hopskip

The overview and scrutiny committee can review decisions made by or on behalf of the cabinet. This is known as 'calling in' the decision. The key rules around calling-in decisions are ? Decisions may only be called-in in certain instances, for instance where it is believed that there was inadequate consultation or that the decision breaches human rights ? The chair or vice chair and 3 other members of overview and scrutiny committee must all agree that the decision should be called-in ? The call-in must be requested within five working days of the decision being published. The decision will then be reviewed by overview and scrutiny committee, normally within two weeks from the date of the call-in request. The overview and scrutiny committee can recommend that the decision is reconsidered by the original decision-taker. So, it seems that the core members of the OSC are responsible for any decisions. OSC Reserve members (includes Barber and Hartley) don't have call-in rights as such. If a core member is not able to attend a meeting the reserve member would be asked to attend in their place. Details of the OSC are here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=308 ? Councillor Gavin Edwards (Chair) ? Councillor Rosie Shimell (Vice-Chair) Note: sits on Dulwich CC ? Councillor Anood Al-Samerai ? Councillor Jasmine Ali ? Councillor Catherine Dale ? Councillor Karl Eastham ? Councillor Tom Flynn ? Councillor Rebecca Lury ? Councillor Adele Morris ? Councillor Johnson Situ ? Councillor Evelyn Akoto (Reserve) ? Councillor Maisie Anderson (Reserve) ? Councillor James Barber (Reserve) Note: sits on Dulwich CC ? Councillor Dan Garfield (Reserve) ? Councillor Jon Hartley (Reserve) Note: sits on Dulwich CC ? Councillor Hamish McCallum (Reserve) ? Councillor David Noakes (Reserve) ? Councillor Martin Seaton (Reserve) ? Councillor Bill Williams (Reserve) ? Councillor Kieron Williams (Reserve) Support officer: Shelley Burke. Phone: 020 7525 7344 E mail: [email protected]

I have caught sight of this email sent today from Mark Williams to local residents stating that the development has been approved by him and is open for 5 days for 'call-in'. The link gives some details but no idea when the 5 days ends, given there are now 2 bank holidays ahead of us. Clever bit of timing - or just the cynic in me? Dear Thank you for your representations on the Townley Rd/East Dulwich Grove junction scheme. In answer to the questions that have been asked about the decision making process, I can confirm that all representations made, either directly to me or to officers, have been seen and considered by me. I understand that some people still have some concerns with the proposals as set out in the report which I considered. After reviewing the report again, in conjunction with the representations received, I have decided to proceed with the recommendations set out in the report with two further recommendations. The first is that there will be pre and post implementation monitoring of air quality/pollution on Townley Road, this is so that we can assess whether there has been any impact on air quality as a result of the scheme being delivered. If the post implementation monitoring does show an increase in air pollution then we will of course identify funding and take mitigating measures accordingly. Secondly, as the detailed design work is being undertaken I have instructed officers to consider further minor amendments to the scheme to alleviate queuing on Townley Road. Concerns were also raised about waiting 18 months before a report was brought back to Dulwich Community Council (DCC) with a review of the scheme?s impact. DCC requested this be done after 6 months, after discussing this with officers they confirmed that 12 months of data is required to make an accurate assessment of the impact of the scheme, this will then have to be analysed and reported back to the next scheduled DCC. However, I would like to assure you that the impacts of the scheme will be monitored as soon as it is implemented, and should there be any problems caused by the scheme we will review them before the full 12 months of data has been collected. With the two additional recommendations set out above, this decision now proceeds to the five day Overview and Scrutiny Committee call-in period. The decision has now been published online, see : http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDecisionDetails.aspx?IId=50006298&Opt=1 this includes an appendix that summarises all of the representations received along with a response. As we discussed at cabinet there will be a Dulwich-wide consultation on the future of transport in the area, with a focus on how we can increase walking and cycling, where these routes can go and how they fit in with existing demands on the road network. There are a number of schemes coming forward, including the Southwark Spine and the Mayor?s Quietway. This wider consultation will allow us to hear the views of residents and businesses and to consider all of the schemes together. Details of this wider engagement will be published alongside the council?s cycling strategy in June. If you have any suggestions for how we can reach as many people as possible please send these on. If you have any further questions on the Townley Rd decision or process do let me know. Best wishes, Mark

