Tessmo

From what I've heard,construction on the S. G. Smith site - if the current plans went ahead - would take 18 months to 2 years. So there would be considerable impact on pedestrians and cyclists in the area for a long time. If the development was scaled back (lower buildings), and there were no plans for a basement (which carries a flood risk - and flooding would affect Dulwich Infants and Dulwich Hamlet schools), disruption would be far less. Scaling back development would mean less profit. But it might be better for the local community.

So where is the "formal statutory consultation"?

334 supporters now for Andrew Skipwith's petition https://www.change.org/p/the-dulwich-estate-sg-smith-child-safety-before-profit?source_location=update_footer&algorithm=promoted. The comments indicate a plea from local people to scale down inappropriate development. What's important now is for everyone to respond to Southwark Council's re-consultation. Details on the petition website.

These are the staff members of the Dulwich Estate, including the CEO John Major: http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/about/staff. But the Estate is governed by its trustees who can be found here: http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/about/the-trustees. I'm a bit puzzled because the website says there are 13 of them, and I keep counting 14... Here's the executive committee of the Dulwich Society: http://www.dulwichsociety.com/executive-contacts You will see that the local independent schools have strong representation on both.

Up to 300 supporters now on this petition: https://www.change.org/p/the-dulwich-estate-sg-smith-child-safety-before-profit

Qwe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it is recommended for approval - which is > likely - there is a slim chance you can get the > committee to reject it. > > The number of objectors in itself will not have > much impact. The committee are unlikely to > overturn a recommendation to approve without good > planning grounds. > > You could try going through the planning policy > documents published by Southwark - Dulwich > planning guidance, documents on Southwark policy > on converting commercial to residential and > anything other policy documents Southwark planning > have published. > > In particular look at Para 128 of the National > Policy Planning Framework (and the containing > section) - a quick glance at this shows the issue > of the stocks may not have been addressed in the > application documentation and application > process. > > If you can find a policy that the proposal does > not comply with then use the 3 mins in the meeting > to repeatedly make the point the proposal does not > comply with policy. > > Do not point out mistakes before the meeting - > rely on the the 3mins to try and get it rejected. I think the issue of the stocks is only part of the picture. (No one is against developing the site. The issue is how it's done.) But as the comment from @Qwe above shows, details like this may be helpful in showing that a decision to approve the proposal as it stands may be going against current planning policy. The new consultation on the whole proposal is open from 14 to 27 June. Go to http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk and search for application 14/AP/3104. You can either email Dipesh Patel, the planning officer at dipesh.patel@southwark.gov.uk and cc planning.consultation@southwark.gov.uk or you can post a comment online.

Our new local MP Helen Hayes is aware of the S. G. Smith development - it's on her website. Perhaps concerns about new development clashing with conservation, and whether this particular development is appropriate in terms of scale and safety, should be sent to her at: helen.hayes.mp@parliament.uk

There's a new petition that's been set up by a local parent at Dulwich Hamlet Junior School. There are 272 signatures so far: https://www.change.org/p/the-dulwich-estate-sg-smith-child-safety-before-profit

Southwark is conducting a survey into how consultations should be run in future. Here's the link https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1irv0eVt_jvWO7XbHjmjGd3Rse_bPA8JFf4fMgPgrhJ0/viewform Anyone who feels the whole Townley Road consultation could have been handled better might want to respond... The person who sent me this said that there was (as usual) a tight deadline, so please reply as soon as possible.

Bewildered. Why would the phasing change now before the works on the junction begin? To test the water? If so, will the new junction mean permanent queues on EDG? What will this mean for the 37 bus in the mornings?

Thank you, @Woodwarde. You know, I really think there should be definitions of 'consultation' and 'engagement' on the Southwark Council website. Otherwise they can just mean whatever anyone wants them to mean...

Thank you @Scootingover Yes, I remember reading this. I didn't see it as implying there was scope for review. I read it as saying that concerns raised by councillors had been noted but that it was unlikely any changes would be made. (Look at the language used.) So (1) the southwest corner probably wouldn't be lessened, (2) the pavement measurement on Green Dale would probably stay the same, (3) a trial period wouldn't happen, (4) officers 'will investigate any minor modifications [to the Townley Road arm] that might be possible...should modelling indicate this to be a problem' = would keep it exactly as the plan, and (5) monitoring results would be given after 12-18 months, not after 6 months as councillors had requested. These were concerns raised by elected councillors, please note, not just those irritatingly demanding local users of the junction...

@taper paragraph 19 of which document? There are so many...

@taper Have I missed the 'option to review if there are significant issues'? Could you direct me to where that's stated in the latest proposal?

