Ryedale SE22 - Proposal to block end of Ryedale at junction of Underhill Road - January 2026

[Angelina]

😶

Edited 23 hours ago by Angelina

[Insuflo]

6 hours ago, Tori Griffiths said:

I am standing for Labour in Dulwich Hill in the local elections. I will be pushing for a wider consultation as soon as is reasonably possible, which I would imagine starts at the 6-month mark. If, following a fully accessible and robust consultation, this change isn’t landing well for the majority of residents, then I will push for it not to be permanent. 

Good luck with your campaign, Tori. I am a Dulwich Hill voter and a Labour voter for decades.

However, for the first time my vote may go to the Greens. I will be looking for a clear commitment to action to reduce car use and prioritise pedestrians, from whichever candidate I support. Southwark Labour’s laudable efforts in this regard have been the main reason for Labour keeping my vote in the recent past.

I support the trial closure of Ryedale, which I use frequently as a pedestrian. There are no cogent arguments against the trial save for the usual yap from a martyrdom seeking motoring minority.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, alice said:

another amazing post. almost unbelievable.

Amazing isnt it...someone who earlier purported to not even know what LTN stood for suddenly appears to be an expert on peer-reviewed documents from cycle lobbyists! 😉

P.S. has anyone seen anything of @Moondoox recently? There do seem to be a few first time posters trying to throw their weight behind the council's plans....hmmmm

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Once experimental traffic orders are imposed they tend not to be reversed. The council take little if any notice of local consultation results and tend to push ahead with their agenda. 

Absolutely spot on and whilst @Tori Griffiths may be throwing a vote for me and we will do a consultation line there is very little evidence that Southwark Labour will ever listen to the view of residents. Their motto is something along the lines of "never let the views of local residents get in the way of an active travel intervention that the lobbyists asked us to do".

1 hour ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

Does research show that traffic on neighbouring roads is improved, not worsened, by these measures? Yes.

Seemingly only data analysed by activist researchers (one of who was an LCC employee, the other who is an LTN poster vandal and an active and leading member of the West Dulwich LTN campaign group - her husband runs it apparently) makes these claims...I mean the council's own limited data showed a 6% increase in traffic on Underhill after the Dulwich LTNs went in....but hey ho...

1 hour ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

If someone can find a credible, peer reviewed study that says something different then please share it.

Unfortunately TFL and the Mayor's office don't tend to fund research that shows its interventions are not working.

[Lebanums]

What was interesting from the data count from the FOI is, those streets that had speed cushions instead of full length speed bumps had both more traffic and a higher % of cars speeding. Also when speaking with people whilst gaining signatures for the petition, we agree that some measures need to be in place to stop speeding but the current solution which is also the cheapest is not it. 

On 14/01/2026 at 12:44, Rockets said:

Which is all a bit bizarre as they seemingly made the decision based on a non-council approved "petition". They're a bit contradictory aren't they?

Is this on the Southwark petition website?

It was a door to door signature. There was another petition online that took it to 339 signatures.

Edited 19 hours ago by Lebanums
Correction

[MaryT]

CT-R has just sent me the full FOI documents (sorry, that’s Freedom of Information Request, for the uninitiated). I’m so angry, I can barely speak! It’s blatant that pressure was applied to internal departments to wave this through and that they were actively instructed to forego informal consultations stages. Apparently the Council Leader and/or others (names retracted of course) were keen to bulldoze this through without reference to those of us who actually live here and pay council tax and to ‘priortize’ it over other schemes, at haste. Rather than follow transparent processes, they went to the Council’s legal team to see how they could impose this with minimal public scrutiny and how exposed they might be if they did so. Having been told that they were treading a thin line, legally, they decided to do it anyway, presumably assuming  we unwashed locals would be too stupid or apathetic to notice. I’m raging! I want to know which of our elected politicians thought that was an appropriate exercise of their public office! I’m sending the FOI response to our local Councillors and Ellie Reeves and to demand ‘WTF?!’. Unbelievable!

