Scootingover

James - yes, I would be interest in attending such a meeting. I can check with neighbours and friends.

this was the email on circulation I believe? Those of us experiencing issues on consultations should comment if you can. From: Sangweme, Dennis [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Planning.Applications Sent: 29 May 2015 10:11 To: Sangweme, Dennis Subject: RE: Have your say on the future of planning consultations - 21st Century Public Notices Survey Dear Resident/Customer, The Southwark Planning Division is conducting a survey to better understand your needs and preferences on statutory consultations on planning applications. Statutory notices are an important means for ensuring that the public is kept informed on decisions by their council which may affect your quality of life, local amenity or your property. We are particularly interested in your views on public consultation around planning applications (letters to residents, website planning register, site notices on lamp posts and press notices in Southwark News). The survey should take ten minutes to complete, and all responses are anonymous. Please feel free to pass on to others interested in participating. Take part in the survey here The current consultation process on planning applications originates from an age where the printed word was our key source of information. Today, how we consume information has drastically changed with advances in technology. Statutory notices need to change too. The government, therefore, invited Councils, newspapers and others to pilot innovative ways of improving statutory notices. Southwark has been selected as one of the pilot areas. The pilots will explore how statutory notices can be changed in future so that they reach more people, are easier to read, give greater visibility and transparency to big issues and reduce costs in a sustainable way. Southwark Council and Southwark News/Weekender are jointly implementing the pilot in Southwark. We want to hear from you on these matters; about your preferences on consuming information on planning notices, the problems you face in accessing planning information in general and how you would like to consume information on planning in future. We would like to hear from all local residents, businesses, applicants and developers so that the findings provide a complete picture of the situation in Southwark, and we would be very grateful if you could take part. Take part in the survey here The research is jointly sponsored by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and will be open for two weeks. We do hope that you will be able to take part. Kind regards, Simon Bevan | Director of Planning Planning Division | Chief Executive's Department The London Borough of Southwark | PO Box 64529 | London SE1P 2QH Sign up at: www.southwark.gov.uk/planningregister to receive information on planning applications in your area cid:[email protected]/mysouthwark For council services at your fingertips, register online

Thank you Tessmo for flagging this - not sure who has been invited to comment. I might comment on that in my feedback! Some got below but many on this thread will have a view and should make time to reply. Very tight deadline in order to gather important feedback :-) From: Sangweme, Dennis [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Planning.Applications Sent: 29 May 2015 10:11 To: Sangweme, Dennis Subject: RE: Have your say on the future of planning consultations - 21st Century Public Notices Survey Dear Resident/Customer, The Southwark Planning Division is conducting a survey to better understand your needs and preferences on statutory consultations on planning applications. Statutory notices are an important means for ensuring that the public is kept informed on decisions by their council which may affect your quality of life, local amenity or your property. We are particularly interested in your views on public consultation around planning applications (letters to residents, website planning register, site notices on lamp posts and press notices in Southwark News). The survey should take ten minutes to complete, and all responses are anonymous. Please feel free to pass on to others interested in participating. Take part in the survey here The current consultation process on planning applications originates from an age where the printed word was our key source of information. Today, how we consume information has drastically changed with advances in technology. Statutory notices need to change too. The government, therefore, invited Councils, newspapers and others to pilot innovative ways of improving statutory notices. Southwark has been selected as one of the pilot areas. The pilots will explore how statutory notices can be changed in future so that they reach more people, are easier to read, give greater visibility and transparency to big issues and reduce costs in a sustainable way. Southwark Council and Southwark News/Weekender are jointly implementing the pilot in Southwark. We want to hear from you on these matters; about your preferences on consuming information on planning notices, the problems you face in accessing planning information in general and how you would like to consume information on planning in future. We would like to hear from all local residents, businesses, applicants and developers so that the findings provide a complete picture of the situation in Southwark, and we would be very grateful if you could take part. Take part in the survey here The research is jointly sponsored by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and will be open for two weeks. We do hope that you will be able to take part. Kind regards, Simon Bevan | Director of Planning Planning Division | Chief Executive's Department The London Borough of Southwark | PO Box 64529 | London SE1P 2QH Sign up at: www.southwark.gov.uk/planningregister to receive information on planning applications in your area cid:[email protected]/mysouthwark For council services at your fingertips, register online

Hi - I have the same problem. Did you manage to locate someone you could recommend. I have already managed to make a poor effort on an attempt to cut one.....

