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

[@Woodwarde]

The date of the consultation on the Online form remains stated as the 12th December and not the 19th. I am reposting what seems to be an informal communication with our local councillors as it appeared on a previous thread.

Why has this date not been updated. Who would know other than those who read this thread??

>>Posted by holymoly December 08

>>>

>>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

[Robert Poste's Child]

Is it you who's been putting a 2-page letter protesting about this through everyone's letterbox in the area this week? It says that local people haven't been consulted, but if you live in the area you will know we were approached formally by Southwark. I found that really annoying, to be honest (and also the fact that you ignored all the 'no junk mail' signs in your zeal to get your own way).

[slarti b]

@Robert Poste's Child

Well I live locally and, as far as I am aware, I have not been "approached formally" by Southwark until receiving the details of a fully worked out scheme 2-3 weeks ago with no backing evidence. When did this process you refer to happen? Perhaps it resulted in the mysterious, unpublished feasibility studies that we have been promised but have not yet appeared?

re the letter you mention. I have received one which may (or may not) be the one you are referring to. It seemed pretty well balanced to me, explaining concerns about both the scheme, the lack of backing information and the apparent desire of Southwark to push the process through before providing evidence and impact of the proposals. In fact it doesn't even ask people to object

"this scheme will impact us and the note is to make sure that we're all aware and respond"

On the other hand, I have also received an email from the Dulwich Safer Routes to School group which quotes vague generalisations, makes unsubstantiated assertions and finishes with the misleading statement

"It is very important to register support for this scheme or the junction will remain unchanged and dangerous"

To me THAT is a zealous approach to getting your own way!

Finally my OED (admittedly the concise version) defines junk mail as "unsolicited advertising matter sent by post". I don't think the letter comes into that category.

[Jennys]

There is an article in today's Southwark News (Dulwich and Herne hill edition) about cycle routes in the area.

[Robert Poste's Child]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Finally my OED (admittedly the concise version)

> defines junk mail as "unsolicited advertising

> matter sent by post". I don't think the letter

> comes into that category.

Says it all, really.

[BrandNewGuy]

@Woodwarde Wrote:

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

> The date of the consultation on the Online form

> remains stated as the 12th December and not the

> 19th.

It now says that the deadline is December 19th:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3639/townley_road

[Ruffler]

Does anyone know how Southwark decides who it must inform and engage with regard to consultations? I live in North Dulwich in one of the streets neighbouring Elfindale road which is in the process of consultations regarding the introduction of a CPZ. I've received nothing from Southwark even though we will be clearly affected it it goes ahead.

[Charles Notice]

The officers sit in a room with a red pencil and draw lines on a map.

Post a piece of paper on a lamp post and hope no one noticed what is happening

Local pressure groups badger Cllrs and the thing gets passed.

Most locals have no idea it happens.

Join a local green or cycling pressure group and find out.

[James Barber]

hi BNG,

Thanks. I did say the consultation had been extended. 500 characters is ridiculously tough.

Hi Charles Notice,

Hmm, this isn't quite how it feels.

Pretty religiously Rosie and I email out, post on the EDF, add to leaflets, issue street letters, etc whenever we see a scheme or proposal. But we are opposition councillors so we're not on the inside directing officers. So we don't always get to hear about things as early as we'd like.

Hi Ruffler,

The council administratino after 2010 decided to change who it consults and decision making bodies. For example planning used to consult everyone within 100m of a planning application. For most scheme is now only the adjacent neighbour.

Hi Jennys,

The story about TfL not choosing Dulwich for ?2M of junctions being improved for cyclists but reiterating they've provided nearly ?300k in other cycle funding.

Tricky application stating 10,000 children in local schools would benefit in the area but around half of those go to private schools many living some distance beyond the schemes proposed area. So it isn't as clear it would have the transformative impact the application suggests. So I suspect TfL have gone for another area in London without this issue.

I hope the next attempt to apply for such a sum is successful addressing this issue.

[James Barber]

Extra information is now available...

This includes links to:

1. Previous safety reviews and background information

2. Preferred design option detail

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3639/townley_road

[slarti b]

I have had a first review of the documents which make interesting reading. I can see why the council was reluctant to release them

Leaving aside the masses of technical appendices I have found 2 key documents

1) "East Dulwich Grove/ Townley Road Junction Safety Review (4.28 MB PDF)"

This is a thorough investigation of the junction for the council by JMP associates dated Dec 2012. They evaluated 6 options to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. NONE of these options involved the controversial banned right turn.

JMP recommended Option 4 with the "low cost" alternative Option 5 providing some quick wins and improved safety at a cost of about ?6k.

2) "?East Dulwich Grove Technical Note (1.48 MB PDF)"

This report is dated March 2014. The council asked Conway AECOM (a joint venture with the Councils in-house roadworks contractor?) to evaluate 2 additional options: Option 7 including a Right Turn ban and Option 7a, similar to 7 but without the ban.

The report is nowhere near as thorough as the JMP, no mention of site visits etc. It seems based purely on running scenarios though modelling software and (per Linkedin) seems to have been prepared by a recent graduate less than 6 months out of University!

