Southwark's (lack of) Consultation process: eg CPZ; Speed limits; Restricted parking; Cycling etc

[Charles Notice]

Perhaps Cllr Barber could furnish the information?

[first mate]

Back in 2009 there was a thread by Peckham Rose on here. She had posted a PDF of Southwark Plans for 20 mph, including a reply to her detailed objections at the time. That PDF appears to gave been deleted from S'wark website. I suspect one would have to go back through council meetings and minutes. However, I think the "consultation" will have been done quite purposefully over a number of years, garnering support of sorts for roads on a piecemeal basis until they have enough to join it all together.

But yes, perhaps a councillor, any councillor, can explain and reveal the full process and mechanism of consultation with the public in this case, from first notification to grand finale. If S'wark, its officers and councillors are so keen to be seen as the listening borough, then they should be ever so keen to reply.

[Zebedee Tring]

Perhaps we should forcibly remind Southwark Councillors that there's a General Election in three months time and that the behaviour of the Council on the consultation issue might affect the way that we vote. Labour Councillors are surely aware that their party is not sitting on a 150 seat majority as it did in the days of Blair. Or do they care?

[Blah Blah]

Don't think it matters who controls the council to be honest. The process, or rather lack of process is the same.

We were promised free gym and swimming as an election promise for ALL southwark residents by the current labour council. But it was a lie.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1890/the_scoop_on_southwark_s_free_swim_and_gym_pilot

[@Woodwarde]

I have found the email that I referred to earlier which explains some of the Southwark consultation process. As a reminder, this was for the Townley junction consultation. This consultation had an online version on the main Southwark consultation site and also a paper consultation distributed to designated streets. It is unclear what is the trigger that causes Southwark to use both paper and online, but in this case, they seemed to assume opposition and a need for a more active consultation.

The online site mirrored the paper consultation with no factual information provided. Due to the volume of opposition from residents and the questions they raised, the online consultation site information was extended on the final day of the formal consultation, to include background modelling and funding bid information. None of this was dated as to the time of its addition to the website and so in hindsight, it looks like it was there from the outset, which is not the case.

The email in response to questions about how Southwark conducts consultations follows below; see also the TWO attachments - flow charts to show Southwark's decision making process.

Note the use of the terms 'strategic' and 'non-strategic' decisions - there are two categories but it is unclear what makes something a strategic decision.

In the case of Townley, as it may be relevant to this case and not apply more widely:

1. All the roads affected are the responsibility of Southwark (not Tfl, who are responsible for the main highways eg the South Circular).

2. Any changes to traffic lights or bus routes would require liaison with TfL however and their approval.

3. As the funding for this junction work was obtained from TfL (not Southwark)under the banner of 'cycling improvements', the situation is dominated by the need to demonstrate cycling benefits rather than the safety concerns that were originally the focus for the junction.

The email from Public Realm:

___________________________

Dear Ward Cllrs

I have received separate but similar requests from?? In the interests of openness and simplicity therefore I am responding to all of you together.

The three areas I have been asked about are:

1. Official documentation that sets out how Southwark Council must conduct public consultations i.e. the specific details of the process (scope, timing, appropriate methods of communication, background information, etc).

2. The section of the Southwark Council constitution that sets out the procedure that will be followed for making a decision on this particular junction proposal.

3? (point is specific to Townley so removed to keep this short)

In response to Q1:

We do not have a formal procedure for what is commonly described as ?public? consultation and how it ?must? be undertaken. However the agreed practice is as follows:

? Officers draw up scheme proposals and consultation leaflet in standard template

? Officers draw up proposed distribution area for hard copy leaflet based on their experience of what would constitute a suitable area

? Officers consult ward members and cabinet member on the contents of the leaflet and the proposed consultation area

? Officers amend both leaflet and consultation area based on feedback from members (most commonly such feedback is on the area proposed rather than the actual content)

? Leaflet is printed and then distributed by royal mail or other delivery agent to the area agreed with ward members

? Consultation material is also published on our website

? Background information is generally not provided but is made available on request (this is mainly to ensure that the material is concise and comprehensible for the general public)

? At the same time, electronic copies are sent to a standard list of consultees these are either those that the Council considers we have a statutory duty to consult (at the formal consultation stage ? which is explained below) or those that constitute groups that the council considers will be interested in the proposals. To the standard list, we will add, on request, other organisations such as Tenants and Residents Associations as we see fit.