I have responded to Mark Williams as advised in the email that he sent out and that was flagged up more widely on this forum. I now understand that there may be some debate about the process for responding as outlined in his email. And so it is worth anyone who did respond, to ask for confirmation that your input has been received and will be considered as part of this 5 day consultation phase. @Woodwarde Wrote: > From Mark Williams: > Dear ........, > Thank you for your email, and for the deputation to council cabinet last week. Following a report > from officers which takes into account all consultation to date on the Townley Road junction scheme, and the views of Dulwich Community Council. I have now approved the report recommendations for this scheme. This is the first step in the decision being formally taken, further details and the supporting papers can be found here: > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50006298&Opt=0 > This decision is now open to public consultation for five days, after which I will consider any representations received. Once I have considered these I will review the report again, if I decide to proceed as set out in the report, there is then a further period of five days for the council?s Overview and Scrutiny Committee to call the decision in for them to consider and make any recommendations to me as the decision maker. Following this the decision is then implementable. I note the points raised below and these will be considered as a formal representation. If there are any further points you wish to raise please let me know by midnight on 30th March. > Best wishes,

Worth looking at the papers on the link highlighted in the email from Mark Williams: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50006298&Opt=0 There is time to to submit your points directly to Mark Williams before 30th March if they have not been addressed and do copy your local councillors who will then formally track. ([email protected]; [email protected]) Note the final report: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53066/Report.pdf now OMITS the reference to the support by the [3000] Dulwich Society members.... See also the General Exception Notice: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53055/General%20Exception%20Notice.pdf Extract: Title of Report Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove / Green Dale Junction Improvement Scheme Description/Nature of matter requiring Key Decision Implementation of proposed strategic highway improvement scheme, subject to statutory procedures Decision taker Cabinet Member for Regeneration Planning and Transport Date by which Key Decision must be taken March 2015 Reason why it was impracticable for decision to be on the Forward Plan Scheme was originally considered non-key. However due to strength of local feeling and high level of community interest, now considered key. Being non-key it was not on the Forward Plan. Regardless of this, the scheme required a re-consultation and this consultation was reported to Dulwich Community Council on 17 March 2015, preventing an earlier IDM decision Reason why the decision cannot wait for inclusion in the next Forward Plan The next forward plan relates to decisions to be taken in May 2015.This decision cannot wait for the following reasons: 1. Funding: The external funding from TfL for the scheme (?200,000) is restricted to 2015/16. It has already been held over one year already so would not be held over again by TfL. Given the sensitive location of the scheme, it is only practical to implement the works in the school summer holidays. Private schools break up in early July so officers are planning to be on-site in first week of July. If this date can?t be met, the funding will in effect be lost as there is no other window in 2015/16. 2. Streetworks permits: To be on site in first week of July, we have to get the necessary streetworks permits which have a 3 month lead in. Therefore, without a prompt decision we would have to seek permits ?speculatively? without the scheme being approved which goes against best practice. 3. Traffic Management Orders: We would also need to advertise Traffic Management Orders without having the final go-ahead on the scheme which goes against best practice. 4. Programme: Perhaps most importantly, we need to programme the signals works with TfL signals team, and pay for these in advance. They will not place orders for equipment without advanced payment. Therefore to give them sufficient time to programme their aspects of the work, we need to place orders and commit funds in April. If we do this without a firm decision on whether to proceed, we would be paying them at risk. If the scheme did not then proceed, we would most likely be unable to recover this money from TfL and this would cost the authority upwards of ?50,000 for which there is no budget.

