@Woodwarde

Green Goose said: >>>Why not submit a FOI request for an answer or even better ask for:- 1.Minutes of all the council meetings on the issue? 2.Email exchanges between Sustrans and the Council 3.Copy docos sent by Southwark Cyclists to Southwark on this issue I put an FOI request in for this internal correspondence in November. My request was refused and the reason given was that the information I had requested was on the Consultation website. I have referred it for internal review (the next stage of escalation challenging why the information has not been supplied). I am interested to know if anyone else has submitted an FOI and the outcome. PM me if you prefer.

Then you will not be the first FOI refused from what I have discovered; what reasons were given and did they conform with Southwark's obligations? I think it is helpful to disclose that here. If not reasonable then you have the choice to refer for an Internal Review - that is a complaint and a request for scrutiny of the reason for refusal. And of course another 20 days delay.... I don't want to be overly negative but it does seem peculiar that the FOIs are not being answered.

I will not be surprised if all the roads that should have been consulted have not been. I think the identification of roads to mail is not always well thought through by the planners. They don't know the area.

Jane Lyons, Village Ward Councillor posted as below. Good to see the addition to the Forum debate and clarification on the approach being taken to support residents' questions. >>>Jane Lyons We are sorry that there is a view expressed on the East Dulwich Forum that Village Ward councillors have not been active on the issue of the proposed no right turn at the Townley Road /East Dulwich Grove junction. This has been the number one issue since the proposals were issued last year. We have been in touch with existing and newly created local residents associations, we have held a meeting and had discussions with various council officers, in addition to responding to as many individual constituents enquiries as possible. At the Dulwich Community Council meeting at the end of last year we were instrumental in ensuring the voices of those present were heard ahead of Councillors, so that the concerns were fully expressed. Jane alone has had a current total of more than 200 emails on the topic in recent months. Because we represent Village Ward we sometimes forget our constituents with SE22 postcodes may turn to the East Dulwich Forum for information. Please be assured we are very much aware of this issue and perhaps just need to get a bit sharper at communicating this more widely. Best wishes Cllr Jane Lyons [email protected] Cllr Michael Mitchell [email protected]

FYI: more new documents just added to the original Southwark Townley EDG Junction Consultation site Edited with link http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4025/townley_road-_previous_junction_safety_reviews_and_background_information Townley Road- Previous junction safety reviews and background information NEW: Cycling to School Partnerships- Southwark Council bid for 2013/14 (43.6 KB PDF) NEW: Dulwich schools map (1.02 MB PDF) NEW: the list of Safety reviews looks considerably longer so there may be new additions?

A few headlines from the Dulwich Society website: East Dulwich Grove / Townley Road / Green Dale junction scheme Published on Friday, 02 January 2015 16:05 Southwark Council has completed its initial consulting on these works which are designed to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety at this major junction. There have been a large number of objections from local residents, many having mixed views on the proposal - particularly the removal of the existing traffic light controlled right turn from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove. It is expected to be discussed further at the next Dulwich Community Council meeting on 28 January (see southwark.gov.uk). Last Updated on Saturday, 10 January 2015 11:37 The ?Southwark Spine? Cycling Strategy Published on Friday, 02 January 2015 16:05 The consultation on this has not been well publicized and local residents are now waking up to the implications for several of the residential roads that are identified as ?quiet ways? and more particularly Dulwich Park - the plan assumes that cyclists will be able to ride through it at speed. The consultation is available on line at the links below - look for the executive summary which is probably the most informative section: (Edited to expand links) http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy/3623/cycling_strategy (Landing page and docs) http://www.sdgdigital.co.uk/sites/southwarkcycling/ (interactive map) https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1163 (Online Questionnaire) Last Updated on Friday, 02 January 2015 16:09 I would add to this last post that the consultation (not the interactive map, but the Online questionnaire itself), finishes on 1st Feb. there are two things that you should keep watching: 1. the first is the statistics and detail on the Interactive map which of course will be populated largely by cyclists due to the limited visibility of the Consultation by Southwark; Stats today, 12th Jan on the Interactive map are as follows: ? 87 people signed up ? 380 map comments ? 714 people agree ? 37 people disagree 2. the second is that you are supposed to fill out the online survey. That is interesting and I attach the full text here so you can read it start to finish, before you complete it. Consultation closes for THIS document on the 1st Feb. It is unclear how this consultation is working. These look like very general information gathering tools and not ones that could be substantiated with any weight as a serious effort to gather views broadly; other than from a cycling community who are in the loop and plugged in to the limited communication channels that exist to date. However, just like Townley, the next thing to expect is a new local Quietway or Superhighway Consultation that will use these stats and recommendations for road changes on the interactive map - and how will that information be positioned? As rigorously gathered and substantiated or the input of limited existing cyclist groups? I wonder.............