These white boxes don't look like cameras. Does anyone know if they are cameras, or if not, what they are?

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I read paragraph 19, last indent in particular, as > implying there is scope for review. Presumably the report produced by Matt Hill based on his own note taking and pre official minutes of the March 17th DCC meeting. Although subsequent exchanges to extend beyond clause 19 points (for example to agree that Calton Ave is also impacted although not modelled, have already been acknowledged by Mark Williams in limited circulation emails. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53066/Report.pdf 19. A number of additional comments were made regarding the scheme which are summarised below: ? Members noted concerns raised by a number of respondents to the consultation about the radii of the southwest corner of the junction. In response, officers will review this as part of the detailed design process. However it must be noted that the layout of the junction has been autotracked and the largest coach used by the school can undertake the left turn in accordance with the proposed junction layout without conflict. ? Concerns were raised about the effect of the proposed cycle waiting bay proposed on the Green Dale arm of the junction on the width of the adjacent footway. In response, it is noted that the proposed width of footway adjacent to the cycle waiting bay still allows for 1.2m of unobstructed footway width which is in accordance with the minimum footway width standards prescribed in the council?s Streetscape Design Manual. However, as part of the detailed design process, the layout of the bays will be assessed to ascertain if the proposed 3m width is required to cater for the potential number of cyclists accessing the waiting area per junction cycle. Following the review the eastern footway of Green Dale could either be built out to increase space for pedestrians whilst retaining the cycle bay, or the width of the cycle bay reduced in line with the expected number of cyclists accessing the bay during the red phase. ? Members requested that certain elements of the scheme be trialled through the use of temporary materials (with Paxton Green roundabout mentioned as a previous example). Particular reference was made of the proposed footway extension of the south-western corner of the junction. In response, due to this junction being signalised it would not be possible to trial extensions of footways. The signals have fixed positions and need to be installed with the correct specifications (with concrete footings, draw pits, ducting and tactile layouts). Therefore there would be no advantage of 4 installing temporary materials in the footways, as any change to the kerblines would result in changes to the signal positions and associated infrastructure. It is also noted that the use of temporary materials would not be suitable for the large volume of pedestrian traffic at the junction. ? Members noted that whilst they agreed with the principle of the layout on the Townley Road arm of the junction, they were concerned to ensure no additional delay is caused, as far as practicable In response, as part of the detailed design process, officers will investigate any minor modifications that might be possible to the junction geometry to alleviate any increase in queuing on Townley Road, should modelling indicate this to be a problem ? Members requested that the scheme be monitored post-implementation and that a monitoring report be brought back to the Community Council after 6 months. In response, the scheme will be closely monitored post-implementation by both the council and Transport for London to ensure the junction is operating effectively in traffic capacity terms and to identify any potential issues that may have arisen following implementation. It must be noted that the scheme will also have a Stage 3 road safety audit undertaken. Monitoring will also include usage/mode share statistics and working with the adjacent schools to understand any changes to travel patterns for the journey to school. Officers will prepare a post-implementation monitoring report for Dulwich Community Council within 12-18 months of completion of works (6 months is considered too soon to produce reliable data).

He is in the area reasonably frequently as is Liam Neeson. Friends of a resident.

Just spotted this info on a parallel thread (Ask Me, James Barber thread). Absolutely relevant to this thread so excuse me making it apparent. I only saw it by chance. Posted by first mate Today, 08:27AM James, will you and Rosie Shimmell be calling in the Townley Road decision? ----------------- Hi first mate, I don't think so. A lot of time and effort has gone into these proposals by all parties and I can't see how the decision breaches any policies or strategies - which is reqired for a call-in to Overview & Scrutiny Committee. Unless you tell me otherwise... Regards [email protected] -------------------- James, you are the expert and have far more knowledge of the process than I. I have a hunch that you support the decision too. It is just that there seems to be a disjuncture between use of process to reach the 'valid' decision desired by councillors (for whatever reasons) and local feeling/objections. Who was it said that 'process is the politican's friend'. -------------------- Hi first mate, As an opposition councillor we have to weigh up what we call-in via Overview & Scurtiny Committee. We appear to have upset Labour when we chaired this committee such that they now have a Labour chairperson - with a majority they decide this although it is breaking a long tradition of the leading party not chairing the committee that scrutinses the ruling party. We have always been reticent about using this call-in power for fear of Labour umbridge and losing it. With a council majority they can change the constitution as they wish. That is my reticence. Saying that in 2014 they changed the constitution to make it possible for Lib Dems to still be able to call-in decisions. I've been copied an email sent to OSC members by residents and am very sympathetic to reasons for call-in B2,B3,B4. B1 at the meeting officers anssered to my satisfaction - turning circles for coaches during rush hour. Regards [email protected] --------------------