[CT_R]

8 hours ago, Lebanums said:

What was interesting from the data count from the FOI is, those streets that had speed cushions instead of full length speed bumps had both more traffic and a higher % of cars speeding. Also when speaking with people whilst gaining signatures for the petition, we agree that some measures need to be in place to stop speeding but the current solution which is also the cheapest is not it. 

It was a door to door signature. There was another petition online that took it to 339 signatures.

There is this ‘survey’’  that started the discussions (the one with the council member suggesting the cheapest, not the best option)

then of course once the order was issued (after a dubious Council process) there was the walk around and online ones with overwhelming views against the traffic order.

Edited 12 hours ago by CT_R

[Rockets]

12 hours ago, Lebanums said:

It was a door to door signature. There was another petition online that took it to 339 signatures.

Some who did a door-to-door signature petition to the council in relation to the Dulwich Village LTNs were told it could not be considered as it was not an official council petition and the council have not proof the folks hadn't made it all up.

Was the online one on the Southwark council petition site?

 

3 hours ago, CT_R said:

There is this ‘survey’’  that started the discussions (the one with the council member suggesting the cheapest, not the best option)

Is that a resident-led survey - it cannot be a council one as the asterisk's in the notes are way too leading for that to have been allowed on a council document. If it is a resident-led survey then this is why the council, has previously, said they cannot be counted because clearly those doing the survey know the outcome they want when they wrote the survey and its validity and legitimacy can be questioned.

10 hours ago, MaryT said:

CT-R has just sent me the full FOI documents (sorry, that’s Freedom of Information Request, for the uninitiated). I’m so angry, I can barely speak! It’s blatant that pressure was applied to internal departments to wave this through and that they were actively instructed to forego informal consultations stages.

Could someone share the FOI documents, or a summary, here? 

10 hours ago, MaryT said:

Rather than follow transparent processes, they went to the Council’s legal team to see how they could impose this with minimal public scrutiny and how exposed they might be if they did so. Having been told that they were treading a thin line, legally, they decided to do it anyway, presumably assuming  we unwashed locals would be too stupid or apathetic to notice. I’m raging! I want to know which of our elected politicians thought that was an appropriate exercise of their public office! I’m sending the FOI response to our local Councillors and Ellie Reeves and to demand ‘WTF?!’. Unbelievable!

Unfortunately, this is how Southwark labour treat their constituents - clearly someone wanted to get this in very quickly and I am sure the real reason why will come out in the wash. With local elections around the corner this may be a step too far for some but is very reflective of the way our elected officials treat the process and people around anything to do with active travel.

Clearly someone was desperate to get this in play as a matter of urgently and someone needs to explain why the council was trying to circumvent its own internal procedures. And if there are FOI documents asking the Southwark legal team about exposure from the approach they are taking, clearly someone knew they were trying to bend/break the rules and not follow the process.

Perhaps @Tori Griffiths can do some digging?

Edited 8 hours ago by Rockets

[East Dulwich Friend]

17 hours ago, first mate said:

Forget London-wide statistics, what matters is evidence for and against local interventions.

Once experimental traffic orders are imposed they tend not to be reversed. The council take little if any notice of local consultation results and tend to push ahead with their agenda. 

What is your evidence that negative messages are coming from people who don't live locally and have their own agendas?

A number of people here, by their own admission, including some of the loudest voices, don’t actually live in this area. If you don’t live on Rydale, Underhill, Dunstans, Cornflower, Balchier or St Aidans Road, I’d kindly ask you to give some space to the people who do. When pages get filled with antagonistic back-and-forth tied to a specific agenda, it makes it harder for actual residents to have a constructive discussion.

On the topic of “biased research”: I work in academia, in a different field, but the research and peer-review process is similar. I’ve spent the last few days reading up on LTNs. The studies people call biased mostly rely on real-world measurements like traffic counts, air quality sensors, and accident data, not opinions or politics.