The standard list covers:

Emergency services

Disability groups

Cycling Groups

Freight/road haulage groups

Living Streets

London Travelwatch

Transport for London

London Taxi Drivers Association

In this case the Dulwich Society and Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School were also included.

Public consultation is generally for three weeks (21 days) although this is flexible and at our discretion. In August and December in particular we aim to give longer.

Following completion of the consultation, the results are aggregated and then reported to ward members, followed by a formal report for consultation (in the case of strategic schemes) or for determination (for non-strategic schemes) to the relevant Community Council. For strategic schemes, determination sits with the Cabinet Member. The consultation report follows a standard template with some variation as necessary. This will report results from the ?public? consultation as well as any feedback from ?stakeholders? along with officer responses to particular issues raised.

The entire public consultation is in addition to a formal statutory consultation that we must undertake where Traffic Management Orders or notices are required by law. We usually run these sequentially although in some cases, due to programme pressures, we can and do run a statutory and public consultation simultaneously. Therefore in the specific case of Townley Road/East Dulwich Grove, there is a further, separate statutory consultation phase to come.

By way of background, the Council has a duty to consult prior to making Traffic Management Orders. This is as specified in regulations 6 and 7 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/6/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/7/made

and the most relevant excerpt is as follows:

Publication of proposals

7. (1) An order making authority shall, before making an order,?

(a)publish at least once a notice (in these Regulations called a ?notice of proposals?) containing the particulars specified in Parts I and II of Schedule 1 in a newspaper circulating in the area in which any road or other place to which the order relates is situated;

(b)in the case of an order under section 6 of the 1984 Act, publish a similar notice in the London Gazette;

©take such other steps as it may consider appropriate for ensuring that adequate publicity about the order is given to persons likely to be affected by its provisions and, without prejudice to the generality of this sub-paragraph, such other steps may include?

(i)in the case of an order to which sub-paragraph (b) does not apply, publication of a notice in the London Gazette;

(ii)the display of notices in roads or other places affected by the order; or

(iii)the delivery of notices or letters to premises, or premises occupied by persons, appearing to the authority to be likely to be affected by any provision in the order.

All of the above will be undertaken as part of the formal statutory consultation that will follow in due course.

2. the council?s constitution is available on the website here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/375/councils_constitution

The most relevant section is Part 3 ? Who takes decisions?

In particular, the following sections:

Cabinet Member Responsibilities ? for Cllr Mark Williams, Cabinet member for Regeneration, Planning, and Transport, this is outlined on p35

Part 3D - Individual Cabinet Members ? Matters reserved for decision (specifically, p41 paras 13 and 23)

Part 3H ? Community Councils ? specifically paras 19-21 on p53

The attached internal flowcharts may help inform the answers to both questions. This (Townley Rd Junction) is a ?1 stage? consultation ? the ?2 stage? option is normally only used for parking zone proposals.

Q3

I attach copy of the bid that was submitted to TfL in July 2013. This was accompanied by a map of schools in the Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School cluster and feasibility level designs based on work undertaken by JMP consultants. For completeness, the bid did NOT include a design which included a ?no right turn? feature. It is not uncommon for bids for funding to be made based on early feasibility work or preliminary designs and for these designs to then change significantly during design development and consultation stages of project development.

I trust this information is both clear and of assistance. For completeness, I am planning to upload the TfL bid document to the background information pages on the website. Officers would be pleased to answer any further reasonable request for information.

Kind regards

MH

Public Realm Programme Manager

Environment and Leisure

Southwark Council

[first mate]

@woowarde,

Thanks. We know that 20mph is a strategic decision and in his last post on the matter James Barber suggested we email a Cabinet Member expressing objections, but the implication was that there was little he could do, though he was quick to play it for political points.

I would like to know if James agrees with 20 mph on main roads in ED (I think most will agree side roads are fine)and if he feels that local residents were adequately consulted and process followed?

[Tessmo]

Thanks @Woodwarde

So the Council sends out a limited number of printed leaflets about a particular consultation. But "At the same time, electronic copies are sent to a standard list of consultees...or those that constitute groups that the council considers will be interested in the proposals. To the standard list, we will add, on request, other organisations such as Tenants and Residents Associations as we see fit."