I recommend asking a local school if you have children there. They seem to have supported the request from Dulwich Safe Routes to School. You would HOPE they had asked this question. http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/ Safe routes to shcool advocating the option 8a in the reconsultation http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s52880/Appendix%20B_Option%208a_Consultation%20Report.pdf the final Consultaiton report which includes Dulwich Safe Routes and the local schools comments as follow: g) Dulwich and Herne Hill Safer Routes to School replied stating strong support the proposed scheme for Townley Road junction. The Council has evidence that the junction is dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and this evidence has been available to the Council and community for years. It takes two lollipops to mitigate the dangers. The Council's data shows that there are 1,450 child pedestrian movements at this junction between 8:00 and 9:00 am every school day. During each movement, a child's safety is potentially at risk. This statistic demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of vulnerable users of this junction are children. It is the duty of responsible adults to keep children safe. Inconvenience to vehicles should never outweigh the safety of vulnerable road users, particularly pedestrians and child cyclists. The junction currently is designed solely for the convenience of vehicles, at the expense of the safety of other road users. This point is epitomised by the green man showing on the west arm of East Dulwich Grove at the same time that traffic is turning right from Greendale across that arm. It is both sensible and fair to redress this imbalance and so to ensure the safety of all road users. We particularly support the scheme's provisions for direct, shorter crossings for pedestrians; the all green phase for pedestrians which protects them from turning vehicles; protection for cyclists on entering the junction; protection for cyclists from turning vehicles. If the junction is made safe, more children may be encouraged to walk and cycle to school. This will benefit the entire community, particularly through a reduction of traffic congestion and noise and air pollution. We note the Council has consulted widely and at length and has listened carefully to local objections. This is demonstrated by the retention of the right turn from Townley Road. h) The Dulwich Society replied confirming full support for the revised scheme. (THIS IS NOT TRUE. THE DULWICH SOCIETY CHAIRMAN ASKED FOR THIS TO BE CHANGED AT THE DCC 17TH MARCH MEETING AND SOUTHWARK APOLOGISED for MISREPRESENTING) i) Dulwich Young Cyclists replied stating that Dulwich is hopelessly congested and cycling for many - particularly the young is not an option as it is currently too dangerous. Our mission is to improve safely for cycling through infrastructure improvements and get more children cycling. We therefore support the new Townley Road Junction Scheme as this is in line with our mission. We hope the changes to this junction may be the start of future improvements in Dulwich to support children, teenagers and young people to get on their bikes and be able to cycle safely in the area. a) JAGS (including the Preparatory School and Pre-Pre School) on East Dulwich Grove replied in full support stating that the proposals are excellent and will enhance the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. The simplification and shortening of the pedestrian crossings and diagonal pedestrian crossing will be of great benefit and the school very much appreciates the safety improvements made for cyclists, as JAGS are trying to encourage more staff and pupils to cycle to school. b) Alleyn?s School (and Junior School) in Townley Road replied indicating support for the scheme but questioned the need for the two stage right turn for cyclists and upgrading sections of single yellow lines in Townley Road to double. c) Dulwich Village C of E Infants School replied in strong support of the scheme stating that the proposals allow for easier and safer crossing and use by pedestrians and cyclists alike. School children will be better catered for on their walk to school each day. d) The Charter School located on Red Post Hill replied stating full support for the scheme and noted that the right hand turn had been reinstated and that the scheme still included considerable improvements for pupils walking and cycling to school and trust the Southwark will be able to carry out those changes raised in the re-consultation swiftly. e) Bessemer Grange Primary School replied in full support of the changes to the Townley Road/ Greendale junction.

Zebedee, you've cast the dice.. Lot's of egg on face to come. Southwark will loose face at massive cost to the tax payer; our 9 Councillors have their credibility in question anyway so time will tell who wants their representation. DSRS - get real and get someone in touch with the community - and who is not in the pocket of JAGS.

i am for one of the Options 10. And Dulwich Safe Routes, Southwark Cyclists, Southwark Living Streets and the Transport Committee of the Dulwich Society (yes conflicted) - who were all advocates of 7 and now 8A, can step up to the plate. Let's see them demand that the schools have a transport plan to deliver the massive expected increase in cycling. That's what they have been forecasting.... Let's see them advocate less pollution and sufficient junction capacity to keep the residential streets safe. And don't forget - we have funded the bike-it officer to the tune of ?65k even if nothing else happens.

Robin - sensible words. Good post. Can TfL and Soutwark be persuaded NOT to spend money recklessly and refocus on making the necessary changes to make this junction safe. I hope so, that's what we need. I am also going to Object to the latest consultation.

James the times of day for measurements were queried by someone on Saturday. Unlike the original JMP report, the Aecom modelling uses 12-13.00 as the between peaks and the high evening peak between 5-6pm. JMP recognised and modelled the afternoon school run between 3-4 when the coaches are busy at that junction. Aecom don't seem to have modelled that. But an independent report would need to be 'independent', as Southwark will not be trusted James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Tessmo, > I would support a fresh pairs of eye reviewing 8A > option. > > Looking at the percentage above capacity each > option presents - and I would suggest that at the > very peak hours the current junction is over > capacity - 8A throughout the day has the lowest > over capacity. But that may be the wrong way to > assess these things. > >

Duvaller I spoke with the Southwark Planner - Christopher Mascourt - at the meeting in the Village yesterday. I am confused by the modelling as it seems to be based upon the volume of traffic able to turn under the current junction configuration. If I heard him correctly, then no account has been made for the longer time it will take for cars or especially coaches to make the turn - for example from Townley going left into ED Grove. It will take longer and so the modelling breaks down unless they also add on additional time - and this could be quite significant for the coaches I feel. In your read of the modelling, has the impact of the pavement build out been factored in? Duvaller Wrote: > The table I provided came from the Final 2014 > Report on the Townley Rd junction. > Here is the link... > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/ > 11335/east_dulwich_grove_townley_road_junction_saf > ety_review > > What is apparent is that there huge discrepancies > between both - particularly in the volume of > traffic and the queue lengths. Here's the link and > corresponding tables from the Southwark web site > as of today:- > > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/408 > 0/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation > > http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy180/tomdhu/To > wnley%20Queues.jpg

What about you bawdy-nan. Are you fully for this proposal and confident that 8a is the best all round option?

