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

[Townleygreen]

well some fools voted for them!

[hopskip]

Tessmo wrote :

>>There is an update posted on the online petition (https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-townley-road-junction)

Tessmo, thank you for the reminder of the petition and that it is still live for us to record support before the next Council meeting. Also the prompt to attend the next meeting and its date:

>>UPDATE There is a meeting of the Dulwich Community Council at 7pm on Wednesday 28 January 2015 at Herne Hill Baptists Church, Half Moon Lane.

Councillors:

I know already quite a few of us plan to attend the meeting. So questions for you. When do the minutes of the meeting on 3rd Dec 2014 become available (it?s now a month) and who is responsible for getting these out in a timely way? What is the procedure to respond to questions put to the Dec 3rd meeting but not answered at that meeting?

[James Barber]

Hi hopskip,

Minutes are normally issued a minimum of 7 days in advance of the next meeting.

A member of the committee could request them sooner.

Do you want me to request them sooner - if so please email me.

[hopskip]

James

thank you for that offer and do you have any insight on:

>>What is the procedure to respond to questions put to the Dec 3rd meeting but not answered at that meeting?

[James Barber]

Hi hopskip,

If you have any questions not answers then I'd be happy to try and get answers before the 28th for you. OR you can ask them again on the 28th.

[rch]

This blasted forum software won't let me post!

James - I'm trying to explain to them how to make a deputation at the DCC, can you help them do this??

[James Barber]

Happy to help anyone make a deputation. Just ping me an email to make contact.

[slarti b]

Holy Moly, Have just been reading the article you mentioned and spotted the comment below

Helen Poyton, headteacher of Dulwich Village Infants' School, said: "The safety of our pupils is our first priority, and we don't want to end up with even more congestion on the streets the children use to walk and cycle to school. Junctions along Dulwich Village are already very crowded and we can't support any option that makes them worse."

The council make a big play of involving 3 "local interest" groups in their discussions: Dulwich Society, Southwark Cyclists, Dulwich & Herne Hill Safe Routes to School (DHHSRS)

DHHSRS

From comment quoted above at least one local school shares concerns about banned right hand turn . The DHHSRS blog on this subject claimed they didn't know about the RT ban until consultation started. They are separately concerned about rat running which will will be massively increased by the RT ban. Big contradictions there.

Dulwich Society

They have mentioned the "controversy" in their Newsletter but seem to be sitting on fence. I heard they supported the scheme based on the recommended Option 4 of the Dec 2012 JMP report (no RHT ban). But this is different from the Option 7 pushed by the council.

Did they know about the proposed ban when they offered support and, if so, does the Dulwich Society committee really support the current option that will impact so much on local residents?

Southwark Cyclists

A tiny pressure group who cannot claim to represent local interests. They can't even find enough members to fill the 4 places reserved for them on the Southwark Council Cyclist steering C'ttee! Their concern is not local safety but reducing traffic on a proposed Quietway (no matter if it rat runs through local streets)

So the 2 (actual) local groups seem not to have known about the proposed RHT ban. If so, the council shouldn't be quoting them in support.

Calls to action

Dulwich & Herne Hill Safe Routes to School members

Even the council has now admitted the proposed option 7 will lead to increased rat running which, as you say, is dangerous for children and adults. Ask your committee why future provision for the proposed cycle Quietway (5?) is so much more important.

Dulwich Society Members

If you have concerns about the knock-on effects of the RHT ban on the local roads then contact the Dulwich Society to ask them to reflect this.

Caution The Chair of the the Dulwich Society Transport Committee is Alastair Hanton. He is also the self appointed, non-elected, "council liaison" representative for Dulwich of Southwark Cyclists. Is he acting for the interests of local Dulwich residents or the Southwark cyclists pressure group? I suggest you raise this with the Dulwich Society chariman,

[hopskip]

Slarti b

Agree there is a conflict and I understand Dulwich Society has been asked about this by a number of people. Not sure what action is to be taken, if any - so it is worth making this point to them strongly.

It is not easy to find out the people running DulwichSafeRoutes (at least from their website, AboutUs is silent). However - if the same people on this link are involved (http://www.hernehillforum.org.uk/news/school-crossing-patrols-saved-southwark) then they also have a presence on the Dulwich Society Transport Committee.

So another question for the Dulwich Society Transport Group - and in due course Southwark.

[James Barber]

If anyone thinks the dulwich Scoeity Transport sub committee isn't doing a great job representing their views then join that sub committee. They're always keen to have new members and extra help.

