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 6 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 6 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 4 hours 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.

[Rockets]

Was there any indication on the What's App group why the council was in such a rush to get this rolled out? Which councillors were leading the charge to get it deployed?

[enpointe]

15 minutes ago, Lebanums said:

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

But I knew who the comment was made by so it’s not entirely anonymous. I’m not sure they would want thoughts that were shared between neighbours to be used as part of a wider discussion with the community.  Please consider removing. Thanks. 

Edited 4 hours ago by enpointe

[first mate]

I am also keen to understand the tearing hurry. The emails in the FOI keep mentioning things like 'October will be too late'. Too late for what? 

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Was there any indication on the What's App group why the council was in such a rush to get this rolled out? Which councillors were leading the charge to get it deployed?

 

[Lebanums]

3 minutes ago, enpointe said:

But I knew who the comment was made by so it’s not entirely anonymous. I’m not sure they would want thoughts that were shared between neighbours to be used as part of a wider discussion with the community.  Please consider removing. Thanks. 

The relevance of the comment is to understanding the context and tone at the start of the ETO. Whether or not individuals recognise who originally posted it is not material, as no identifying details were shared. There is nothing private about whatsapp that prevents the messages being forwarded, and the comment was included for context rather than attribution.

[CPR Dave]

On 31/01/2026 at 18:08, malumbu said:

He posts the same thing again and again and again.  And again.   And some of you lap it up.  I was replying to a more thoughtful and informed post.  

The irony is strong with this one

[Penguin68]

43 minutes ago, enpointe said:

But I knew who the comment was made by so it’s not entirely anonymous.

I think if you're in the relevant group your knowing isn't an issue as regards confidentiality. Nothing has been breached. If you're not then the question arises as to how you know. If the individual concerned has shared their views outside the group, then, again, no WhatsApp group confidentiality, as to author, can be said to have been breached. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Lebanums said:

A synopsis doesn’t mean stripping material of its implications

A synopsis is a concise neutral summary. If you ask an LLM for a synopsis or a summary of material, it doesn’t critique the actions or motivations of the authors. Your so called synopsis is nothing of the sort. You’re clearly not being honest about the prompt you used.

You want us to believe that you asked for a synopsis and the opening line in the response was: “1. Pre-determination and outcome-driven approach…”?

Embarassing.

Edited 2 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Lebanums]

30 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

A synopsis is a concise neutral summary. If you ask an LLM for a synopsis or a summary of material, it doesn’t critique the actions or motivations of the authors. Your so called synopsis is nothing of the sort. You’re clearly not being honest about the prompt you used.

You want us to believe that you asked for a synopsis and the opening line in the response was: “1. Pre-determination and outcome-driven approach…”?

Embarassing.

It beats me that you are more concerned about a command than the content of the FOI and lack of Council ethics. If you are not prepared to read through it & make your own opinion as I have done then it says more about you than me.

[first mate]

4 hours ago, Lebanums said:

The FOI correspondence is overwhelmingly concerned with accelerating delivery, bypassing governance, accepting known legal and reputational risks, and managing consultation tactically.

This!
 

I would also like to know why the council has been in such a hurry to drive this through?

[CPR Dave]

7 hours ago, Lebanums said:

FOI Response for anyone who is interested.

Wow. There's some fairly shocking correspondence in there. Lots of stuff that demonstrates utter disregard for local residents but these are the worst for me: 

 

"Need to be clear that there will be displacement and there is no plan or resource in place to address this."

 

"Hi all As discussed, I will not be part of this process, due to the issues I have raised with you all on this scheme. Thanks [NAME REDACTED]"

 

"I am concerned this could be unpopular and just before an election..."

 

"If we're really lucky, the consultation results will give the councillors cold feet. This is not the sort of scheme we should be rushing through." 

Followed by

"[NAME REDACTED] understands risks of accelerated delivery and is willing to accept and own backlash and bad press, therefore officers were instructed as follows:- * To not undertake informal consultation or any SfP governance boards"

 

And from the company that manages the waste lorries that will have to circumnavigate this calumny:

"It would more or less double our traffic along Rydale, and I doubt much other heavy traffic goes through there." and "The two one way streets would result in our vehicles having to loop multiple separate times around the block via Forest Hill to be able to complete collections - which includes four separate vehicles (one each for general waste, food waste, garden waste and recyclable waste). That is a huge increase in movements ofa heavy vehicle along quiet residential streets - and each cycle by the individual vehicles would have to be undertaken in fairly rapid succession. This would be a big increase in heavy traffic along Dunstans Road in particular. I'd also be concerned that this prevents an RCV from taking steps to avoid traffic - by forcing it to go right, regardless of conditions, the RCV could end up adding to a logjam heading towards Forest Hill Road - eg if two larger vehicles were trying to move in opposing directions. I understand the general reasons for LTN measures, but apart from the added operational cost of having RCV driving rounds in circles, this seems to make the problem of heavy traffic worse, when I'd assume it is intended to make it better. Is there any context for this - what traffic issues are you aiming to address?"