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

http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/3261-high-standards-of-behaviour ZT - this link is of possible interest. High standards of behaviour Details Created on 13 November 2013 . Last week's issue of Southwark News carried a piece which was easily the most surreal article to date. The Southwark News reported that, since 2010, there have been 30 complaints against local councillors, adding Southwark got more complaints than any other London borough..............................

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

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

Repost: DulwichSafeRoutes posted: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=781861334889275298&postID=663309712010358483&isPopup=true Anonymous Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School said... Cllr Mark Williams assures us that this consultation really is a consultation! Our approach is to support the principles (and make individual comments) as there are some who are simply against any notion of prioritising peds and cyclists, and there is a danger that Southwark would interpret every 'no' as reflecting that view. Those who were around when improvements for pedestrians were last attempted at this junction are particularly anxious to ensure that some improvements are made, and we don't all rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 6 December 2014 19:57 Anonymous Local pedestrian, non-commute cyclist, public transport user and periodic car driver said... Our Village councillors were unable to confirm at the Dec 3rd meeting how the feedback from the consultation would be managed. Mark Williams has the ability, as Southwark cabinet member and representing transport, to override decisions. So the transparency of the decision making and grounds is very important therefore and not a matter of verbal assurances. We all want safe streets and to ensure that this consultation delivers the right changes to this junction for pedestrians (our children and us), cyclists and public transport improvements yet with an understood impact on where traffic will go and what other junctions it may compromise. The Consultation form is not clear as to the level of consideration it will give to comments once you have marked it as Support. I am forced (unfortunately) to the Object approach in this case,to ensure that comments are taken into consideration in refactoring any plans and to advise that my support will follow once the consultation proves that comments will be addressed. The onus is on the Council to show their willingness to improve that plan based upon the feedback, not the other way around.

James Barber said >> For those that suggest leave the junction alone. Southwark Council I've been assured has had safety audits of it which showed it to be a dangerous junction. I haven't a copy of the audit. Question: This is presumably publicly available. Such statements support our questions around availability of evidence that have been put to our councillors to enable local engagement on this. Assurance is a word but it is not substantiated evidence. Evidence and data is key to building local support/confidence and our ability to support and refine the proposals. >>I cycle both way across the junction and I don't feel very safe. But diverting right turning traffic elsewhere is likely t just shift the problem - much I suspect would use Lordship Lane and then Melbourne Grove. And the Melbourne Grove/East Dulwich Grove junction already has more crashes than this junction. So this aspect to me appears flawed. SO - how do our councillors express the opinion of their Wards - Village, College and East Dulwich, This is the composition across the wards: ie Village 2 Conservative, 1 labour; East Dulwich: 2 Lib Dem, 1 labour; College 3 Labour. Do they put forward the opinions of the local residents who appointed them or do they take the party Whip? We do elect on the basis that our voice is heard... Constitution see: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=WARD&VW=LIST&PIC=0

They are the advocates - see attached.

http://www.jags.org.uk/about/facilities/index.html JAGS are going to build a new music hall which will remove their parking access from East Dulwich Grove. They plan to use the Scout hut area on Green Dale I understand. This is part of the debate I think.