I would like to help BUT: True to Southwark?s ?transparent? processes, it is hard to tell how the Oversight Committee operates. Do they consider real requests from the public or are they a self-determined spat between Councillors ? cynically, seems the latter?.. According to the website: It seems that the decision to call in needs to come from the Oversight and Scrutiny committee; details here but on what basis call-in happens, is not disclosed: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/3162/scrutiny_review_of_cabinet_decisions Scrutiny review of cabinet decisions. The overview and scrutiny committee can review decisions made by or on behalf of the cabinet. This is known as 'calling in' the decision. ? 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 three 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. You can view and print papers from call-in meetings. Is that clear how a Scrutiny committee operates ? probably not. It is not specific about how ongoing public concerns are placed on the radar for the Committee, or whether there is a self-determining group of Southwark elected officials making a decision based upon their latest penchant. Again, the cynic can legitimately suspect the latter. Then try here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/3161/scrutiny_committees And it seems that no-one involved in the executive decision making can be involved (that on the surface seems to rule out 3 local Dulwich Councillors :James Barber, Rosie Shimell (Vice Chair)and Jon Hartley) So - what a clear set of instructions upon which Southwark Council can duck, dive, prevaricate, defer, dissemble, disenfranchise. XXXX-up.

According to the Dulwich Society Newsletter. ________ Proposed Mobile Phone mast on the corner of Village Way & Half Moon Lane: Along with more than 270 other local residents, the Society objected to the planning application to install a radio base station at this junction. The Council has now refused the application. ___________ I wonder on what mandate the Dulwich Society objected? Did it raise the opinion of its members - I don't recall responding. Good news it is rejected though.

I have also addressed my continuing concerns and unanswered questions to Mark Williams as the decision maker [email protected] Not sure who wrote the DCC 17th March summary but I am pretty sure there were more points than those recorded in this report for 'decision'. See point 19, final bullet. Preposterous and if you are minded to reply this evening, make sure that you demand the 6 month review brought back to the DCC within 6 months. No way should we wait longer and tolerate turmoil and problems displaced to other areas. Or is that the intent - make them wait long enough for it to be forgotten and for a whole set of issues to develop elsewhere. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53066/Report.pdf Members requested that the scheme be monitored post-implementation and that a monitoring report be brought back to the Community Council after 6 months. In response, the scheme will be closely monitored post-implementation by both the council and Transport for London to ensure the junction is operating effectively in traffic capacity terms and to identify any potential issues that may have arisen following implementation. It must be noted that the scheme will also have a Stage 3 road safety audit undertaken. Monitoring will also include usage/mode share statistics and working with the adjacent schools to understand any changes to travel patterns for the journey to school. Officers will prepare a post-implementation monitoring report for Dulwich Community Council within 12-18 months of completion of works (6 months is considered too soon to produce reliable data).

10a or 10b - both giving good junction safety?

Villager Same perspective in the papers last week. Southwark have no cash and set sights on TfL and get bent out of shape trying to secure funds under 'cycling' related T&Cs that make TfL look better. Southwark get the halo effect and money to boot. But Southwark, who cares about the money when you create havoc in the process and demonstrate shocking application of public money and contempt for real concerns and local knowledge. You should vote yourselves out, why wait?