Over the years they've really helped all of Southwark by pushing for things that then get adopted across the whole of Southwark.

The Dulwich SRTS were also intrumental in keeping local School Crossing Patrols.

So both groups have done great work but if you don't agree with aspects of this scheme come along to the 28 January meeting rather than criticise two very worthy and successful groups OR volunteer to get involved helping set their plans.

[hopskip]

In my experience of modern, transparent committees with appropriate governance and constitution - they will have a remit to consult out with the membership of their organisations. Jury out.

[Jennys]

I see that the Southwark quietway stakeholder engagement map ( yes that really is the name) has cyclists travelling along Calton Avenue and across into Turney Road. Surely this is one of the routes which will almost certainly see an increase in traffic if the proposed no right turn from Townley Road comes into effect.

[Zebedee Tring]

I have written a long letter to Southwark's Monitoring Officer on what I see as the procedural defects in the whole issue. The most relevant passages are as follows:

"... In my opinion, if the Council went ahead and approved Option 7 including the no right turn ban without carrying out a further study on the implications of this ban, this would potentially constitute maladministration. I should therefore be grateful if you, in your capacity as Monitoring Officer, would take the necessary action to ensure that no decision is taken on this proposal until such a further study is carried out. Furthermore if such a study is not available to consultees before the meeting on 28 January, a further Dulwich Community Council meeting should be held to consider the study findings..."

"... Cllr Williams is therefore on record as saying that the no right turn measure is an integral part of the proposals. He appears to be fixed in his views and appears to be dismissing without proper consideration other alternatives, which have been preferred in previous studies. If he were to make his final decision on this basis, arguably he has fettered his discretion before he has even considered the representations against the no right turn measure. In the words of the old doctrine, not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done. In my opinion, the decision would be challengeable legally and would in itself constitute maladministration.

For these reasons, it would be totally inappropriate for Cllr Williams to make final decision on the proposal. The matter should therefore go to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or other appropriate Committee and if necessary to the full Council for a final decision..."

[slarti b]

Cllr Barber

Happy New Year and thanks once again for being a local politician who is engaging on this issue on the forum.

I assume your comment about criticising "two very worthy and successful groups" (presumably Dulwich Society (DS) and Dulwich & Herne Hill Safe Routes to School (DHHSRS)) was aimed at my post last night.

My main criticism is of Southwark for naming DS and DHHSRS in support of the council's option when it seems they didn't know about the banned right turn and may actually have supported a different option. I would like to see an official statement from DS and DHHSRS as to which option they support and their position on the effect of the proposed RHT ban.

If "worthy" organisations claim to represent their members or are acting on behalf of the local community I think they have an obligation to behave responsibly. DS seems to be acting cautiously (though I am concerned about a possible conflict of interest there). But DHHSRS was aggressively canvassing support for an option which has not been properly studied and which contradicted one of their other campaigns; I dont think that is responsible.

I am asking members of DS and DHHSRS to ensure any concerns they have about the RHT ban are sent to these organisations so the boards\committees can truly reflect what their members think. That is involvement not criticism. I will also be encouraging people to attend the DCC meeting on 28 Jan but I don't know how effective that forum is.

I will certainly consider applying to join the DS Transport sub-c'ttee. However, I already run a small business, chair a local sports organisation and sing in a community choir so not sure if I can devote enough time. Perhaps when (if) I can afford to retire ? ;-)

To end (sorry) on a critical note I saw that the Southwark Cyclists chair Andy Cawdell was canvassing support for this scheme on the Croydon Cyclists yahoo group. http://tinyurl.com/ow5uuev. SC may be doing some good things as a lobbying pressure group but this confirms my view Southwark should not treat them as local stakeholders for this particular consultation . EDIT in italics

[tomdhu]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Cllr Barber

> Happy New Year and thanks once again for being a

> local politician who is engaging on this issue on

> the forum.

>

Just why all the other councillors (who claim to represent us) have failed to get involved in this issue beats me - particularly those from Village Ward which will be most affected by the NRT aspect.

I therefor name and shame all three of them:-

Jane Lyons

michael Mitchell

Anne Kirby

Tom

[Zebedee Tring]

Cllr Mitchell has recently emailed both my wife and myself in response to emails from us. However, we haven't heard from either of the other two Councillors.