Dulwich Community Council 3rd Dec ? headlines ED Grove/Townley Rd/Greendale agenda topic - approx 10 questions raised from the floor which should be recorded in the meeting minutes. Southwark Council seemed taken aback by the strength of the opposition from local residents who raised a number of queries about what evidence Southwark Council has that its proposed changes to the junction will improve safety, and what work has been done to model the impact of these changes on the local area. -Simon Phillips, acting transport policy manager, said that he thought there probably was some background information to the proposal that could be put online, but that it was very hard to model the predicted consequences of junction changes. He also touched on the Southwark Cycling strategy that should be available for consultation soon ( it seems that it is already being consulted on as you can see from the links at the bottom of this post). -Des Waters, head of public realm at Southwark Council - who was sitting in the main body of the hall - said that he thought extending the consultation period was probably sensible, and would go straight back to his office to check this out. -it is clear that we really do need more information, answers to our questions, and an extension to the consultation period. I think we are all at a loss to understand how the proposal can have got this far without asking for the views of residents - who are cyclists, pedestrians, bus-users and car-drivers, have children at local schools, and know these local roads very well. We all want this junction to be safe. But we don?t want changes that cause traffic problems all over Dulwich and East Dulwich, and make other junctions and residential roads less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Cycling Strategy (Southwark Spine) ? online survey http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy/3623/cycling_strategy Cycling Strategy (Southwark Spine) ? Interactive Map http://www.sdgdigital.co.uk/sites/southwarkcycling/

New traffic Monitoring Cables have appeared at: Dulwich Village lights Gilkes Crescent Top end of Carlton Ave Near Alleyns pedestrian gate on Townley; also at Townely near the Lordship Lane end Top end of Beauval Rd Mid way down Dovercourt (Townley Rd side)/Also on Court Lane side of Dovercourt Druce Desenfans Dekker Bottom end of Court Lane near Dekker Mid way along Woodwarde Unfortunately this has the effect of appearing to post rationalise the proposal. Not checked further up Court Lane or other roads yet. Others of you may have done so.

The comments gathering on the Southwark Spine is visible: http://www.sdgdigital.co.uk/sites/southwarkcycling/ Comments there for: Barry Road Woodwarde and Eyenella Crystal Palace Road

James/All I asked how we would be made aware of other developments that might need to be considered in relation to the ED Grove/Townley Rd development. The response was none known but this seems untrue. The current consultation document on this is misleading. It purports to be focused on safety issues. It is in fact part of a much larger Southwark initiative called the Southwark Spine. I feel that it is misleading that the consultation document does not flag this, as its evidence base should be part of a much larger evidence base, planning analysis and considerations. Google 'Southwark Spine' but particularly look at the following link on the Southwark Cycling to Schools Partnership www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/9752/southwark_ctsp You will see here that the intent is for the cycle route (road development aspects thereof not made clear) from Green Dale to pass down Townley and then it seems down Carlton Road. Is Carlton also to be turned into a one way road and cycle lane I find myself asking. Likewise, a route down Barry Road, crossing Lordship Lane, down Eyenella and into Dulwich Park, seems to suggest that we are about to face a further consultation at a junction very close to EDG/Townley. Is Eyenella to be restreicted in any way too? I find myself asking why this is not being made transparent - makes it easier to railroad through perhaps. However, there are serious planning issues that residents need to be consulted on and that are known already and yet not shared. Please PM me if you are intending to attend the Dulwich Community Meeting on the 3rd Dec or the 28th Jan as I do think we should ask for answers to an increasing array of questions. It would be preferable to start raising these on the 3rd Dec. In any case, I am responding to the current consultation document to express ongoing concern and the insufficient time allocated to it. See announcement 14th Oct 2014 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7895 ANOTHER CONSULTATION NOT TO MISS The plans for a public consultation on the draft cycling strategy will be formally endorsed by the council's cabinet next week. Residents will be invited to comment on the document during November and December.The final strategy document will be adopted by cabinet in March next year. SO ARE WE invited to comment and who will be asked? This looks like the decisions are being made without transparency - ED Grove and Townley seem to be predetermined in this plan which has 'yet' to be consulted. Southwark Council - it's hard to see how we can as engaged residents work constructively with you. Nor indeed trust your methods. I can see that the 3rd Dec Dulwich Community Council meeting has an agenda topic on Cycling Strategy - a rather last minute attempt to portray a meaningful consultation on a very serious set of changes for Dulwich. Any views and again PM me if you are at the 3rd Dec meeting.