People can argue about interpretation, but similar patterns show up across different cities, with different researchers, and in repeated studies. Traffic inside LTNs tends to drop, walking and cycling often increase, and road injuries often fall. The methods are transparent and the results are replicable.

So the issue isn’t whether research is “for” or “against” LTNs. It’s about looking at what the data show and how schemes can be designed to work well for residents.

As an academic, I fully support scrutiny of research. If anyone has credible, peer-reviewed studies that strongly contradict these findings, please share them. That’s how good debate works. But claiming that all peer-reviewed evidence is part of a coordinated agenda doesn’t reflect how peer review works. Reviewers are independent and their role is to find flaws, not promote policies. The idea that large numbers of unrelated reviewers are all colluding isn’t realistic and doesn’t help the discussion.

Let’s keep the conversation grounded in evidence and focused on what works best for the people who live here.

[Lebanums]

30 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

A number of people here, by their own admission, including some of the loudest voices, don’t actually live in this area. If you don’t live on Rydale, Underhill, Dunstans, Cornflower, Balchier or St Aidans Road, I’d kindly ask you to give some space to the people who do. When pages get filled with antagonistic back-and-forth tied to a specific agenda, it makes it harder for actual residents to have a constructive discussion.

On the topic of “biased research”: I work in academia, in a different field, but the research and peer-review process is similar. I’ve spent the last few days reading up on LTNs. The studies people call biased mostly rely on real-world measurements like traffic counts, air quality sensors, and accident data, not opinions or politics.

People can argue about interpretation, but similar patterns show up across different cities, with different researchers, and in repeated studies. Traffic inside LTNs tends to drop, walking and cycling often increase, and road injuries often fall. The methods are transparent and the results are replicable.

So the issue isn’t whether research is “for” or “against” LTNs. It’s about looking at what the data show and how schemes can be designed to work well for residents.

As an academic, I fully support scrutiny of research. If anyone has credible, peer-reviewed studies that strongly contradict these findings, please share them. That’s how good debate works. But claiming that all peer-reviewed evidence is part of a coordinated agenda doesn’t reflect how peer review works. Reviewers are independent and their role is to find flaws, not promote policies. The idea that large numbers of unrelated reviewers are all colluding isn’t realistic and doesn’t help the discussion.

Let’s keep the conversation grounded in evidence and focused on what works best for the people who live here.

If full thought had gone into why there is additional traffic then we would be better placed but one standard cookie cutter reaction does not fit all.. The data count on this occasion is showing that the heavier traffic and higher % of speeding is on those streets with speed cushions (that even a mini can avoid) and not full carriage way speed bumps as per the others measured. If there is opportunity to avoid speed bumps then it will surely be the preferred route.

[Rockets]

28 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

A number of people here, by their own admission, including some of the loudest voices, don’t actually live in this area.

To be fair, we don't actually know you do - we will just have to take your word for it. 

But your posting history does arose suspicions....

All we have to go on is that you registered on the forum recently, have only posted about your support for the Ryedale LTN, yet claimed to not know what an LTN is, yet when you do start decide to start repeating activist research on how "good" LTNs are, you then claim to be an academic yourself and have experience of peer-reviewed research yet you apply results from said activist research as an example of what the Ryedale LTN will do yet have not acknowledged that the Ryedale LTN is very, very different from what the research surveyed - you're basically taking research for apples and applying it to pears and I am not sure that's sound academia.

35 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

If anyone has credible, peer-reviewed studies that strongly contradict these findings, please share them.

Has TFL ever funded any studies not by Aldred, Goodman et al......? Perhaps it might be a good time for them to start- oh sorry they can't can they as the multi-million pound pot for it was all given to them.....;-)

Bottom-line remains that those who have fast-tracked this through, seemingly trying to by-pass proper process and scrutiny, have a lot of questions to answer.