Update from Dulwich&HerneHill SafeRoutes to School Sent: 26 February 2015 20:57 To: Subject: Townley Road Junction Improvements - Urgent Action Required Dear all Time is absolutely critical now for the proposed changes to Townley Road Junction. Can you please advertise Saturday's drop in information session within your school or associationas a matter of urgency. This is our very last chance to improve the Junction. Any work must be carried out this summer, as funding will expire in the next financial year. There are over 1,450 child pedestrian movements at the junction each morning between 8-9am. Southwark have a traffic report demonstrating that the junction as it is now designed is dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. Please ask as many parents as possible to go onto the Southwark Council website and comment on the scheme. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3729/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation Deadline for comments is 13th March. If the message below could be forwarded on I would be very grateful. I have attached the document from Southwark about why the other Junction proposals were rejected and some background on the scheme. Thank you for your assistance and please do email me if you have any queries. Best wishes (Secretary) Townley Road Junction Scheme Re-Consultation Have you say Drop in ?Q&A? Session A drop in session will be held on Saturday 28th February 2015 from 11am ? 2pm. This will provide opportunity for local residents and stakeholders to view the plans, and to directly engage with council officers and discuss the proposed changes in detail or get answers to particular points of detail that are not covered here. The drop in session will be held at: St Barnabas Church Hall 23 Dulwich Village London SE21 7BT The responses to the questionnaire will be analysed and taken into account before a final decision is taken on the proposals. The consultation results for both the original consultation and the re-consultation will be reported at the Dulwich Community Council meeting on the 17th March 2015. Following the Community Council meeting, the final decision on whether to proceed with the scheme will be taken by Cllr Mark Williams, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning, and Transport, in April 2015. Dulwich & Herne Hill Safe Routes to School Group c/o Alleyn's Junior School Townley Road LONDON SE22 8SU

That is probably because Southwark are again putting new documents up AFTER the consultation has started! This is not reasonable or professional and a repeat of the flawed first round of consultation. Tessmo: It seems unusual indeed that a second consultation can happen that may embody design features that have been queried and not yet responded to. Robert P: I would hang on anyway - as there is more information to come and saves doing it twice. Is there a contact that you can report it to so they fix it?

The two lane options on Townley and EGD seem much the better to achieve the general cyclist and pedestrian benefits and make sure that traffic problems are not thrown to other local junctions. Otherwise we are back to square one and the inherent problems of knock on to other junctions causing additional safety concerns elsewhere. This is the same issue as the first stage of consultation!

the email below has gone out to email addresses - not sure what group, perhaps as a result of replies to the first Consultation. It is essentially the wording of the cover note of the Townley Re-Consultaiton landing page on the Southwark website. It does not clarify why this option is selected over the various schemas shown. What is newly stated is that Mark Williams makes the final decision and of course this will be subject to referral to the Scrutiny and Oversight committee. Dear Stakeholder In December we consulted the local community on our proposals for improvements to the East Dulwich Grove/Townley Road/Greendale junction were focussed on improving conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. Our design included a proposal to ban the right turn from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove to which there was considerable opposition. We understand that the community needs to support our proposals and therefore we have revised the design to preserve all existing turning movements at the junction, including the right turn from Townley Road, whilst still greatly improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians. There is some loss of capacity compared to the existing situation but the junction will continue to operate within acceptable levels of saturation. This design is attached to this email and will be delivered to properties in the local area imminently. The key elements of the design are: ? Removal of existing staggered pedestrian crossings with the implementation of shorter, single movement facilities. ? Introduction of a diagonal pedestrian crossing to link footways adjacent to both schools and cater for an existing pedestrian desire line. ? All pedestrian facilities to operate at the same time to reduce waiting time for pedestrians and improve the efficiency of the junction. ? Cycle pre-signal on Townley Road and Green Dale to allow cycles to enter the junction and undertake turning movements before general traffic. ? New signalised cycle gates on both Townley Road and Green Dale where cyclists are held on a red signal whilst general traffic movements operate. This removes the risk of both left hook and right hook collisions. (Please note that more confident cyclists will still be allowed to use the general traffic lane to traverse the junction from either Townley Road or Green Dale). ? Semi-segregated cycle lane and advanced cycle waiting area on East Dulwich Grove (westbound) to allow cyclists to bypass waiting vehicles and gain priority at the junction. ? Footway buildouts to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and to visually improve the streetscape. ? New two stage right turn facilities for cyclists to assist right turning movements into either Townley Road or Green Dale from East Dulwich Grove. ? A new semi-segregated cycle lane is proposed on Townley Road to allow cyclists to safely pass queuing traffic and access the cycle facilities at the junction. ? A new segregated cycle lane is proposed linking Calton Avenue with Townley Road to allow cyclists to bypass the Calton Avenue / Townley Road junction. ? All existing turning movements at the junction are retained, including for coaches. We very much want to hear from as many people as possible and therefore I would urge you to respond to the consultation either via our website http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3729/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation or the paper leaflet that has been delivered to nearby properties. The consultation runs until Friday 13 March. Please do forward this email as you see fit. The website also holds more background information for anyone that is interested. We will be holding a ?drop in? Q&A session on Saturday 28 February from 11am ? 2pm. The venue for this is still to be confirmed but venue details will be posted on the website as soon as possible. This will give anyone interested the opportunity to view the plans in greater detail and discuss any issues or questions they may have face to face with council officers. Given the funding constraints and the need to avoid the risk of losing external grant funding and the risk in delaying any further action at this junction for a further year, we are now consulting on this amended scheme. When the public consultation is finished, the proposals will be the subject of a further report to Dulwich Community Council on 17 March. After this meeting, the final decision on whether to implement the proposal will be made publically by me in April. Yours sincerely, cid:[email protected] Cllr Mark Williams Councillor Mark Williams Labour Member for Brunswick Park Ward Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Transport London Borough of Southwark 160 Tooley Street London, SE1 2TZ 0207 5257730 / 07985 629095 / @markwilliams84