What this boils down to is that a) you might see stuff on the council's website, or b) you might get a leaflet posted through your door, or c) you might hear nothing about it at all, but will find instead that groups of people you don't know and have never heard of, who might claim to have your best interests at heart but who have never talked to you or asked what you think, are somehow more involved in a consultation that directly affects your local streets than you are yourself.

The council could choose to 'consult' only those groups of people who will agree with their proposals, and leave out all the pesky residents who might disagree. Or have I got this wrong?

[first mate]

Tessmo,

Agreed, however if you look at the detail for this particular consultation you will see that local residents are listed as amongst those who would be affected by 20 mph and therefore should be consulted.

I believe the council maintains it met this obligation by posting notice in the Gazette( whatever that is), putting it online on its website and in a few papers like the South London Press. I guess we have to decide if this was enough. Were special interest groups given an advantage in being directly approached by S'wark for their views? Was the process unfairly weighted? The only way to challenge this is to look at the process to see if the Council failed in some area.

[rodneybewes]

The thing about special interest groups is that they get out there and care enough about the issues to get involved and have their interests heard. That is essentially democracy in action. If you care enough about keeping the limits at 30 you need to mobilise yourself and get out there to challenge it. If you carry more support than those who campaign for the opposite you've got a chance that your argument will carry the day. It's no good blaming special interest groups for being arsed enough to have an opinion and carry it through.

[panda boy]

Regarding the council plans to redevelop COC and CNC, they have recently stated this on their website;

"The burial strategy was consulted on extensively in 2011 and 2012..."

It transpires that Southwark sent out paper copies of a questionnaire to 2,793 addresses in Lewisham and to only 902 to addresses in Southwark, and only in the area of Camberwell New Cemetery and Honor Oak Recreation Ground.*

Of the 972 people who responded 63% lived in Lewisham and only 35% lived in Southwark.

I personally don't think this can be defined as 'consulted on extensively' by any stretch of the imagination, failing to consult people who live around these areas, yet they appear willing to employ such disingenuous language to bolster their proposals.

Pretty disgusted by their tactic to be honest.

(*Credit the person who found these figures.)

[Tessmo]

I?ve been thinking a lot about what you said, @rodneybewes. I can see what you mean, and it?s a good point. But is it OK for the council to pay more attention to people who can be arsed to make a fuss? Is that democracy in action? (I?m not talking particularly about speed limits here ? I?m making a general point about everything that the council does or doesn?t consult properly on.) Not everybody has the time/resources/confidence to set up or run a special interest group ? especially if you have to set yourself up in opposition to other groups that are already vocal, well-regarded and well-established. Also, does the council check that anyone speaking on behalf of a particular group has the mandate to do so? You could end up with just a few mouthy individuals affecting Southwark policy borough-wide? I feel the council should make much more effort (through local councillors, if that?s the best way) to make sure that individuals know what policies are being discussed, and how to agree or disagree. And yes @first mate, I have no idea what the Gazette is either?

[edhistory]

London Gazette

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/notice?sort-by=latest-date&text=southwark&location-distance-1=1&categorycode-all=all&numberOfLocationSearches=1&results-page-size=10

John K

[Zebedee Tring]

Is "the Gazette" the London Gazette? An official UK journal, in which it is required that certain statutory notices should be published.

[Charles Notice]

Tessmo

Well put and on the money

[panda boy]

Again, well said Temmso.

They, the council could make more effort to inform people about their plans in general. They appear to choose not to. Why is that?

Not very transparent of them, to say the least.

[Jennys]

Why don't Southwark advertise their plans, particularly those that affect everyone, in their full colour magazine Southwark Life. It presumably goes to every home in the Borough.

[rodneybewes]

Tessmo, I think you are right that there is a danger that only the most organised get heard. The Italians have a saying, cheap shoes squeak loudest... However I'm willing to bet that the level of engagement in the majority of local consultations is very low, unless it's an issue of massive concern (the closing of Lewisham hospital a&e being one I can think of). Local residents should be a lot more actively involved in local decision making, it's a crucial part of our democracy. But actually most people don't. I think that's our fault as a nation, we've had democracy longer than most and we tend to take it for granted.

I don't there's a lot that local government can do to be honest. There is a whole section on the Southwark website about consultations and petitions, for example, it's quite easy to get involved. Ask not what your nation can do for you, but what you can do for your nation and all that. If one feels strongly enough about something then one can join an interested group, you don't have to start your own. The reason these groups start in the first place is because enough people care about the issues involved.