 

[Lebanums]

FOI Response for anyone who is interested.

[Earl Aelfheah]

45 minutes ago, Lebanums said:

FOI Response for anyone who is interested.

An objective summary of the email correspondence (created by Copilot), for those not interesting in wading through all of it, or just looking to cherry pick bits that may fit a prejudice [prompt was: "Please give a brief summary of the contents of the attached file" (I uploaded the FOI file)]: 

Summary of the Attached Files

The document is a comprehensive technical and policy pack concerning a proposed Experimental Traffic Management Order (ETMO) for Ryedale, in the London Borough of Southwark. It combines drawings, analysis, equality assessments, consultation notes, and a full cabinet‑member decision report.

---

1. Engineering Drawings and Design Information

The file includes several AutoCAD‑generated plans, maps, and swept‑path analyses showing:

• Proposed modal filter on Ryedale.
• Associated planters, bollards, and traffic signs.
• Proposed one‑way systems on Balchier Road and Cornflower Terrace.
• Master plan and technical layout drawings.
• Swept path analysis for various vehicle types (cars, vans, refuse vehicles).

These illustrate the physical layout and operational design of the scheme.

---

2. Experimental Traffic Measures Proposed

The scheme intends to prohibit through‑traffic on Ryedale by installing:

• A modal filter between Underhill Road and Balchier Road.
• One‑way directions with right‑turn‑only restrictions on Balchier Road and Cornflower Terrace.
• Physical barriers (planters, bollards).

Purpose: to reduce excessive traffic volumes and improve safety.

---

3. Data and Traffic Analysis

The file contains Automated Traffic Count (ATC) results from April 2025 showing:

• Ryedale has significantly higher daily traffic volumes (~1000 vehicles each direction) than neighbouring roads.
• Traffic is believed to be using Ryedale as a rat‑run to avoid signals on Dunstans Road.
• No recent collision history; speeds not considered a primary issue.

A pros/cons assessment is also included, highlighting potential displacement to neighbouring streets.

---

4. Equality Impact and Needs Analysis (EINA)

The document includes a full EINA covering:

• Compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.
• Expected impacts on protected groups (none deemed negative).
• Positive impacts for vulnerable road users (children, elderly, disabled people).
• Consideration of socio‑economic and health effects.

---

5. Cabinet Member Report (Decision Document)

A 12‑page formal report summarises:

• Background to resident concerns reported since March 2025.
• Rationale for selecting an experimental approach.
• Policy alignment with Streets for People, Climate Action Plan, and safety objectives.
• Resource and legal implications (ETMO under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984).
• Timeline for implementation (ETMO drafting Dec 2025 → Implementation Jan/Mar 2026).

---

6. Waste Services Concerns

The waste and recycling service provided detailed feedback, warning that:

• The changes could increase heavy vehicle movements, especially refuse trucks.
• The proposed design may significantly complicate collection routes.
• Alternative design suggestions (e.g., ANPR filter with exemptions) were proposed.

---

7. Risks and Consultation Requirements

The report highlights:

• Risks of insufficient informal consultation.
• Potential resident objections.
• Risk of increased speeds (suggested mitigation: sinusoidal humps).
• Need for statutory consultation per the 1996 Regulations.

---

8. Appendices

• Appendix 1: Outline design drawings.
• Appendix 2: Full Equality Impact and Needs Analysis.
• Process map for the ETMO stages.

---

In Summary

The document brings together all technical, legal, policy, equality, and procedural evidence required to support an experimental road closure (modal filter) on Ryedale. It documents the justification, expected impacts, traffic data, formal decision process, and next steps toward implementation.

Edited 5 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah
clarify prompt used

[Lebanums]

Here's what co-pilot omitted

1. Pre-determination and outcome-driven approach

The emails show that the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) was treated internally as a priority scheme with a predetermined outcome, rather than an open options-based process. Officers and senior figures discussed how to achieve implementation quickly, rather than whether the scheme should proceed.