BTW does anyone know whether Southwark have yet revealed details of any study that they have carried out of the implications of the right hand turn ban (assuming that they have carried out, or are carrying out such a study)? In my email to the Council's Monitoring Officer (extracts from which are set out in my previous post on this thread), I have argued that if such a study is not available to us before the Dulwich Community Council meeting on 28 January, a further DCC meeting should be held to consider the study findings.

[Jennys]

I have just finally (having written to her again) heard back from Councillor Jane Lyons. Unfortunately she gives no indication whatever of her views on this matter.

[James Barber]

Hi Jennys,

Cllr Jane Lyons being a relatively new councillor she may be nervous about expressing a view before we made a formal recommendation about this scheme at the Dulwich Community Council.

You would be amazed about how confused councillors, even extremely experiecned ones, about what they have to declare before making decisions and what they can and can;t say. As long as a councillor approaches the decision with an open mind theyre fine.

I've said I think banning the right turn is daft but IF new evidence was explained then I would be perfectly happy to change my opinion.

[Scootingover]

I have been following the comments and most observe that this entire Consultation looks conflicted from a number of standpoints. I will be corresponding with Southwark Council on this and that the Consultation should be cancelled as a consequence. There are many questions to be answered about the consultation input and its treatment. It is discredited based upon the information in the public domain, yet alone FOI requests for missing documentation that has so far been refused.

This is a consultation nested in predetermined Council strategy and outcomes to address a TfL cycling agenda. None of this has been made clear.

Note the introduction in the Townley Consultation FAQ document on the term Quietways ? slipped in without fanfare.

Note the late Council communication (I will post this later) on the Cycling Strategy/Quietways strategy and consultation which ends 1st Feb. Mark Williams presentation at the Scrutiny & Oversight committee 10th Nov (You tube; link posted earlier;

) also speaks to the importance of ED Grove (minute 28-30). Note the confidential discussion mentioned in the Southwark Cyclists minutes about the Cycling Strategy (again Mark Williams and the minutes of that Southwark Cycling Joint Steering group from Sept 2014 are still unpublished).

Note new positioning just released to add credibility to the groups being used for consultation by Southwark. No credible body can apply these things retrospectively.

http://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/cycling-joint-steering-group/

This ?purpose? for Southwark cyclists has only just appeared in response to Southwark realising the scrutiny that is coming to bear on the limited and lobbying interest groups with which it is basing its decisions.

Zebedee Tring has pointed out the conflict in decisions to be made by Mark Williams. Other correspondence and public documents point to his predecessor in the Transport Role ? Barrie Hargroves ? who is also now the Southwark Cabinet Member for Public Health, Parks and Leisure and with an equal voice at Southwark Council. He is likewise involved in the history of ED Grove and also the new Quiteway routes that will for example affect Dulwich Park ? again decision made and a conflicted and predetermined outcome if he is allowed to contribute to any decision.

The consultation notifications are flawed and have not reached the roads (residents and businesses) impacted and ?modelled?.

Questions around the consultation method and its conduct are unanswered.

FOI requests for missing documents have been refused.

These are but a few of the facts that can be substantiated but Southwark should look at the entire consultation now.

Southwark should understand that it has collapsed as a credible Consultation that can move forward.

[Penguin68]

Just to put a stop to the italics

[Zebedee Tring]

If the Council provide evidence at the last minute (i.e. at or just before the DCC meeting on 28/1)that appears to support the feasibility of a right turn ban, then the consideration of the proposal should be postponed to a further DCC meeting to give objectors a chance to evaluate the evidence properly. Nobody should be bounced into making a decision that could have damaging results. And if anyone at the Council has in mind any 31 March deadline for spending available money (if indeed this the case), such a deadline should not be a reason for making a quick decision.

[Charles Notice]

I've said I think banning the right turn is daft but IF new evidence was explained then I would be perfectly happy to change my opinion >

Looking like a Clegg uturn in the offering

[Zebedee Tring]

Charles N, please don't make this a political issue. I'm not a Lib Dem supporter but I'm satisfied that James Barber has done more to help opponents of this scheme than anyone else. Politicians who are in favour of the right turn ban would like nothing more than for opponents of the ban to turn on each other, especially on Councillors of a different political persuasion than their own.

I repeat what I said in my previous post, if the Council provide evidence at the last minute (i.e. at or just before the DCC meeting on 28/1)that appears to support the feasibility of a right turn ban, then the consideration of the proposal should be postponed to a further DCC meeting to give objectors a chance to evaluate the evidence properly. This is what opponents of the right turn proposal should be agreed on.

