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

[James Barber]

Hi @woodwarde,

I've never had a party whip on any local issues ever. I can't speak for the Labour of Conservative lot.

My lot really make a point of listening to all views in the party and taking into account other views before taking any Southwark wide stance. It can be painfully democratic, very challenging when you're trying to take many with you, but the whip is rarely needed or used. And I was the Lib Dem group chief whip when we led the council and in opposition.

WRT these proposed changes I'm for them generally but specifically against the banned Towny Road right turn. Overkill in my opinion based on the evidence given. I've stated this repeatedly. I've made clear my membership of Southwark Living streets and Southwark Cyclists but I think they're wrong on this (and a number of others issues sometimes ver cautious and sometimes overly zealous).

[[email protected]]

.

[@Woodwarde]

Repost:

DulwichSafeRoutes posted:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=781861334889275298&postID=663309712010358483&isPopup=true

Anonymous Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School said...

Cllr Mark Williams assures us that this consultation really is a consultation!

Our approach is to support the principles (and make individual comments) as there are some who are simply against any notion of prioritising peds and cyclists, and there is a danger that Southwark would interpret every 'no' as reflecting that view.

Those who were around when improvements for pedestrians were last attempted at this junction are particularly anxious to ensure that some improvements are made, and we don't all rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

6 December 2014 19:57

Anonymous Local pedestrian, non-commute cyclist, public transport user and periodic car driver said...

Our Village councillors were unable to confirm at the Dec 3rd meeting how the feedback from the consultation would be managed. Mark Williams has the ability, as Southwark cabinet member and representing transport, to override decisions. So the transparency of the decision making and grounds is very important therefore and not a matter of verbal assurances.

We all want safe streets and to ensure that this consultation delivers the right changes to this junction for pedestrians (our children and us), cyclists and public transport improvements yet with an understood impact on where traffic will go and what other junctions it may compromise.

The Consultation form is not clear as to the level of consideration it will give to comments once you have marked it as Support. I am forced (unfortunately) to the Object approach in this case,to ensure that comments are taken into consideration in refactoring any plans and to advise that my support will follow once the consultation proves that comments will be addressed.

The onus is on the Council to show their willingness to improve that plan based upon the feedback, not the other way around.

[slarti b]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> My lot really make a point of listening to all views in the party and taking into account other

> views before taking any Southwark wide stance. It can be painfully democratic,

Cllr Barber, as someone not used to local "democracy" I am really puzzled as to how these decisions are made. As far as I can see the proposals have been drawn up by Southwark in conjunction with pressure groups, not necessarily representative of the local community or even the constituency they claim to represent. I do not know what will happen to any comments or feedback from the consultation, but I do know very little information is available in the public domain backing up proposals or the assertions made by some of the special interest groups. see http://tinyurl.com/muuzykd for an example of this.

I realise that the council is now controlled by Labour so your party is not in charge of the process but can you tell us how the "Consultation" process will work and what will happen to comments made?

> WRT these proposed changes I'm for them generally but specifically against the banned Towny Road

> right turn. Overkill in my opinion based on the evidence given.

I completely agree with you on both these points. In terms of the consultation exercise what is the best way to register this, Object and put these as comments?

[intexasatthe moment]

Link to consultation and feedback form here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3639/townley_road

[James Barber]

Hi starti b,

Two approaches. One support the proposals but highlighting the few bits you don't agree with OR object with specific reasons - hopefully adding the features you do support.

If losing the right turn from Townley Road is a show stopper for you then I'd recommend you take the latter route.

Hi @woodwarde,

The process is a scheme is suggested, officers explore and it may or may not then be progressed and programmed. This cleary has been.

Detailed proposals are then worked up, then consulted upon, then decided upon. Some highways schemes reserved for the local community council to decide. Butthis scheme will decided by the cabinet member/councillor.

However, I have asked that this scheme is presented to the Dulwich Community council and that group of 9 local councillors will make a recommendation to the cabinet member.

The meeting will be 28 January.

The Dulwich Community Council and cabinet member will be influenced by the level and content of public responses.