There is repeated emphasis on:

• Speed of delivery

• Avoiding delay until after elections

• Managing reputational risk rather than addressing substantive objections

This gives the appearance that process was shaped around a desired result, not the other way around.

---

2. Explicit discussion of bypassing governance

Several emails explicitly reference:

• Bypassing or streamlining normal governance

• Avoiding informal consultation and governance boards

• Fast-tracking through IDM/LMB with concurrent sign-offs

• Drafting and mobilising the ETO during the call-in period

This is important: it shows awareness that normal safeguards existed, and a conscious decision to circumvent them to meet a January implementation date.

---

3. Known risks acknowledged internally

The FOI clearly shows that officers and councillors:

• Anticipated resident backlash and bad press

• Recognised a risk that legal justification might not be sufficient

• Acknowledged traffic displacement and volume concerns

• Understood the reputational parallels with unpopular 2020 ETMOs

Despite this, the scheme was progressed on the basis that senior figures were:

“willing to accept and own backlash and bad press”

This is significant because it demonstrates that risks were known, documented, and accepted, not unforeseen.

---

4. Internal disagreement and warnings ignored

At least one council officer:

• Withdrew from the process entirely

• Explicitly cited issues they had raised with the scheme

• Warned of reputational risk and governance concerns

Others recommended informal consultation specifically to mitigate those risks — advice that appears to have been overridden or side-lined.

This supports an argument that professional concerns were raised but not acted upon.

---

5. Consultation treated as tactical, not substantive

Where consultation is mentioned, it is framed as:

• A reputational safeguard

• A way to potentially slow or derail the scheme politically

• Something to give councillors “cold feet” rather than to shape policy

This undermines the credibility of any claim that consultation was intended to be meaningful or influential.

---

6. Weak evidential basis

The documentation:

• Acknowledges risk that legal justification may not be met

• Does not demonstrate a clear causal link between the measures proposed and the outcomes claimed

This matters for public law fairness, proportionality, and rationality.

---

7. Concentration of influence

While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show:

• A small number of elected members driving urgency and direction

• Officers framing decisions around political priority

• Escalation being discouraged once senior backing was confirmed

This creates a reasonable perception of undue influence, particularly when combined with:

• Lack of consultation

• Accelerated governance

• Acceptance of known risks

[Rockets]

Ha ha, looks like @Earl Aelfheah got some, ahem, AI hallucination thrown in to their summary....

[alice]

The whole thing is pitiful

[Earl Aelfheah]

The summary I provided is the result of the following prompt: "Please give a brief summary of the contents of the attached file" (I uploaded the FOI file). It is an objective summary, with no agenda. Anyone can try it themselves if they doubt this.

What prompt have you used to get that output @Lebanums? Because it was almost certainly leading in some way.

And this is the problem with FOI as fishing expedition - if you set out to trawl hundreds of pages of documents and private emails looking for something to feed a prejudice (or ask AI to do it), then you will well feel 'vindicated' in your suspicions. But it's cherry picking and confirmation bias, not enquiry.

Edited 5 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

8 minutes ago, alice said:

The whole thing is pitiful

It is. Southwark Labour are treating residents with utter contempt. They have been doing it for years over LTNs and clearly thought they could get away with it again. This is what happens when organisations get away with abusing their power - they keep doing it.

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Because it almost certainly introduced bias.

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah I saw your summary and then opened one of the documents (emails and other reports pdf) and saw far more aligned with @Lebanums summary than yours - did you not upload that file? That's where the juicy staff is! It may also have struggled as so much of it is redacted.

Edited 5 hours ago by Rockets

[Lebanums]

48 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The summary I provided is the result of the following prompt: "Please give a brief summary of the contents of the attached file" (I uploaded the FOI file). It is an objective summary, with no agenda. Anyone can try it themselves if they doubt this.