My own personal frustration is that the consultation process was so...not a consultation process. You got to say yes or no, and each and every objection was thrown into the air and shot down. There was no attempt to find out what local people thought, and why, or to find a solution that took into account genuine concerns. I agree with @intexasatthemoment. The re-consultation plans were complex. First time round, everyone thought, no right turn? What? The second time round you had to commit a lot of time to working out what worked and what didn't. I have no idea why the DCC voted it all through when 51% of local people objected. Maybe I don't understand how it all works. I am also bewildered by the reaction from council officers. At the DCC meeting in January, when local people had overwhelmingly objected to the first set of proposals, I heard one of them say, 'I still think the right turn ban was a good idea.' @bawdy-nan That seems the perfect example of someone annoyed at not having got their own way...

Anyone heard whether Southwark's scrutiny committee is going to call in Councillor Williams's decision? Will anything be made public on Southwark's website?

That's interesting @hopskip. There clearly was inadequate consultation on many different levels. But I do wonder whether a Labour-chaired scrutiny committee (if what Cllr Barber says is correct) in a Labour-led council will have to courage to call the decision in...

If anyone is wondering, because it's not easy to see, the appendix summarising the responses received in the additional five-day period is here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=5257 - go to the first item 'Record of Decision' under 'Accompanying Documents' and scroll through to the end. I am still puzzled by the extra five-day period Mark Williams allowed for additional comments. It wasn't made public. There was nothing on Southwark's website. So the only people who could possibly have replied to it would have been those who had found out about it here, on the EDF, or those who had been emailed by Mark Williams. This just isn't an open democratic process. Those who did reply, putting forward objections to Matt Hill's original plans, were told by Mark Williams that he had considered their responses. But the appendix he directs them to is nothing more than a report written by - guess who? - Matt Hill. I am beginning to think that the current administration at Southwark Council has spent far too long operating outside any recognisable forms of process and procedure. I think it's time we called them to account.

Well done, Mark T and Jennys. We've got until midnight, everyone....

Just to add my voice to everyone else's. We're allowed one more day (end March 30) to make objections. If you don't feel what you've said has been properly addressed in the summing-up report, and you still have worries about how the new design will affect safety at the junction, email your concerns to: mark.williams@southwark.gov.uk (cc anne.kirby@southwark.gov.uk; jane.lyons@southwark.gov.uk; michael.mitchell@southwark.gov.uk; andy.simmons@southwark.gov.uk) So many of us asked for the LinSig figures to be checked, as they don't make sense, and yet Southwark is relying on them to promote the new design...No mention has been made of that at all... So many of us are worried about whether the coaches will be able to manage the new sharp turns without running over the pavements or edging into other traffic lanes...This has been dismissed, even though no modelling has been done... We asked for a trial of the new design...That's been dismissed, too... We said we were worried about increased congestion...That's been dismissed as well... Reconsultation report said "all points of objection on technical grounds have either been overstated or are not valid"... Patronising responses from a council that refuses to listen.

Interesting, @hopskip. It seems to me that these are just reasons for having a definite scheme, rather than for choosing the one they've recommended. Option 8A is likely to have all sorts of knock-on effects that haven't been properly modelled. Better not to rush through a scheme at all than to impose one on the local community that could make the whole situation worse...

Five more days to say it again? Day 1 This scheme will cause congestion on Townley Road.. Day 2 ...and all the surrounding streets... Day 3 ...making cycling and walking more dangerous... Day 4 ...and polluting the air... Day 5 ...for all the children going to school I should talk to Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School. Oh, hang on a minute...

Personally, I would have thought that a scheme that introduces more congestion in the morning, and more congestion on Townley Road, and therefore Calton Avenue, throughout the day - which 8A will - is likely to cause harm to children rather than keeping them safe... Good point @BrandNewGuy about lollipop people. I wonder what Safe Routes to School thinks about crossing wardens, and what they'll do if the funding for them suddenly disappears...

Hello, Edanna. The idea that this was a way of getting rid of lollipop people was mentioned right at the beginning, but it all got lost in the miserable mess of the Council pushing through plans that nobody local wanted. I don't know the answer. Maybe contact the planner matthew.hill@southwark.gov.uk and see if he knows? Please post up what he says - it's a good point, and it would be good to find out what the plans are.

DEADLINE TODAY FRIDAY 13 MARCH FOR THE RE-CONSULTATION Only 500 characters on the online form (http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3729/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation), which doesn't allow you to say much. For me, what's most important is that nothing is done that makes the junction less safe. If you haven't replied already, this fits: ? the design is experimental. If the new cycling features don?t work, or make the junction less safe/less efficient, is there a budget to put them right? ? the pavement build-outs are too sharp. They will slow down long vehicles and make them swing out into pedestrian and cyclist paths ? one lane for Townley Road, with cars turning right stuck behind cars turning left, will cause tailbacks, increased air pollution, and congestion throughout the area ? the LinSig modelling must be checked