?

+---+

| |

0 |

/|\ |

/ \ |

|

=======

[Bicknell]

There was once an award-winning council

That thought it was king of the castle

It stopped the plan

For the right turn ban

And instead brought the cars to a standstill

[hopskip]

I have caught sight of this email sent today from Mark Williams to local residents stating that the development has been approved by him and is open for 5 days for 'call-in'. The link gives some details but no idea when the 5 days ends, given there are now 2 bank holidays ahead of us. Clever bit of timing - or just the cynic in me?

Dear

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

[first mate]

No you are not being cynical, the Labour Council have simply decided to go ahead against the wishes of the local electorate and they have used every trick in the book. Essentially, they know best. Building call-in around a holiday period shows the level of contempt Mark Williams has for those objecting.

[Tessmo]

If anyone is wondering, because it's not easy to see, the appendix summarising the responses received in the additional five-day period is here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=5257 - go to the first item 'Record of Decision' under 'Accompanying Documents' and scroll through to the end.

I am still puzzled by the extra five-day period Mark Williams allowed for additional comments. It wasn't made public. There was nothing on Southwark's website. So the only people who could possibly have replied to it would have been those who had found out about it here, on the EDF, or those who had been emailed by Mark Williams.

This just isn't an open democratic process.

Those who did reply, putting forward objections to Matt Hill's original plans, were told by Mark Williams that he had considered their responses. But the appendix he directs them to is nothing more than a report written by - guess who? - Matt Hill.

I am beginning to think that the current administration at Southwark Council has spent far too long operating outside any recognisable forms of process and procedure.

I think it's time we called them to account.

[Green Goose]

Tessmo Wrote:

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

>

> I think it's time we called them to account.

The next local elections will be in 2018 but some of us have long memories and will hold these Labour Councillors to account then.

In the meantime we have the national election on 7th May to look forward to so a bit of considered tactical voting may be decisive. LibDems could topple them in both Camberwell & Peckham and Dulwich & Norwood given this and other issues.