What prompt have you used to get that output @Lebanums? Because it was almost certainly leading in some way.

And this is the problem with FOI as fishing expedition - if you set out to trawl hundreds of pages of documents and private emails looking for something to feed a prejudice (or ask AI to do it), then you will well feel 'vindicated' in your suspicions. But it's cherry picking and confirmation bias, not enquiry.

I used our internal business application to give me a synopsis of the file. Compliance is also part of my role so I understand the necessity on non bias but also the importance of process. Please have a full read through and I'm sure you will have a different opinion.

Edited 4 hours ago by Lebanums

[Earl Aelfheah]

24 minutes ago, Lebanums said:

I used our internal business application to give me a synopsis of the file.

Using what prompt or prompts?

[Lebanums]

37 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Using what prompt or prompts?

Here's what I asked "attached is an ETO FOI excluding data traffic counts. Scan it and give me a synopsis?"

Edited 3 hours ago by Lebanums

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And this is the problem with FOI as fishing expedition - if you set out to trawl hundreds of pages of documents and private emails looking for something to feed a prejudice (or ask AI to do it), then you will well feel 'vindicated' in your suspicions. But it's cherry picking and confirmation bias, not enquiry.

But @Earl Aelfheah if there were suspicions then they have been vindicated not by the search itself but by the content of the emails - the content is there for all to see - surely you can acknowledge that.

The smoking gun is not from the muzzle of those sending the FOI but those who wrote the emails.

Surely you must acknowledge that something odd is going on when you read @Lebanums summary? I mean this is a potential PR disaster for the council and the councillors seeking election. Can anyone trust Southwark Labour anymore?

Everything many of us feared regarding the way councils treat these processes and their constituents is being realised right now. Surely even you cannot defend the council this time round?

 

[Lebanums]

What I find particularly difficult to reconcile is the apparent normalisation, within the disclosed correspondence, of behaviour that would be considered unacceptable in most professional environments. The casual discussion of bypassing governance, accepting known risks, and proceeding regardless of legal or reputational concern sits uneasily with the standards of accountability that residents are entitled to expect. In any other workplace, such conduct would be challenged immediately rather than treated as routine.

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Lebanums said:

Here's what I asked "attached is an ETO FOI excluding data traffic counts. Scan it and give me a synopsis?"

This makes no sense. What is provided is not a synopsis, it's a critique. Are you honestly suggesting that you asked for a neutral synopsis and it returned things like "While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show....".  🤔

What prompt did you use and what LLM are you using?

Edited 2 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Lebanums]

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This makes no sense. What is provided is not a synopsis, it's a critique. Are you honestly suggesting that you asked for a neutral synopsis and said things like "While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show....".  🤔

What prompt did you use and what LLM are you using?

I used a general-purpose large language model as an aid to summarising and structuring the material. The summary is derived directly from the FOI disclosures, which remain the primary source. 

If you disagree with the synopsis, I’d welcome comments on any specific point that you believe is inaccurate when compared to the FOI material.

I’m happy to discuss the substance of the FOI material, but I don’t think debating tools is helpful. Anyone is free to read the documents and draw their own conclusions.

Edited 3 hours ago by Lebanums

[Rockets]

32 minutes ago, Lebanums said:

What I find particularly difficult to reconcile is the apparent normalisation, within the disclosed correspondence, of behaviour that would be considered unacceptable in most professional environments. The casual discussion of bypassing governance, accepting known risks, and proceeding regardless of legal or reputational concern sits uneasily with the standards of accountability that residents are entitled to expect. In any other workplace, such conduct would be challenged immediately rather than treated as routine.

Spot on. I would love to know who was asking whether they could by-pass internal governance processes, which in my company, would be reason enough to report someone to internal governance.

And they are ignoring all the advice they are given - look at this on the two one-way street ideas about large vehicle movements (like bin lorries).