[DadOf4]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi starti b,

> Two approaches. One support the proposals but

> highlighting the few bits you don't agree with OR

> object with specific reasons - hopefully adding

> the features you do support.

> If losing the right turn from Townley Road is a

> show stopper for you then I'd recommend you take

> the latter routR

Based on personal experience of Southwark council trying to steamroll through changes like this once theyve set it in their sights, I would strongly advise people to disagree/object to the scheme if they think the removal of the RH turn is an issue - then state the reasons you are objecting, and what would mean you changing your mind (personally, I think the whole thing is great, EXCEPT the RH turn piece)

I also wouldn't follow any advice that Clr Barber gives on these subjects: hes been known to look selectively the results of soutwark council consultations to suit whatever HE thinks is the right thing to do. I say that, fully acknowledging the work that Clr Barber does, the vast majority of it being of great benefit to the area. Its just sometimes he does confuse the process of consultation with local residents with his own agenda.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Wow, that's harsh, Dadof4. Personally I find James Barber comes across as open and genuinely trying to improve things for people in ED and understand what affects them. I live in Village ward and I rarely see or hear from my local councillors unless there's an election in the offing.

Worth remembering that the results of a consultation or any other opinion-gathering exercise are rarely simple - not everyone wants the same thing!

[DadOf4]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> Wow, that's harsh, Dadof4. Personally I find James

> Barber comes across as open and genuinely trying

> to improve things for people in ED and understand

> what affects them. I live in Village ward and I

> rarely see or hear from my local councillors

> unless there's an election in the offing.

>

Yes, you're right it does come over as a little harsh. Sorry. I've amended my post

Clr Barber is a hardworking man, but has got form for trying to steer consultations in the direction he wants them to go, whilst maintaining a public face of only wanting whats best for the area

[James Barber]

Hi DadOf4,

I'm happy to accept the criticism of having views of what would make our area better.

But I've often given pratical advice to people with opposing views and even had such items added when contentious to council agendas for fuller review.

The last proposed CPZ for East Dulwich I organised it being added to Community Council agendas where the proposal was rejected and the cabinet member followed that recommendation. To me this doesn't feel like someone spinning his agenda come what may.

Thanks you for softening the original post. I am human!

[DadOf4]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The last proposed CPZ for East Dulwich I organised

> it being added to Community Council agendas where

> the proposal was rejected and the cabinet member

> followed that recommendation. To me this doesn't

> feel like someone spinning his agenda come what

> may.

Jeeeezzzz - you just cant help yourself can you ? I seriously cant believe you bring up the CPZ debacle and spin it into how you did the honourable thing, "wasn't I great".

I re-iterate that you do some great work, but your behavoiur over that was a disgrace. I'm happy to let sleeping dogs lye, but please dont try and spin it into you being the hero of the day.

You fail to mention that you came on this forum for 3 months and said that you'd go with what people wanted - the scheme faced OVERWHELMING opposition (consultations, petitions,on here,etc,etc) and at the said Community council meeting: you (and your two party colleagues) were the only local councilors to vote in FAVOUR of the scheme.

Selective omissions of information - good trick

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,772215,page=47

So, a warning to people that you have "got form" in these situations, IMO, is reasonable.

[Romnarz]

This is the leaflet I presume.

did find it informative to a degree but a bit suspicious when originators identity is unclear.Presume from someone who wants to set up some local 'action group '

[James Barber]

I've just had confirmation that the consultation has been extended to the 19 December due to popular and local councillor demand.

[Charles Notice]

Why not extend it till the New Year when people have more time?

[holymoly]

To extend or not to extend the consultation deadline.... that is the question.

>>I've just had confirmation that the consultation has been extended to the 19 December due to popular and local councillor demand.

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

>> Regards [email protected]

It is unclear how this information would be communicated to respondents but the 'extension' has not been notified to the Southwark consultation website. It is an extension simply in line with 'existing practice' and no concession to the voice of local concern.

____________________________________

Dear Dulwich Community Councillors,

The official consultation deadline on the Townley Road junction proposals is 12th December. We would normally accept responses for up to a week later. Therefore I am happy to say that the consultation is extended to 19th, this would mean that there has been a full 28 day consultation period. Please feel free to let residents know.