The modelling for Option 7 included the significant assumption that the existing Right Turn traffic would find alternative routes ( "eg Lordship Lane") to access ED Grove. This assumption is clearly flawed since some traffic would end up on this junction via right turns at Dulwich Village, rat running up Gilkes, turning via Gt Spilmans and U Turns on Greendale. In addition the report is very clear that the wider impact of the right turn ban ban (affect on other junctions, impact on surrounding network, where banned vehicles would go) has not been assessed.

To my great surprise the report (on the assumption "most of the benefits are intended to be provided to cyclists") recommends Option 7 !!!! This is the option the council put out for "consultation".

However the report also says "a further study should be undertaken to examine the impact of the right turn ban to the wider area". The council has not provided this and presumably it has not happened.

My take on this whole process is

- FACT In 2012 Council commissions JMP report that comes up with sensible options for improving safety ( better cycle tracks, improved road marking etc) including a cheap quick win option.

- FACT(as per Southwark web site) Sometime in 2013 the council commissions a feasibility study on the junction. This feasibility study has not been released.

- SPECULATION Council decides to ignore study and recommendations of JMP and come up with its own option (probably influenced by unrepresentative, self-appointed minority pressure groups such as Southwark Cyclists) so they can get scheme funded by TFL.

- FACT Nov 2013 council issues a press release announcing funding from TFL cycling to school fund for the junction http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1449/285000_of_funding_awarded_to_support_cycling_in_dulwich_and_herne_hill

- SPECULATION Council commissions another report setting terms of reference to justify their "chosen" option

- FACT Council commissions another report to examine an additional option and variant

- FACT Feb\Mar 2014 Completed report is sent to council based on flawed assumptions, ignoring effect of significant part of option but recommending the council's suggested option. Recommendation of further study ignored by council.

TO Cllr Barber. Please tell me if my speculation is incorrect, otherwise sounds like Charles Notice's cynical view is true!

Actions?

These documents show that the concerns expressed by many in the local community are fully justified. If you have already responded to the consultation I suggest you respond again with additional comments in the light of these documents that have only just been made public. I think it is outrageous that the Council has not carried out any study of the effects of their preferred option on surrounding roads, especially since it is recommended by their own report!

Remember that, although the Consultation has not been officially extended the consultation period, they have publicy sais they accept comments up to 19 Dec.

[Jennys]

Well done Slarti b for providing this information.

[Zebedee Tring]

Thanks for providing this information, Slarti b. I reckon that if the Council went ahead and approved the proposal including the no right turn ban without carrying out a further study on the implications of this ban, this would potentially constitute maladministration (if nothing else).

Perhaps James Barber could make this point to the Council's Monitoring Officer, who is or used to be Doreen Forrester-Brown. If James doesn't do this, then someone else should. Under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Monitoring Officer is required to report to Council Members on any issues about the Council's legal powers, possible maladministration, impropriety and probity.

[Jennys]

Has anyone had any comments from local councillors about this whole scheme - other than James Barber, that is to say. Village Ward councillors seem strangely silent, even though it should concern them.

[slarti b]

Chris Mascord.......

Comments and requests for informations on this proposal were to be addressed to Mr Chris Mascord, email address [email protected]

But guess who he actually works for ? Well, per linkedin he is: "Principal Consultant at AECOM"

AECOM are the consultancy who recommended the current scheme in their Feb\Mar 2014 report based (IMHO) on flawed assumptions and no assessment of the knock-on impact of the scheme.

I am sure everything is above board but surely it is a massive conflict of interest for the consultation exercise on a scheme to involve (or be run by?) an employee of the same firm that has recommended the scheme. Especially when the recommendation overides well thought out, previous proposals?

[Zebedee Tring]

Thanks again, slarti b.

Whoever Mr Mascord works for, the comments that I made above re maladministration and the Monitoring Officer would still apply since the final decision on the proposals would be made in the name of the Council.

Indeed, the news regarding Mr Mascord's status strengthens the maladministration argument since the process appears to involve a potential conflict of interest.

[@Woodwarde]

The focus on this thread is on the best way to ensure that the development of the junction at East Dulwich Grove and Townley is fit for purpose, delivers safety for us all as a community ? pedestrians, cyclists, transport users. So the threads above this one that challenge the content of the more recently disclosed planning information are critical.

However, we are struggling to see how the safety issue has been assessed ( 2 minor incidents in 5 years according to the new background information released on the Southwark consultation website). We should not of course be complacent and do need to focus on prevention. However it is reasonable to ask how funding has been allocated as it is of course a question highly relevant to the conduct of this consultation.

This is the email and cc list from the notification to our local councillors that new data was up on the website.

It came to some of us via our local councillors but there are a few cc?d who are not council officials. How else would others find this information?

As a formal Southwark Council response to its local councillors, why are non-council people the early beneficiaries of this Council communication when its disclosure to the wider community is limited in the first place? It is addressed to Councillors - but not all are councillors.