Villager - I too was at the meeting and there were NO comments to support the specific proposal itself as outlined. The secretary of Dulwich Safe Routes for Schools spoke as did the incoming Chair (Claire?), both of them making a plea not to lose the funding and opportunity for ensuring safety. They advised they did not know about the specific design selected until they saw it at consultation. I did see some young teenagers speaking to the Councillors afterwards - they were the grandchildren of a long standing cycling advocate active with Dulwich Safe Routes (also active with Dulwich Society, Southwark Cyclists and Living Streets). The issue, surely, is one of proportionality at such a complicated junction. This junction can be made safe without the over-engineered aspects that have been built in specifically to meet the funding requirements - ie TfL require demonstration of cycling benefits as this money has come from the TfL 'cycling' fund. If Southwark believes this to be a real issue of safety, they will no doubt be concerned about that and apply Southwark funds to achieve an outcome that is proportionate and achieves safety without causing problems at adjacent junctions and unwarranted disruption for locals.

Duvaller which two documents are you comparing? Can you provide the links. Good idea to look at the header sections for comparison purposes.

What about the Parliamentary candidates. They must have a view?

According to a Southwark email communication in reply to questions so far (because the full data is not yet provided), you are correct that option 10 would work. The email states: "Option 9 is not feasible. This was an option that had previously been discarded as officers felt it was unfeasible, but following requests and for completeness, it has been drawn up and modelled. Options 10 and 11 could be feasible but on balance 8 is preferred given the wider pedestrian and cycle benefits. The only difference between A and B on each option is the provision of a protected cycle lane on East Dulwich Grove westbound in A which is omitted in B. Therefore comparing 8A with 8B, 8A is preferred for the greater cycle benefits given that the modelling shows less delay on East Dulwich Grove (the critical arm for through traffic and buses) in 8A over 8B." It is unclear who asked for option 9 to be drawn up. Perhaps this was feedback from the original consultation although there was no option 9 in the first consultation. Anyway it seems to be out of the running. The differences Southwark quote above are not the only ones. I see that the option A and B also have different lane capacity on the Townley Road and East Dulwich Grove East. You would imagine that two lanes would offer better junction performance and they are clearly acceptable as Southwark has said above.

So the original timetable advised for the second consultation was from 16th Feb to 6th March with 7 working days to get to the Dulwich Community Council. This was described as very tight. Now the consultation ends on the 13th March with no time to review input. We have not yet seen any analysis of the input to the first consultation - and the only visible summary which is in the DCC January report gives 3 minor sentences to the no Right hand turn ban. I commented on other concerns such as the excessive build outs and waiting bays which will not create safety but will absolutely grind the junction to a halt. If these reappear without explanation in a second consultation then Southwark have failed in their procedural duties. I understand that the TfL funding has to include cycling benefits. Well TfL granted the funding based on the JMP option 4 (shovel ready scheme) mentioned above. So if option 4 will not work and is not the basis of the new consultation to be issued and so we all object, then Southwark still have a very simple option. They can mark this junction properly so that it is safe and to do this within a very reasonable budget of ?10k not ?200k Plus. This was the option 5 of the JMP report. Labour Councillors (as they are the majority) and Southwark as an example of Labour Council effectiveness do not get my vote of confidence.

If I were you I would send in a ?65 cheque (assuming you may still have such an item) with a cover letter saying that this in no way admits your liability or agreement that you conducted an offence but that you are forced into this approach because your appeal has been unjustly reviewed and you want it reviewed again. For the 50cm one - did they provide photographic evidence? If not, there is no evidence so it is he said/she said and hard to see how they can uphold it. Appeal - but make sure they can not say you did not pay. Rowanofski Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Andrew1011 - I wish you were right, but Southwark > have clearly stated in their letter to me: > > "If you lose your appeal, you will have to pay the > full charge rather than the discount charge > (unless the Adjudicator decides otherwise)." > >

wolfhound, thank you, get it now. If I read this correctly then East Dulwich and Dulwich are a low PTAL score = very little public transport provision. Hence the need for a mix of transport.