[James Barber]

Hi Charles Notice,

As ZT will know I can not have a pre determined attitude to taking a decision as a councillor. My statement was me making this clear. If I did have a pre determined attitude to this decision and was not willing to change my mind if new evidence from any source came forward in a timely manner then I would have to withdraw from the decision/committee.

I take such decision making very seriously. I've only had one sleepless night as a local politican and that was about whistle blowing which got me in no end of hot water but I did the right thing.

[@Woodwarde]

I am drawing this to everyone's attention as this is also out for Consultation. None of the cc'd on the email below have drawn this to our attention as far as I am aware. Also from reading it, your attention is not drawn to the consultation link itself which has a closure date of Sunday 1st Feb. Townley/EGD is assumed to be catered for in this proposal as a result of the consultation that we are immediately concerned about. That is - the Right Hand turn ban is assumed and locked into another consultation. It is also mentioned in the YouTube recording by Mark Williams (Southwark Scrutiny committee) which is noted a couple of times on this EDF thread.

see

https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1163

>>Whether or not you cycle, we want you to tell us what we can do to make cycling in Southwark better and more attractive. Your comments will inform our strategy and how we unlock our network. The Cycling Strategy will be adopted by the council in March 2015.

>>All respondents taking part in this survey will be entered into the prize draw to win one of three vouchers worth ?100. In order to qualify for the prize draw you must have responded by 23.59hrs on Sunday, 1 February 2015. The prize draw will take place on Friday, 13 February 2015

This is the EMAIL correspondence that you should be aware of:

____________________________________

From: Agyei-Frempong, Clement

Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 12:28 PM

To: Kirby, Anne; Lyons, Jane; Mitchell, Michael; Hartley, Jon; Hayes, Helen; Simmons, Andy; Gonde, Chris; John, Peter; King, Sarah; Williams, Mark; Wingfield, Ian; Burgess, Radha; Dixon-Fyle, Dora; Flynn, Tom; Williams, Kieron; Fleming, Paul; Garfield, Dan; Lauder MBE, Lorraine; Lury, Rebecca; Merrill, Darren; Seaton, Martin; Eastham, Karl; Luthra, Vijay; Maugham, Claire

Cc: Barber, James; Hargrove, Councillor Barrie

Subject: Southwark Quietways - Stakeholder Engagement

Dear Cllrs

Southwark Quietway Routes: Stakeholder engagement-Cycling

This is for your information .

Please can you also publicise the links below to all stakeholder groups/ residents in your respective wards

We want to encourage them to comment on the upcoming cycling Quietway routes.

The aim is to engage all road users / residents, as part of the scheme development.

Background information is also provided below.

We want as many stakeholders as possible to comment , especially non-cyclists who may be affect by the route alignment .

Using the Interactive Map Tool, below, stakeholders/ residents can tell us what improvements you would like to see along the route. You can pinpoint locations and add comments. Tell us about problem locations or opportunities to improve road safety and your aspiration for the street environment. For example, there may be a junction you want to see improved for both pedestrians and cyclists.

http://www.sdgdigital.co.uk/sites/southwarkquietways/

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200123/cycling/447/cycle_routes

Background information

Quietways are part of the Mayor's Cycling Vision for London, launched in March 2013.

A short film on the Mayor's Vision can be found here and a longer version here.

Quietway routes that are to be implemented in Southwark are:

? Waterloo to Greenwich (Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich)- Consultation is already underway, delivery to commence in early 2015

? Elephant & Castle to Crystal Palace (City, Southwark, Lambeth)- Consultation in 2015, delivery to commence in 2016

? Southwark to Canada Water- This route roughly follows the Jubilee Line. The section within Southwark is from Blackfriars and currently ends at Canada Water, just beyond Lower Road- Consultation in spring 2015, and delivery to commence in 2016, subject to confirmation of funds by TFL.

Have your say on Southwark Quietway Routes

Whether or not you cycle, we want you to tell us what we can do to improve safety conditions for all road users along this route. Your comments will inform the design of the proposals along the route. The Council wants to work with residents, cyclists, pedestrians and motorists who use this route to develop proposals that will benefit all road users.

Using the Interactive Map Tool, tell us what improvements you would like to see along the route. You can pinpoint locations and add comments. Tell us about problem locations or opportunities to improve road safety and your aspiration for the street environment. For example, there may be a junction you want to see improved for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Outline proposals will be shared with the public as and when they become available.

If you would like to give more detailed feedback please contact [email protected]

Regards

Clement A-Frempong

Public Realm

020 7525 2305