The provision for the nervous cyclist waiting bays. Can anyone explain their use and general availability in Southwark. Are they common and well used features for cyclists?

Just in case you are not aware of the Local Government Ombudsman if complaints to your council are not addressed and you believe that there is cause for complaint. Local Government Ombudsman Councils' performance - check out Southwark These are the annual reviews (previous called annual letters) that we send to all councils about their performance in dealing with complaints made about them to the Ombudsman. The aim is to provide councils with information to help them improve complaint handling, and improve their services more generally, for the benefit of the public. The letters also include a summary of statistics relating to the complaints we have received and dealt with against each council. There is a note to help with interpretation of these statistics. http://www.lgo.org.uk/CouncilsPerformance/?letter=S

I have only heard one of the schools - JAGS talk in the Press about their strong support for the scheme - they do not talk about the detail of the modelling. In the same press article (earlier post on the thread) Alleyns use what looks like politically correct wording about supporting safety - but do not give a clue on their view of the option put forward in the proposal. One of our labour councillors has advised that the modelling has excluded something significant. JAGS has permission for a new music school which removes its current onsite parking. JAGS have stated that the parking will be moved to where the Scout Hut is located on Greendale. I am not surprised that they are keeping this low key but the use of Greendale for this purpose is significant. Why are we not aiming to agree on some simple changes that can bring safety, help pedestrians and cyclists and let us move step wise to something sensible, i.e. a solution that works and can be adapted over time. Bawdy-nan posted: >>I've just received an email from "Dulwich Young Cyclists" inviting me to an "open meeting" on 17th January (ie next Saturday): >> "Dulwich Safe Routes is working for a safer environment for children walking and cycling to school. Please join us for a discussion looking for positive outcomes from planned road changes now and in the future, including the proposed changes to the Townley Road Junction. Saturday 17th January, 15:00 - St Barnabas Hall Gilkes Place SE21 7BT" I am going along, as I want to hear what Dulwich SR understand about the modelling and its impacts and how much they got involved in the planning details. I did not get this mailing so thanks for posting about it. Do you know why you were on the email list Bawdy-nan?

I suspect they are in a dilemma as they hear the reaction from residents. They too are victims of a poor consultation process and a masked Southwark agenda. But you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Why do I think this? I was shown an email from the Dulwich Society in response to queries on the Consultation which says: "The Traffic and Transport committee, chaired by Alastair Hanton, has been party to the negotiations with the Council on these junction improvements along with the 'Safer Routes to Schools' group, the prime mover, and the schools themselves. The subcommittee's view is that the proposal (specifically option 4) will substantially improve pedestrian and cycling safety at this junction and will not lead to problems for traffic elsewhere. Discussions over the scheme have been going on for some while and it is only now, during the wider public consultation exercise, that serious objections have come out. The subcommittee's reports to the Exec committee have been on the basis that there are identifiable safety problems at this junction and that pedestrians (mostly school children) and cyclists, are at particular risk - the exec committee had been assured that there were back up surveys and modelling reports and we were led to believe that the public consultation exercise would be a formality, and that everyone would be in favour." The DulwichSsafe Routes Bike-It officer says in their blog comments (Tim Warins I believe) http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/east-dulwich-grovetownley-rdgreen-dale.html Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School said... Hello Southwark cyclist and local resident, We didn't design the process but want to try to work positively and collaboratively. We didn't know about the banned right proposal and hadn't seen the junction plans before they went out for consultation either. Very happy that individuals are responding to Southwark to ask questions, raise concerns and make suggestions. 8 December 2014 at 16:29 So they have spoken out already in fact on their concerns but they do not know how to tackle this with Southwark either. Because they are in close contact with the Southwark consultation organisers, I also suspect that they have been told that the no RH turn is non-negotiable and they do not know which way to turn. Turn RIGHT - forgive the pun...........

