@Woodwarde

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50004906&Opt=0 See above link. I see that Tim Walker seems to be the person responsible for managing the consultation at Southwark and here is the format for an IDM for one that finished on the 3rd Feb and that could have been 'called in'. I will enquire about dates for the current consultation and its timeframe for call in.

I contacted one of the Southwark planners and have just been told: ------------------- Consultation documents on a revised Townley proposal are due to be issued tomorrow. The consultation will run until Fri 13 March. The shovel ready scheme that was proposed and secured the original funding from TfL, for the Southwark and Safe Routes to School bid, was the recommended JMP option at that time (Option 4).

From the Southwark Website. If I am reading below correctly, then the Cabinet Member has to announce 5 days before a decision that one is about to be made. Again, if I am reading this correctly, once the decision is made, there are 5 days to refer it to the Scrutiny committee. I am sure one of the Councillors can confirm this! A bit on the Scrutiny committee here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/3161/scrutiny_committees NOTE they do not consider individual complaints And then also from the website a bit more detail (not so easy to find): How individual decision making works (IDM) What is individual decision making? Individual cabinet members are able to take decisions on areas that fall within their responsibility in much the same way that decisions are taken by the cabinet as a whole. How are decisions published? Under council's constitution, all key decisions taken by individual cabinet members are listed on the forward plan. Council publishes key decisions on the website five working days before the individual cabinet member can consider the decision (publishing period). You can view individual cabinet member decisions online, including details of the decisions, their status and copies of any relevant reports. Most of the decisions taken by individual cabinet members are subject to a five working day call-in period. During this time the overview and scrutiny committee reviews decisions. Expressing your views about a decision Members of the public may make representations during the publishing period either directly to the individual cabinet member or by contacting the responsible officer. You can do this by clicking on the link that can be found on the individual cabinet member's web page.

One of our ward councillors commented on email In response to the views of residents I have pressed for a Saturday session and it looks likely that this will now be held on Saturday 28th February, 11-2, venue to be confirmed.

I have spoken to Southwark parking this morning on 02075252021 number. The consultation is progressing and the view expressed is that the form is the best that can be achieved given the limitations of technology. The changes are believed to be clearly indicated. The one hour proposal (one size fits all) is a manifesto item and also therefore a Strategic project. It goes therefore as an IDM to the Cabinet Member (presumably Mark Williams) for decision and that decision would be subject to call in (ie it could be referred for scrutiny if so requested within 5 days of the decision. I was advised that local businesses and residences within 50m radius of each parking area would have received a letter to their postal address with the consultation document. That is worth pursuing if you were not notified.

I have spoken to Southwark parking this morning on 02075252021 number. The consultation is progressing and the view expressed is that the form is the best that can be achieved given the limitations of technology. The changes are believed to be clearly indicated. The one hour proposal (one size fits all) is a manifesto item and also therefore a Strategic project. It goes therefore as an IDM to the Cabinet Member (presumably Mark Williams) for decision and that decision would be subject to call in (ie it could be referred for scrutiny if so requested within 5 days of the decision. I was advised that local businesses and residences within 50m radius of each parking area would have received a letter to their postal address with the consultation document. That is worth pursuing if you were not notified.

first mate the parking projects (statutory and non-statutory) are on this link: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects You will note that contact details are given on this page - and they should have appeared on the underlying consultation pages - but certainly did not for the one-hour shopping area parking changes that finished on the 9th. Parking review Tel: 020 7525 2021 Email: [email protected] I have phoned that number and got through to voicemail and left a message to call me as my two earlier email submissions have not been acknowledged.

I used this address ([email protected]) and did not get a bounce back. As you know, this alternative address was not provided on or alongside the consultation form. I have also just rung Southwark and been told this is correct. In addition I was given the name of the head of department: [email protected] I have resent my earlier email also cc'ing him and asking for acknowledgment of receipt and confirmation that my input counts as part of the formal response. I'll PM you if I get a reply.

Hi edhistory you mentioned East Dulwich Society. What is it? In any case, it seems to be defunct and its accounts not paid up for 2 years? http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=269292&SubsidiaryNumber=0

first mate which link are you referring to?