What it boils down to is this - if you feel strongly enough do something about it. And if you don't do anything about it you can't really have felt that strongly, can you?

[first mate]

RB, i think you make valid observations but I think the point here is that certain special interest groups were given special notice, their attention was positively sought rather than them having to regularly monitor the Gazette and Council website just in case something relevant came up. I do feel that proposed changes to speed limits could have been given greater profile thereby enabling wider consultation.

[Charles Notice]

Quite true. But I cannot see the vast majority of Southwark residents trolling through Southwarks web site looking at what the Council is proposing to slip through or looking closely at local Council ads in local papers that are more advertisement than news carriers.

They are more concerned with earning a wage to survive. ED is not Southwark who do not have a forum like this.

Loud I am important voices do seem to carry meetings at local government meetings in my experience. Even more if the local Cllr is harassed by a small pressure group.

[first mate]

And I meant to add that one of the special interest groups- Southwark Living streets- is a branch of the national charity Living Streets who have been driving 20mph from the start, and have worked in an advisory and partnership role with the Council to make this initiative happen, so they have had the inside track, as it were. Thus to see them mentioned as consultees in some sort of statutory box ticking exercise seems a little rich.

[first mate]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Is "the Gazette" the London Gazette? An official

> UK journal, in which it is required that certain

> statutory notices should be published.

Yes, ZT it is, though I had not felt it was something I needed to peruse on a very regular basis in order to find out about proposed major changes to my locale. Do others read this often? Perhaps I need to start.

[rodneybewes]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Zebedee Tring Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Is "the Gazette" the London Gazette? An

> official

> > UK journal, in which it is required that

> certain

> > statutory notices should be published.

>

>

> Yes, ZT it is, though I had not felt it was

> something I needed to peruse on a very regular

> basis in order to find out about proposed major

> changes to my locale. Do others read this often?

> Perhaps I need to start.

You can register with the gazette and save your search, even have it as an RSS feed. Select Southwark Council as the local authority etc. It's a pain though. I rely on special interest groups to tell me when my local council is doing something that affects me though, it's a bit more focussed... :D

[hopskip]

First-Mate/Tessmo/RB

You have picked up on an item that concerns me regarding consultation processes. How do Councils make sure that the voices they hear or refer to as the basis for their decisions are representative. I know from another recent consultation that Southwark in fact are focused on a limited and repetitive voice across the Dulwich Society, Living Streets, Southwark Cyclists and Dulwich Safe Routes to School. So not multiple voices, but just one in fact and not that difficult to pinpoint. I have asked Southwark how they attribute credibility and authority to the lobbyist groups (in some cases the same individual) that now seem to be 'official consultees'. No answer so far. I am not surprised - they simply have the time to lobby and Southwark is happy to have a quick fix.

Let common sense have a place however; if you choose to act upon feedback from organisations then you should have a method to confirm them and their remit; who they put forward to speak for them and what consultation has happened beyond the individual voice that Southwark have come to know and rely upon.

All this is no shock - just like the London Gazette that is a vestige of some former methodology and that can be used as a fig leaf.

Why are Living Streets and Southwark Cyclists Statutory consultees for example, when local Resident's Associations are not? Why would a single response from Southwark Cyclists be mentioned in the consultation report on ED Grove 20mph issue when others are not.

In my view, Southwark have lost their way, really lost their way, on open, transparent and balanced input to their plans.

I am happy to be active as I do have a view - but I don't happen to have the leisure of retirement or income to let me spend the time I might like on these issues.

[edhistory]

We have the East Dulwich Society.

[first mate]

Hopskip,

Nicely put. I think we need a consultation on the consultation process and most likely some kind of reform. It is worrying and while I do not have such a major beef about 20 mph (though feel it may prove ineffective until the council shells out huge sums on cameras- also on the cards btw)I do feel strongly about changing unrestricted parking into restricted under the guise of the council's call for "free parking".

I see that Southwark Living Streets are also part if a national drive to challenge free parking and presumably thereby rid the streets of as many cars as possibly. Jeremy Leach was/is Lib Dem councillor for Newington Ward, he is also the main man for Southwark Living Streets and Southwark Cyclists.