Hi James The traffic counts are interesting. On what basis and for what reason do these counts get made for some roads and not others. This is relevant of course to the ED Grove and Townley junction development consultation that is ongoing where the evidence base is not clear. Do TfL produce anything separately? thanks for any insight.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2teor8IgAASmYo.jpg Ian Twinn ?@IanTwinn ? Nov 18 Idea @lb_southwark to close off East Dulwich Grove 4 local residents causing first citizen protest I've seen Dulwich

thanks James If there were more major road developments proposed or being discussed by Southwark or TfL - where would you as a Councillor expect to look or find out about them? Also, where does Southwark provide public details of the process it follows for consultations such as the one we are now looking at?

James thanks for the insight. Are you aware of any broader schemes for Dulwich for further cycling developments we might also need to consider in the round?

I have now been made aware that other local streets have Residents Associations or are forming groups to formulate opinion. Is there such a group on Melbourne Grove? Private Message me if you have a group and want to link up and see if we have a common and constructive message that will help to take this forward. I think the initial message in the short term must include a demand for a clearer and more representative consultation where the facts and assumptions are presented and the information informing the current proposal is made clear and is open for questioning. This means that the 12th December deadline must be extended and I think we should ask for a planned series of meetings where the full facts and supporting information is presented and addressed. Do others agree? We may set up an online petition. It would be easier logistically to draw views together that way. It has been suggested to me that individual replies and a petition in combination will hold more weight. For the individual replies, to ensure that comments are heard and addressed even if we are broadly in support of some of the safety changes, it seems that the options on the form would require you to OPPOSE and then ask for resolution of the issues raised in comments. Is that what others think/ are doing? thanks for all insights.

You need to come along and speak up. Prepare for this consultation by the Dulwich Community Council on Dec 3rd: The Dulwich Community Council meeting is at 7 pm on Wednesday December 3 at Christ Church Barry Road Now is the time to make your voice heard. If you are a Melbourne, Townley Rd, East Dulwich Grove, Beauval Rd, Village, Dovercourt Rd, Woodwarde Rd, Gilkes Crescent, Carton Rd, Melbourne Grove resident or business - petition your view to all councillors in Dulwich Ward and East Dulwich ward and to the Southwark consultation itself or this will be rail-roaded through. This needs an all party view and some common sense options to ensure safety for children, cyclists and pedestrians but not with an unnecessary and major traffic restriction. Our voice is one of pedestrians, cyclists, road users and schools - all valid perspectives that need to be accommodated. Where is the evidence base for the changes proposed and the options considered. We can be constructive in this resolution as long as the evaluation is thorough. Transparency on the evidence base and consultation process is in serious question.

See minutes which explain a personal motivation: http://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/draft-mins-of-mtg-SC-September-10th-2014.pdf 3) Guest: Councillor Mark Williams, cabinet member for Transport, Regeneration and Planning, said that Southwark Labour had been elected on a manifesto to support cycling and it was his job to deliver that. The Kickstarter project had brought cycling experts from Denmark and Holland to inspire and open eyes of officers from every department to the value of cycling for public health, improved air quality and personal well-being.