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

[Earl Aelfheah]

31 minutes ago, Lebanums said:

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.

Which general-purpose LLM? Because what you say it's provided is not a summary. It's not a synopsis. It's a critique (and sounds a lot like a directed critique). 

You do not ask for a synopsis (a concise, neutral summary) and get an response along the lines of "While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show....".

Edited 2 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah but what about the content of the emails.......which your LLM conveniently omitted....;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Lebanums said:

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

The suggestion that you asked for a synopsis (a concise, neutral summary of the material) and it produced an exclusively negative critique of process, is laughable. Why not be honest about the prompt you used? Is it because you asked for AI to identify misconduct (as this response suggests: "While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show...")? Because again, that's not enquiry, it's confirmation bias.

Edited 2 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Lebanums]

30 minutes ago, Rockets said:

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).

I have my suspicions on who it was from various WhatsApp chats in our street group before this was even raised with the council, a neighbour wrote " How do people feel about the traffic on Ryedale these days? (I remember when it felt like a quiet backwater!). I was chatting to one of our councillors about it last night. He said if it was up to him, he would close off one end. But it's not likely unless it's clear there is a majority asking for it. I wonder if there would be a majority though 🤔"

From herein I will refer to them as dirty ___ the undue influencer

55 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The suggestion that you asked for a synopsis (a concise, neutral summary of the material) and it produced an exclusively negative critique of process, is laughable. Why not be honest about the prompt you used? Is it because you asked for AI to identify misconduct (as this response suggests: "While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show...")? Because again, that's not enquiry, it's confirmation bias.

A synopsis doesn’t mean stripping material of its implications. It means accurately reflecting the substance and themes of the documents.

The FOI correspondence is overwhelmingly concerned with accelerating delivery, bypassing governance, accepting known legal and reputational risks, and managing consultation tactically. A neutral summary of that material will necessarily reflect those features, even if they are uncomfortable.

I did not ask for “AI to identify misconduct”. I asked for a synopsis of the FOI material. The wording you quote (“does not prove misconduct, but does show…”) is explicitly cautious and reflects standard analytical language, not a conclusion.

If you believe the synopsis is inaccurate, the productive approach would be to point to specific parts of the FOI that contradict it. Focusing on the tool or the prompt doesn’t change what the documents themselves say.

[enpointe]

2 hours ago, Lebanums said:

I have my suspicions on who it was from various WhatsApp chats in our street group before this was even raised with the council, a neighbour wrote " How do people feel about the traffic on Ryedale these days? (I remember when it felt like a quiet backwater!). I was chatting to one of our councillors about it last night. He said if it was up to him, he would close off one end. But it's not likely unless it's clear there is a majority asking for it. I wonder if there would be a majority though 🤔"

From herein I will refer to them as dirty ___ the undue influencer

 

As a member of the Ryedale WhatsApp group, I am not entirely uncomfortable with the use of messages between residents from October 2024 being used on a public forum. Interested to hear if you have advised the neighbour that you are using their comment?

Edited 9 minutes ago by enpointe

[Lebanums]

6 minutes ago, enpointe said:

As a member of the Ryedale WhatsApp group, I am not entirely uncomfortable with the use of messages between residents from October 2024 being used on a public forum. Interested to hear if you have advised the neighbour that you are using their comment?

The comment was anonymised and not attributed to any individual. I haven’t contacted the neighbour directly. Thank you for raising the point.