Southwark parking review - some feedback made directly to Southwark and copied to Councillors. I would like to complain about the current consultation on the Southwark website which is not clear and therefore not fit for purpose as a Consultation. I would like this consultation to be reissued with the different scenarios separated out and so made clearer, alongside the supporting evidence for the individual changes at the various (45) locations. Some of my reasons are listed below: [www.southwark.gov.uk] The map and consultation summary provided is misleading and so cannot be used as the basis for consultation. 1. In many cases, the suggestion on the surface, purports to change 1/2 hour free parking to 1 hour free parking. No mention is made of the Mon-Fri change - to Monday-Sat. In those cases, the introduction of restrictions on Saturday is a much more significant change that has not been properly advised nor made clear on the consultation documents. 2. It is confusing and not transparent to include within this consultation both changes to timings for existing restricted bays with unrestricted bays becoming restricted. These could be made far clearer and would allow for objective input if separated out. No detail is provided on the assumed impact of these changes. 3. There is no evidence provided for the individual areas and why this change may be necessary in all 45 cases. 4. In some areas such as Dulwich Village, this may push commuter parking, possibly teachers, onto surrounding roads and no modelling of this is given or assumptions made in terms of displacement. It is also unclear on p56 for Dulwich Village, if this becomes parallel parking. If so, what is the assumed loss of spaces and the impact of parallel parking on that stretch of the road. 5. For Lordship Lane, the mix of timings is not consistent, some ending at 7pm, some at 6.30pm and some at 4pm and these differences are not explained nor the displacement effect quantified. 6. The input form drop down selection and associated comment box will not allow adequate input. For example people will park at any of the bays on Lordship Lane as might be available at the time of parking and the form allows input only for the individual bays, which is unrepresentative of normal parking patterns and prevents objection to the whole. 7. The consultation form does not provide details for an alternative mechanism of response to Southwark (for example, an email address) to permit more comprehensive responses. 8. There is no explanation of the selection of one hour free parking periods over for example limited parking over the lunchtime period as works for Herne Hill at present and which may not need or benefit from the change. These are a number of observations but more than sufficient to indicate that the consultation as issued is flawed and unfit for purpose. I would appreciate the support of Councillors copied here and a reply from Southwark parking.

Southwark parking review - some feedback made directly to Southwark and copied to Councillors. I would like to complain about the current consultation on the Southwark website which is not clear and therefore not fit for purpose as a Consultation. I would like this consultation to be reissued with the different scenarios separated out and so made clearer, alongside the supporting evidence for the individual changes at the various (45) locations. Some of my reasons are listed below: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shopping_parades The map and consultation summary provided is misleading and so cannot be used as the basis for consultation. 1. In many cases, the suggestion on the surface, purports to change 1/2 hour free parking to 1 hour free parking. No mention is made of the Mon-Fri change - to Monday-Sat. In those cases, the introduction of restrictions on Saturday is a much more significant change that has not been properly advised nor made clear on the consultation documents. 2. It is confusing and not transparent to include within this consultation both changes to timings for existing restricted bays with unrestricted bays becoming restricted. These could be made far clearer and would allow for objective input if separated out. No detail is provided on the assumed impact of these changes. 3. There is no evidence provided for the individual areas and why this change may be necessary in all 45 cases. 4. In some areas such as Dulwich Village, this may push commuter parking, possibly teachers, onto surrounding roads and no modelling of this is given or assumptions made in terms of displacement. It is also unclear on p56 for Dulwich Village, if this becomes parallel parking. If so, what is the assumed loss of spaces and the impact of parallel parking on that stretch of the road. 5. For Lordship Lane, the mix of timings is not consistent, some ending at 7pm, some at 6.30pm and some at 4pm and these differences are not explained nor the displacement effect quantified. 6. The input form drop down selection and associated comment box will not allow adequate input. For example people will park at any of the bays on Lordship Lane as might be available at the time of parking and the form allows input only for the individual bays, which is unrepresentative of normal parking patterns and prevents objection to the whole. 7. The consultation form does not provide details for an alternative mechanism of response to Southwark (for example, an email address) to permit more comprehensive responses. 8. There is no explanation of the selection of one hour free parking periods over for example limited parking over the lunchtime period as works for Herne Hill at present and which may not need or benefit from the change. These are a number of observations but more than sufficient to indicate that the consultation as issued is flawed and unfit for purpose. I would appreciate the support of Councillors copied here and a reply from Southwark parking.

And another :: NEW SOUTHWARK PLAN From the DULWICH SOCIETY website: http://dulwichsociety.com/ Published on Sunday, 25 January 2015 16:45 A poorly attended initial consultation meeting took place at the Dulwich Picture Gallery on Monday night to discuss the new draft Southwark Plan. This reflected the total lack of promotion by the council, even local councillor were unaware of it! A further more detailed draft plan will be consulted on in September and the aim is for the new development plan to come into effect in 2017. The initial consultation period runs to the 6 March and an interactive consultation map will be launched in February with the aim of providing opportunities for stakeholders to comment on proposed site allocations and even suggest any new sites ? this will be operational till the early summer. A list of forthcoming scheduled consultation workshops elsewhere in the borough are detailed on the council?s New Southwark Plan webpage: www.southwark.gov.uk/newsouthwarkplan Last Updated on Sunday, 25 January 2015

I scanned the questionnaire first to see the full range of questions. It does indeed take 1 minute - no chance to say very much. - Another poorly designed form that lets you input without any identification of yourself. - No clarity on how local vs other views may be taken into account (and in ref to above point, no way to tell) - It is not clear how you enter for multiple places - eg Dulwich Village, Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Half Moon Lane and Herne Hill Seems again that due to the construct of this questionnaire - that you have to reply you are AGAINST in the very first question, or stand the chance that your subsequent comments are not given due and proper assessment It is not appropriate to be so unclear about the additional restrictions to unrestricted places to I suggest that you may also want to COMPLAIN to all Ward/local Councillors? Councillors' emails if you want them to hear and register your comments are: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's a link to proposals on free parking...again > has consultation passed us all by > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_pr > ojects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shoppin > g_parades The closing date is today FEB 9th - so take a look and respond. Is it worth a separate thread on EDF to flag this up right now and if so, can someone do that?

