Lebanums

Residents of Cornflower or Balchier will not be able to use Ryedale to exit onto FHR, as they are both one-way with a right turn only on to Dunstans. To reach the A205, residents from both streets would instead have to turn right onto Dunstans, carry out a three-point turn at Dunstans Grove, then drive back along Dunstans in order to exit left onto Underhill, and so on. Alternatively, they could turn right onto Dunstans and use St Aidens (which faces the same issue as Ryedale and was previously rejected under the same scheme due to its impact on Ryedale), before continuing onto Underhill. Another option would be to turn right onto Dunstans, travel up FHR, then via Wood Vale, before coming back down to Underhill, and so on. We did not request an LTN. Our concerns were limited to traffic speed and the persistent congestion at the bend near FHR. There were a number of Ryedale residents who signed the petition were not in favour of this measure. The data table you provided also fails to note that both Ryedale and Wood Vale—where traffic volumes and the percentage of speeding vehicles are higher—are fitted only with ineffective speed cushions, whereas the other locations have full-width, carriageway-wide speed humps. Data is only meaningful when considered in its full context. Note that the data collected was during the school easter holidays last year and not reflective of a normal day. Why wouldn't you be supportive of a measure that creates a solution with minimal impact as opposed to a measure that creates problems for others?

It would also be easier for those of us who live on Ryedale to three-point turn and use Dunstans to reach the A205. There’s also a real risk that school traffic will start using Ryedale and Cornflower/Balchier for drop-offs, especially with the new school streets measures in place. I'm not disagreeing with you that something needs done, just not this.

Sorry to hear about the road rage issues — that’s clearly frustrating. But closing one end of the road doesn’t really solve it, as cars can still pass from both directions at the FHR end with the proposed measures. With more people driving larger cars that our Victorian streets weren’t designed for, this just shifts the problem onto other streets. Double yellow lines on the bend would allow cars to pass safely and have the least impact on surrounding roads.

There are many in Ryedale who are not happy with the proposed ETO measures. We agree that the speed at which these cars are travelling is unacceptable. However, there is currently an incentive to use Ryedale, as the existing speed cushions are ineffective. If appropriate traffic-calming measures were put in place, vehicles would travel more slowly and would be less likely to choose Ryedale over Dunstans. Engaging with democracy is essential, and that councillors should be accountable to the electorate. However, that accountability also depends on elected representatives following due process and acting with integrity while in office. If councillors are unwilling to do so, then they should seriously consider whether they are fit to continue in that role. Decisions of this nature should be made transparently and in the interests of the whole community, not perceived as a favour to a friend or a response to a narrow set of interests. Community trust relies on the assurance that policies are evidence-based, fairly considered, and applied consistently. Public debate is healthy, but so is the expectation that those elected to serve do so impartially and with the wider good in mind.

It's the same person that was quoted in the unofficial questionnaire giving leading statements, join the dots.

Indeed, the content speaks for itself. The initial complaint was speeding and the majority came to the conclusion (in the unofficial questionnaire) that full carriage length speed bumps would be sufficient.

It beats me that you are more concerned about a command than the content of the FOI and lack of Council ethics. If you are not prepared to read through it & make your own opinion as I have done then it says more about you than me.

The relevance of the comment is to understanding the context and tone at the start of the ETO. Whether or not individuals recognise who originally posted it is not material, as no identifying details were shared. There is nothing private about whatsapp that prevents the messages being forwarded, and the comment was included for context rather than attribution.

The comment was anonymised and not attributed to any individual. I haven’t contacted the neighbour directly. Thank you for raising the point.