To clarify >>Seeing what I see Tessmo referred to the points 1-4 made in that post, ie that the decision to prohibit the Right Hand turn is made already but Southwark don't want to reveal their hand. My later post shows the positions held for a reason. This is of major relevance in consultations when lobbyist groups are in fact the same people but accepted (wittingly or unwittingly) as distinct organisations making their individual representations. Real life is often this way you may rightly say, but here I draw attention to it as part of the increasingly evident conflict of the Townley Consultation process and one that Southwark needs to note and not ignore.

You?re seeing what I see Tessmo. Also, same names with obvious interests. Names/institutions that keep cropping up: Alastair Hanton (AH), Laurie Johnston (LJ), Andy Cawdell (AC), Mark Williams (MW), Barrie Hargrove (BH), AH operates across: Dulwich Society Chair Transport committee; Chair, Southwark Living Streets, Southwark Cycles, member Southwark Cycle Joint Steering Group; London Cycling Campaign, Board Member; Trustee, Herne Hill Velodrome; see also as Director, Hume House and Ed Bonner; Chair, Herne Hill and Dulwich Trade Justice Campaign, Living Streets; trustee Campaign for Better Transport; chairs the pressure group Action on Lorry Danger; represents the London Cycling Campaign on several working parties at Transport for London. AC as Chair of Southwark Cyclists; Trustee, Herne Hill Velodrome; member Southwark Cycle Join Committee; Chair and founder member of the London Cycling Campaign L J ? member Dulwich Society Transport Group; CEO DulwichSafeRoutes Mark Williams; Barrie Hargroves ? Southwark Cabinet, Transport and Parks roles; Southwark Joint Cycle Steering Group Chairs; Southwark Cycling Strategy http://www.endole.co.uk/company/07458529/herne-hill-velodrome-trust https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/the-hume-house-and-ed-bonner-company Alastair Hanton ? Co Secretary and Director THE HUME HOUSE AND ED BONNER COMPANY LIMITED GILKES CRESCENT, LONDON SE21 7BS Classification: Activities of political organizations http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/141208/hughes_simon.htm The Register of Members' Financial Interests: Part 1 As at 8th December 2014 HUGHES, Rt Hon Simon (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) 4. Sponsorships Name of donor: The Hume House and Ed Bonner Company Ltd Address of donor: Gilkes Crescent, London SE21 7BS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: ?2,000 Donor status: company (Registered 4 April 2014) Traffic and Transport Dulwich Society ? Townley 2008 http://www.dulwichsociety.com/newsletters/44-winter-2005/206-dulwich-society-news38 A number of improvements in road safety have recently been achieved by the Dulwich Society through the "Walk to School Campaign" promoted by Transport for London (TfL). These improvements followed consultation by the Society with local schools, Southwark Council members and officers and TfL. The places identified by the Dulwich Society and where work has been carried out include new zebra crossings built across Burbage Road and outside Alleyn's School in Townley Road and the entry treatment at the junction of Woodwarde Road and Calton Avenue. These measures will make it safer for children to walk to and from the Village schools as well as JAGS and Alleyn's. ??????. Alastair Hanton (Chairman, Traffic and Transport Group) AH and Townley again in 2008 http://www.dulwichsociety.com/newsletters/40-winter-2006/274-travelling-to-school?tmpl=component&page= Firstly: changes to road layouts to make it safer for pupils walking to school. With money from Transport for London and work by Southwark Council, the following changes have been made: ? A zebra crossing outside Alleyn's School in Townley Road. ? A zebra crossing in Burbage Road. ? A zebra crossing and traffic calming outside the Charter School in Red Post Hill. ? Narrowing Woodwarde Road at the Calton Avenue junction. ? Raising the carriageways at road junctions along Half Moon Lane and Townley Road. http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6735 Picture April 2013 Jeremy Leach (Living Streets); Alastair Hanton (Southwark Cyclists); Andy Cawdell (Southwark Cyclists); Amy Aeron-Thomas (Road Peace); Colin Hartridge-Price (Southwark Cyclists); Cllr Barrie Hargrove; Charlie Lloyd (London Cycling Campaign). The pledge says: "We'll work to improve the safety of every Londoner by only signing new contracts with the safest haulage companies, which conform to the London Cycling Campaign's Safer Lorries conditions. "We also pledge to ensure our council-operated services meet the same standards." Cllr Barrie Hargrove, cabinet member for environment, transport and recycling, signed the pledge last week with Charlie Lloyd of the London Cycling Campaign and representatives of the local Southwark Cyclists group outside the council's headquarters on Tooley Street. "As a cyclist myself, I am very pleased to give the council's full commitment to Southwark Cyclists that we will work as a council and with our contractors to aim for all our lorries and those of our contractors to meet the highest safety standards," said Cllr Barrie Hargrove. "Southwark Council aims to be London's friendliest borough for cycling and I am charged with delivering the council's commitments on cycling and safety." Andy Cawdell, coordinator of Southwark Cyclists, said: "This pledge will make it safer for all of us to use the roads, both in Southwark and beyond. We hope other boroughs will follow Southwark's lead." London Cycling Campaign http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-board-and-committees http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda-2015/policy-commissions/britain-s-global-role-policy-commission/britain-s-global-role-policy-consultation/tax-avoidance-by-multi-national-companies http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/event.php?id=166 http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news/8726890.print/ http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-are-run http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Borough%20and%20Bankside%20Community%20Council/20080305/Agenda/Sub%20Group%20minutes.pdf http://www.openstreets.org.uk/our-trustees.html Alastair Hanton Alastair is co-founder of Open Streets Trust. A former Deputy Managing Director of Girobank, he has for a number of years served as a director or adviser to a number of NGOs concerned with development, fair trade and environmental transport including Christian Aid, the Fairtrade Foundation and the Campaign for Better Transport. Alastair also chairs the pressure group Action on Lorry Danger, and represents the London Cycling Campaign on several working parties at Transport for London.