James advice from various Councillors has been that individual letters/emails are more relevant that petitions. What is the situation with the Southwark petition site on its Consultation page. Would it be useful to raise a petition there.

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

That is why I think a good place to start to see just how poor this is, is the Southwark website itself. I described in my first post what I can find and the 'list' of Open/Closed/Petitions. There's no information provided about Southwark policies & guidelines for conducting consultations - or at least anything that I have found in the public domain. I do have something in email form from a southwark planner, that I will try to dig out later. Take a look at the Southwark website and see what you make of the background provided on these Consultations and then try to trace how they explained the context; advised what methods could be used to reply; advised whether there would be multiple stages to the consultation or not; or whether there are any priorities given to any particular groups and if so why; how will the responses be assessed and communicated? For those closed consultations - what happens to the results and visibility of the responses to issues raised? And given that Southwark point to their website as their stock reply to concerns raised about how they communicated broadly on proposals - is it any wonder that we are experiencing such problems? How can 9 responses be the basis upon which Southwark consider that they have raised awareness of an issue? It will be interesting to hear more of our experiences on this thread and to see what pattern is emerging. So many questions......

Let?s start at the very beginning.. Southwark list their consultations here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200024/consultations "You can help influence decisions the council makes. Submit your comments on consultations and can get involved with the developments happening in Southwark. Various consultations, petitions and surveys are carried out throughout the year by Southwark Council. This is your borough so have your say on the issues that matter most to you by going to Petitions or Current". On the link, the selection list includes 3 groups: 1. Closed This lists consultations that have ended but there is quite varied content and it does not include the original consultation document(s) and associated responses. There does seem to be a record of final policies/outcomes. It is not obvious how to trace back to the timing of the original consultations. 2. Current You would expect this to be the list of ?current? consultations. A quick look at them shows that most are in fact closed. However, the closed ones do still seem to be the original consultation documents but no longer say when the consultation started or finished. There are also a few that seem to be 'open' but give no indication of their start and end dates for input. 3. Petitions Surprisingly, there is a spot for epetitions but it has only 2 or 3 petitions over a 2-3 year period and does not explain how the input from such petitions (or any other petition site) may work. As a starting place on the Southwark website, should you manage to find it at all, it is extremely basic and does not describe how Consultations at Southwark work.

South London Press have generously placed an article on their front page. The RIGHT DECISION. A big thank you SLP (JG) for covering the debate and helping the local community to - get visibility and transparency on this proposal - secure a commitment from Southwark to consult widely and fully on future planned changes. The DCC meeting to discuss how to develop an alternative proposal which will NOT include a Right Hand Turn ban is this Wednesday: Dulwich Community Council meeting on Wednesday 28 January 2015,7pm. The venue for the meeting is Herne Hill Baptist Church, Half Moon Lane, London SE24 9HU

Labour leaflet through the door today. Attached. "We have been in touch with hundreds of residents about this proposal in person, by email and via our survey... We took this feedback to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Transport and the Leader of the Council and we are pleased to be able to let you know that they have agreed to completely drop the ban on right hand turns from the proposal. A report to be presented at the Dulwich Community Council meeting 28th January."

James I would like to 'know' where the RHT ban came from, believe me! However, the consultation was for a single scheme and so I do not understand how it can revert to anything else as it has not been consulted. Or modelled.

James Barber wrote >>I will be asking any revised scheme includes red light camera for thE Townley Road branch as I think this is crucial for the diagonal crossing proposed under the new scheme to ensure it is safe to children to cross unaided. This is strange James - I presume that there will need to be further consultation on any amended scheme? Do you know different?

Pro bike sounds great. Pro-bike bias is what we are witnessing; flawed plans and unacceptable lack of transparency as a consequence.

James Barber wrote.. ___________ >>"How very bizarre. Cllr Andy Simmons and Cllr Helen Hayes are Labour councillors for College ward. If the meeting was meant to be an offshoot of the Dulwich Community Council then as a local councillor I would be surprised to not be invited. So it appears this meeting was a Southwark Council meeting where Helen and Andy were representing the Labour led council who are proposing this scheme. Not exactly impartial then. it sounds like they hoped to lance this boil. Helen and Andy are always saying officers could have done this or that or terrible officers for whatever road scheme is proposed. This whole scheme has gone through many council officers and Labour politicians hands before it was made public or consulted on." ___________ It is now quite clear, and unacceptable to the Dulwich community, that the RHT ban has been introduced unilaterally by Southwark without modelling and based upon an undeclared agenda. We will ask that Helen Hayes comes to the 28th Jan DCC meeting able to state publically that the RHT ban is finally off the table. We can then work together as a community to support safety at the junction with one of the many other viable options.