From: Mascord, Chris

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 01:07 PM

To: Lyons, Jane; Mitchell, Michael; Kirby, Anne

Cc: Williams, Mark; Hill, Matthew; Kazaz, Qassim; Doran, Eamon; 'Laurie Johnston' ; 'Alastair Hanton ; Simmons, Andy; Hayes, Helen; Barber, James; Shimell, Rosie; Hartley, Jon; Smith, Charlie

Subject: RE: Updated information on the Townley Road junction consultation page

Dear Cllrs

Due to numerous requests received for further background information relating to the Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove junction scheme , additional information is now available to downloaded at the on the scheme consultation webpage.

This includes links to:

1. Previous safety reviews and background information

2. Preferred design option detail

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3639/townley_road

Please feel free to disseminate this information to your constituents accordingly.

Kind regards,

Chris Mascord

[Charles Notice]

This consultation is as useful as a condom with the top cut off.

Thus junction has been there since my childhood perhaps people should grow up and use common sense.

It seems that new imports have a very silly and precious view of life that is silly.

Use common sense.

[mikeb]

Does anyone know how we are supposed to use the "cycling waiting bay for less confident cyclists to wait for the pre-signal operation"? There are two, one on Townley Road and the other on Green Dale.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-puCngRIDWp8/VHRL7HB8GjI/AAAAAAAABRk/iswQZ6EjtfY/s1600/Townley_Consultation_Drawing_Final-2.jpg

It appears to be a piece of road carved out from the pavement next to but not leading onto the cycle lane. I am a cyclist and I don't think I've ever seen one of these before.

[James Barber]

Hi @woodwarde,

WRT to your latest comments. Chris Mascord sent his email to all three Village ward councillors. He cc'd a number of other councillors such as me and a couple of other council officials in his team and two local representatives of the Dulwich Safe Routes to School committee. One also chairs the Transport Committee of the Dulwich Society.

Hi mikeb,

Some cyclists don't like using Advanced Stop Line areas. So I guess this is an alternative to using ASL's. Combined with the earlier green light for cyclists.

Thanks for making me look at the plans again. The ASL's are set back around 2m from the pedestrian crossing points. Reducing this gap would increase the time available for traffic to croos the the junction potentially allowing the right turn phasing to be kept with no other changes to the proposed scheme. So I still see plenty of opportunity for a much improved junction and keeping local residents who want the right turn being satisfied.

Hi Charles Notice,

Giving up on the consultation is a sure fire way for it to not get the result you want. it will discourage people to respond.

[Zebedee Tring]

James, perhaps you could comment on one of my most recent posts, which I reproduce below:

"I reckon that if the Council went ahead and approved the proposal including the no right turn ban without carrying out a further study on the implications of this ban, this would potentially constitute maladministration (if nothing else).

Perhaps James Barber could make this point to the Council's Monitoring Officer, who is or used to be Doreen Forrester-Brown. If James doesn't do this, then someone else should. Under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Monitoring Officer is required to report to Council Members on any issues about the Council's legal powers, possible maladministration, impropriety and probity."

[James Barber]

Hi ZT,

On the information I have I do not believe maladminstration has or is occurring. If I did feel this I would report my concerns to the Monotoring Officer. If that didn't get any traction I would consult with my partyy leader and potentially the leader of the council or Chief Executive.

I have done all of these several times over the years for other issues with a spectrum of results.

Happy to read any thinking or evidence you may have but would prefer you email me direct. Such allegations can affect peoples employment, etc and I don't think it appropriate to discuss in a puublic forum where they are unable due to their employment contract and workloads respond.

[Zebedee Tring]

Hi, James.

What I said was if the Council went ahead and approved the proposal (i.e. in the future) including the no right turn ban without carrying out a further study on the implications of the ban, this would potentially constitute maladministration.

I for one am therefore keeping an eye on the situation and if there is potential administration in the future would be minded to approach the Monitoring Officer. I say this as a former Monitoring Officer who once had to write a Monitoring Officer's report which was considered by the whole Council (not Southwark incidentally).

[jandhuk]

Until the 19th December...

[wulfhound]

Thus junction has been there since my childhood perhaps people should grow up and use common sense.

It seems that new imports have a very silly and precious view of life that is silly.

Use common sense.

On one level, I agree with you.. I've used that junction a dozen times a week for ten years, and as Boris once infamously said of a junction in Central London (at which, the following year, two cyclists were killed within a fortnight), "it's fine if you keep your wits about you".

And yet, that same "common sense" has led to record levels of obesity and loss of independence in kids, a London road network which claims the lives of 100+ pedestrians and a dozen or so cyclists every year, and the majority of people outside of the Urban Lycra Warrior demographic saying they're too scared of traffic to get on their bikes.

Our streets are, first and foremost, public space. I think we should aspire to something better for them than "fine if you keep your wits about you". How about comfortable, convenient and subjectively safe for pedestrians and cyclists of all ages and abilities? Certainly you don't stand a snowball's chance of persuading the ED Mums out of their 4x4s with anything less.

And you're damn right life's precious. A heck of a lot more precious than saving five minutes on the odd car journey here or there. Which is why I support these changes, and if the right turn has to go for it to work as designed, so be it. If it causes problems on other streets - as it may well do - those streets should be looked at in turn with similar measures adopted.