Tessmo the only info that I have is from the Southwark email: Draw up new public consultation material ? 13 Feb (2 weeks) Consult ? 16 Feb to 6 March (3 weeks) I will look out for it on the Southwark website on the 16th Feb - but perhaps it will also be mailed to some local streets. The methods for consultation do not seem to have been disclosed. I have just looked again at the Dulwich Community Council minutes of 28th Jan and can't see a summary of the range of issues raised in response to the consultation. Just a brief mention concentrating on the no RHT ban (points 8, 9 and 10 ) to be found in: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s51361/Townley%20Road%20East%20Dulwich%20Grove%20Green%20Dale%20junction%20improvements.pdf I submitted feedback that relates to aspects of the design beyond the RHT ban. It is not clear if Southwark are going to persist with these in their new proposal and if so, on what basis. I had assumed that a consultation report would have to be issued first so that it could respond to all the points raised in the first consultation. I hope that I am not going to have to repeat comments. If I have to do that, it will be frustrating to say the least.

rodneybewes, good question. I don't know - I am not from Bristol. They do have a Citizen's panel however of 2000 people (as do many other Councils). Their consultation website is very clear - all the open, closed and feedback reports and also links to the other relevant parking and traffic management consultations are made more obvious. It is not clear how they establish any prioritisation of the consultees input from the quick look I took. https://bristol.citizenspace.com/ Consultation Hub Welcome to the Bristol City Council Consultation Hub. This site will help you find and participate in consultations that interest you. Recently updated consultations are displayed below; alternatively, search for consultations by keyword, postcode, interest etc. To keep up-to-date of new consultations, subscribe to our automated email notifications or 'Like' Ask Bristol on Facebook. If you are looking for advertisement of Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO's) or Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTRO's) you can find them on the council's website. Residents Parking Schemes (RPS)- please visit our dedicated web pages for what's happening in your area If you would like information on any of our consultations in another format, including paper copies, please telephone ................

This is a good clear piece from Bristol City Council on consultations and sets a clear statement of intent. We should look to Southwark for their equivalent. _____________ Whenever we make a decision about improving or changing services, we need to be confident the decision is properly informed by public opinion. For nearly ten years, the council has maintained a corporate consultation strategy setting out the principles that should underpin consultation and engagement with the people of Bristol. Those principles remain true today and this new code of good practice seeks to reaffirm and refine them - and strengthen their consistent application. http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/council-and-democracy/code-good-practice-public-consultation Our seven consultation principles 1.Time consultations well and allow sufficient time to respond. 2.Clearly present relevant information and encourage informed opinion. 3.Be well targeted and reach out to seldom heard groups. 4.Offer genuine options and ask objective questions. 5.Be well planned, managed and co-ordinated. 6.Be listed on Consultation Finder and be well communicated. 7.Provide fair, accessible feedback. We will use these principles whenever we run public consultations.

RB well I think the world is changing very rapidly and that Councils and Councillors can not expect to rely on former practices. They are elected and expected to represent all; and are paid accordingly. I wonder how new Councillors are trained upon appointment (if at all) to understand the Southwark processes and how to work with their Wards.

First Mate yes, and thank you, I feel this is a real problem and we have to get Southwark to appreciate it and recognise the need to address it. I know there are many specific issues that are the subject of separate threads on EDF and I am not trying to circumvent them as they are real concerns and bring focus to those instances. But there is an overarching issue of Southwark and how it consults and it seems well overdue for reform based upon the many recent and consistent concerns raised on the various threads here, yet alone those that go direct to Southwark and that we never hear about.

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.

I am starting this thread as there are quite a few threads here (on different topics) that all have a common theme. What is Southwark's consultation process? In my recent experience, it looks a shambles and a licence to act regardless of local feedback. Are Southwark conducting consultations as we might want and reasonably expect; how many people become aware of a consultation before decisions are taken by Southwark and underway; what is the role of our Councillors in providing feedback or are they whipped into the opinion of the Cabinet leaders; do we trust what Councillors say regarding consultations and how visible is their feedback to Southwark; what is a strategic decision vs a normal decision and what are the implications? I am sure there are many more questions that will emerge from the basic question: 'What is the Southwark consultation process?' I have been drawn into the Townley Rd junction and Cycling/Quietways 'consultations' but might never have know about them. I can now see many other threads on EDF where very similar debates about the consultation process are taking place. I have started this thread to create some awareness around how the consultation process in Southwark IS working now (or not as the reality check may show) so that our Councillors and Southwark understand what makes a transparent and responsible local government that we trust.