I have been following the comments and most observe that this entire Consultation looks conflicted from a number of standpoints. I will be corresponding with Southwark Council on this and that the Consultation should be cancelled as a consequence. There are many questions to be answered about the consultation input and its treatment. It is discredited based upon the information in the public domain, yet alone FOI requests for missing documentation that has so far been refused. This is a consultation nested in predetermined Council strategy and outcomes to address a TfL cycling agenda. None of this has been made clear. Note the introduction in the Townley Consultation FAQ document on the term Quietways ? slipped in without fanfare. Note the late Council communication (I will post this later) on the Cycling Strategy/Quietways strategy and consultation which ends 1st Feb. Mark Williams presentation at the Scrutiny & Oversight committee 10th Nov (You tube; link posted earlier; ) also speaks to the importance of ED Grove (minute 28-30). Note the confidential discussion mentioned in the Southwark Cyclists minutes about the Cycling Strategy (again Mark Williams and the minutes of that Southwark Cycling Joint Steering group from Sept 2014 are still unpublished). Note new positioning just released to add credibility to the groups being used for consultation by Southwark. No credible body can apply these things retrospectively. http://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/cycling-joint-steering-group/ This ?purpose? for Southwark cyclists has only just appeared in response to Southwark realising the scrutiny that is coming to bear on the limited and lobbying interest groups with which it is basing its decisions. Zebedee Tring has pointed out the conflict in decisions to be made by Mark Williams. Other correspondence and public documents point to his predecessor in the Transport Role ? Barrie Hargroves ? who is also now the Southwark Cabinet Member for Public Health, Parks and Leisure and with an equal voice at Southwark Council. He is likewise involved in the history of ED Grove and also the new Quiteway routes that will for example affect Dulwich Park ? again decision made and a conflicted and predetermined outcome if he is allowed to contribute to any decision. The consultation notifications are flawed and have not reached the roads (residents and businesses) impacted and ?modelled?. Questions around the consultation method and its conduct are unanswered. FOI requests for missing documents have been refused. These are but a few of the facts that can be substantiated but Southwark should look at the entire consultation now. Southwark should understand that it has collapsed as a credible Consultation that can move forward.