The reality is that responses received after this point are not ignored, but would be collated separately.

There is already a substantial postbag which suggests there is no lack of awareness of the scheme in the community, and if we were to extend further it would have to cover whole of Christmas and 1st week of new year. This would leave us too much to do to prepare report for CC on 28 Jan

We have a range of earlier feasibility studies which we will make available on the web site imminently.

Regards

Des Waters

Head of Public Realm

[spider69]

How many people knew it was existing pratice? not Clr pressure

[slarti b]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Two approaches. One support the proposals but highlighting the few bits you don't agree with OR

> object with specific reasons - hopefully adding the features you do support.

> If losing the right turn from Townley Road is a show stopper for you then I'd recommend you take

> the latter route.

Cllr Barber, Many thanks for the prompt response that confirms what I suspected.

I will object but comment on my support for most of the measures apart form the banned right turn. With a combination of advanced lights for cyclist, some careful traffic light tuning and decent road markings ( none of which exist now) I am sure the junction can be made much safer for cyclist without banning the right turn.

However, Southwark council's response (as voiced by Des Waters) to the concern expressed by the local community has not impressed me. They have NOT extended the consultation, only explained they accept submissions up to a week after the deadline. He has announced they may at some time make public the feasibility studies but there is no date on when and we are 3 days away from the official consultation date finishing! I asked for the feasibility study over 2 weeks ago and had no reply.

No wonder voters are cynical about politicians!

[Charles Notice]

Has Cllr Barber requested this report as mention in an earlier post on the 6th December

[slarti b]

Cllr Barber,

Well, I replied to the on line consultation, saying I supported overall objectives but had concerns about right hand turn.

Then I found I had maximum of 500 characters ( including spaces!) so had to reduce my answer to about 80 words.

In the end I dropped the section about supporting many aspects of the scheme because I thought putting objections on record was more important.

Quite frankly this 500 character limit is ridiculously low, but hey if it reduces the volume of democratic comments the council have to put with then I suppose it achieves its objective!

[kiera]

I couldn't agree more slarti b. By the time I'd reduced mine to 300 characters I was dissatisfied with it, as I hadn't been able to comment on more than a couple of aspects, nor explain my reasons satisfactorily. The only conclusion is the one you came to - that the council are not actually interested in our opinions. All their 'consultations' are the same - the council have already made their plans and have every intention of implementing them. They can only be stopped by enormous public pressure.

They should completely change their practices and engage in genuine opinion gathering and consultation before and during their planning process.

[intexasatthe moment]

Mmm ,as I've been memorably told " A consultation isn't the same thing as a rolling ballot ,you don't just vote for what you want ."

[kiera]

ITAM - synonyms for 'consultation' are 'dialogue', 'debate', 'negotiation', 'discussion' etc. That's clearly not the same as issuing a fully worked out plan to people who are affected, but had not previously been involved and putting a 300 character restriction on their responses.

[intexasatthe moment]

Quite agree kiera . I didn't agree with dismissing the whole process of consultations by saying they didn't constitute a ballot . Was quoting to illustrate how shoddy ( not to mention hugely expensive ) consultations often are .

[Zebedee Tring]

I also agree about the unsatisfactory 500 character limit. Nevertheless, I think that I was able succinctly to express my opposition to the no right turn aspect of the proposals and to suggest that a rephasing of the lights at the junction would do the trick.

[slarti b]

Hopefully I managed to get my points across within 500 characters but had to resort to text speak!

Seriously, it is ridiculous that the on line consultation is limited in this way. Surely it is much more efficient for the council to receive comments electronically, unless of course they have no intention of reading them anyway.

Any news of the release of the feasibility studies promised "imminently" by Mr Des Waters of Southwark Public Realm? We are 2 days away from the end of the consultation period and still have no background information.

Reminds me of the "Consultation" last year on building on the Turney Road playing fields. The meeting to give (sorry consider) planning permissions was scheduled BEFORE the end of the consultation period. Great advert for local democracy....