"

[Lebanums]

1 minute ago, CPR Dave said:

Wow. There's some fairly shocking correspondence in there. Lots of stuff that demonstrates utter disregard for local residents but these are the worst for me: 

 

"Need to be clear that there will be displacement and there is no plan or resource in place to address this."

 

"Hi all As discussed, I will not be part of this process, due to the issues I have raised with you all on this scheme. Thanks [NAME REDACTED]"

 

"I am concerned this could be unpopular and just before an election..."

 

"If we're really lucky, the consultation results will give the councillors cold feet. This is not the sort of scheme we should be rushing through." 

Followed by

"[NAME REDACTED] understands risks of accelerated delivery and is willing to accept and own backlash and bad press, therefore officers were instructed as follows:- * To not undertake informal consultation or any SfP governance boards"

 

And from the company that manages the waste lorries that will have to circumnavigate this calumny:

"It would more or less double our traffic along Rydale, and I doubt much other heavy traffic goes through there." and "The two one way streets would result in our vehicles having to loop multiple separate times around the block via Forest Hill to be able to complete collections - which includes four separate vehicles (one each for general waste, food waste, garden waste and recyclable waste). That is a huge increase in movements ofa heavy vehicle along quiet residential streets - and each cycle by the individual vehicles would have to be undertaken in fairly rapid succession. This would be a big increase in heavy traffic along Dunstans Road in particular. I'd also be concerned that this prevents an RCV from taking steps to avoid traffic - by forcing it to go right, regardless of conditions, the RCV could end up adding to a logjam heading towards Forest Hill Road - eg if two larger vehicles were trying to move in opposing directions. I understand the general reasons for LTN measures, but apart from the added operational cost of having RCV driving rounds in circles, this seems to make the problem of heavy traffic worse, when I'd assume it is intended to make it better. Is there any context for this - what traffic issues are you aiming to address?"

"

Indeed, the content speaks for itself. The initial complaint was speeding and the majority came to the conclusion (in the unofficial questionnaire) that full carriage length speed bumps would be sufficient.

[CPR Dave]

Yes - these are further excerpts from another email. The whole exchange totally undermines any confidence residents might have in the trustworthiness of local councillors. 

 

"This is being championed by the ward councillors at the request of some residents of Ryedale, in response to perceived issues with speeding (however, it should be noted that average speeds on Ryedale were recorded as 18.7mph in April this year). This proposal will likely have a knock-on effect on Dunstan's Road and St Aidan's Road. Before we proceed with an experimental order, we were advised that it would be best to carry out informal consultation in the area to gauge the actual appetite for these changes. Another issue to consider is that the introduction of a modal filter will also require a turning head. Vehicle tracking (attached) has shown that any vehicle larger than a 4.6t light van will be unable to turn in the available carriageway (a 4.6t van would actually overhang the footway while turning), therefore anything larger than this (e.g. a scaffold lorry) would be left with a 170m reversing manoeuvre to exit the road. Advance warning signs are proposed to mitigate this issue. This will also need to go through the SfP Technical, Comms, Delivery and Strategic boards and LMB before we can implement it. I would recommend that we carry out an informal consultation before implementing this as an Experimental order, as it is likely to be a contentious scheme, with not much evidence to justify it.

[Rockets]

This is really bad for Southwark Labour. It is an utter disgrace. Some of them are abusing the powers given to them with the office they hold.

[rollflick]

"not currently a priority...[that is] a priority commitment for this year. We will try to do our best"

Southwark's deepening dysfunction really shines through! That said, this is hardly new, in 2019 TfL derided the borough for not being able to prioritise nor having adequate governance in place.

But isn't the biggest issue here is how Southwark is not planning traffic management holistically across areas, joining up thinking about its wider commitments like routes for buses, walking and cycling, let alone its targets to cut car use? Instead we see a street by street tussle around various acronyms (DHB=devolved highways budget), while most of the big pledges fall by the kerbside. It's three year's now since its Streets for People strategy made bold promises, then last January:

"The Streets for People delivery plan follows on from the strategy and outlines what we will do from 2025 to 2030. It sets out to deliver the things you asked for, transforming streets and communities, improving walking and cycling routes and changing road layouts to improve bus journey times." 

Attached is the ward map for the Streets for People delivery plan. I'm all for trying new layouts etc. out but am struggling to see the sense of this or how this scheme aligns with that? Surely the priority should be cutting motor traffic on Underhill Road to help the P13 plus walking and cycling, then cutting traffic on Dunstan's Road, which is also an active travel route.

Edited 38 minutes ago by rollflick
typo

[malumbu]

@rollflickHow would you cut traffic on Underhill?  Genuine question.  I've asked this of some of the more prolific posters objecting to measures introduced by local authorities and cross London but it seems to be easier to object, rather than come up with some constructive proposals.  I'm not inferring any criticism of you.

I'm all for reducing car journeys through more efficient use of vehicles (the no brainer is lift sharing/higher vehicle occupancy), use of public transport and active travel.  But driving for many is such a difficult habit to break, and there are those that agree that we should do more to cut carbon emissions and pollution, as soon as they are personally affected then it is a different story.

I believe this is called attitude-behavior gap, a form of cognitive dissonance.