I have my suspicions on who it was from various WhatsApp chats in our street group before this was even raised with the council, a neighbour wrote " How do people feel about the traffic on Ryedale these days? (I remember when it felt like a quiet backwater!). I was chatting to one of our councillors about it last night. He said if it was up to him, he would close off one end. But it's not likely unless it's clear there is a majority asking for it. I wonder if there would be a majority though 🤔" From herein I will refer to them as dirty ___ the undue influencer A synopsis doesn’t mean stripping material of its implications. It means accurately reflecting the substance and themes of the documents. The FOI correspondence is overwhelmingly concerned with accelerating delivery, bypassing governance, accepting known legal and reputational risks, and managing consultation tactically. A neutral summary of that material will necessarily reflect those features, even if they are uncomfortable. I did not ask for “AI to identify misconduct”. I asked for a synopsis of the FOI material. The wording you quote (“does not prove misconduct, but does show…”) is explicitly cautious and reflects standard analytical language, not a conclusion. If you believe the synopsis is inaccurate, the productive approach would be to point to specific parts of the FOI that contradict it. Focusing on the tool or the prompt doesn’t change what the documents themselves say.

I used a general-purpose large language model as an aid to summarising and structuring the material. The summary is derived directly from the FOI disclosures, which remain the primary source. If you disagree with the synopsis, I’d welcome comments on any specific point that you believe is inaccurate when compared to the FOI material. I’m happy to discuss the substance of the FOI material, but I don’t think debating tools is helpful. Anyone is free to read the documents and draw their own conclusions.

What I find particularly difficult to reconcile is the apparent normalisation, within the disclosed correspondence, of behaviour that would be considered unacceptable in most professional environments. The casual discussion of bypassing governance, accepting known risks, and proceeding regardless of legal or reputational concern sits uneasily with the standards of accountability that residents are entitled to expect. In any other workplace, such conduct would be challenged immediately rather than treated as routine.

Here's what I asked "attached is an ETO FOI excluding data traffic counts. Scan it and give me a synopsis?"

I used our internal business application to give me a synopsis of the file. Compliance is also part of my role so I understand the necessity on non bias but also the importance of process. Please have a full read through and I'm sure you will have a different opinion.

Here's what co-pilot omitted 1. Pre-determination and outcome-driven approach The emails show that the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) was treated internally as a priority scheme with a predetermined outcome, rather than an open options-based process. Officers and senior figures discussed how to achieve implementation quickly, rather than whether the scheme should proceed. There is repeated emphasis on: Speed of delivery Avoiding delay until after elections Managing reputational risk rather than addressing substantive objections This gives the appearance that process was shaped around a desired result, not the other way around. 2. Explicit discussion of bypassing governance Several emails explicitly reference: Bypassing or streamlining normal governance Avoiding informal consultation and governance boards Fast-tracking through IDM/LMB with concurrent sign-offs Drafting and mobilising the ETO during the call-in period This is important: it shows awareness that normal safeguards existed, and a conscious decision to circumvent them to meet a January implementation date. 3. Known risks acknowledged internally The FOI clearly shows that officers and councillors: Anticipated resident backlash and bad press Recognised a risk that legal justification might not be sufficient Acknowledged traffic displacement and volume concerns Understood the reputational parallels with unpopular 2020 ETMOs Despite this, the scheme was progressed on the basis that senior figures were: “willing to accept and own backlash and bad press” This is significant because it demonstrates that risks were known, documented, and accepted, not unforeseen. 4. Internal disagreement and warnings ignored At least one council officer: Withdrew from the process entirely Explicitly cited issues they had raised with the scheme Warned of reputational risk and governance concerns Others recommended informal consultation specifically to mitigate those risks — advice that appears to have been overridden or side-lined. This supports an argument that professional concerns were raised but not acted upon. 5. Consultation treated as tactical, not substantive Where consultation is mentioned, it is framed as: A reputational safeguard A way to potentially slow or derail the scheme politically Something to give councillors “cold feet” rather than to shape policy This undermines the credibility of any claim that consultation was intended to be meaningful or influential. 6. Weak evidential basis The documentation: Acknowledges risk that legal justification may not be met Does not demonstrate a clear causal link between the measures proposed and the outcomes claimed This matters for public law fairness, proportionality, and rationality. 7. Concentration of influence While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show: A small number of elected members driving urgency and direction Officers framing decisions around political priority Escalation being discouraged once senior backing was confirmed This creates a reasonable perception of undue influence, particularly when combined with: Lack of consultation Accelerated governance Acceptance of known risks