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

[first mate]

You disagree with all the statements in the summary? Please indicate which parts are untrue.

Edited 6 hours ago by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's not a summary. Let's be honest about the premise first.

[first mate]

Earl, which of the statements are untrue?

[Earl Aelfheah]

The statement that this is an objective summary of the information in the FOI is untrue. If we're not going to be straight forward about that, then it's very difficult to have a good faith discussion.

19 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

Above is a genuine summary of the content of the emails. If you want to critique them, let's consider them in their entirety, with the full context, not starting from a dishonest premise.

Edited 5 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

@Earl AelfheahWhich of these statements is untrue?

 

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]

@Earl Aelfheah come on....you are not going to able to distract people from the content within the FOI. This is just desperate now.

It's absolutely damning. You know it. Everyone knows it. You're desperately trying to distract away from the smoking gun left by the council and the way you refuse to acknowledge the content is the most telling, and concerning, part of this.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Oh I see. We're not discussing the full content of the FOI objectively, or even pretending to have an honest debate? OK. here is an AI generated 'synopsis' of the FOI emails. @first mate which of these statements is untrue? (See how easy it is if you don't use an open or objective summary of the whole document as your premise?)

1. Clear Legal Basis and Strong Procedural Compliance

• The documentation explicitly grounds the scheme in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (Sections 6, 9, 94, 122, 124) and the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996, demonstrating a high level of legal awareness and procedural structuring. 
• The report details exactly how ETMOs can be made, their permissible scope, and their time‑limited nature (18 months + possible 6‑month extension), showing officers are working within statutory limits and ensuring transparency.
• Requirements for notices, deposited documents, inspection rights, consultation with statutory consultees, and publication in the London Gazette and Southwark News are all spelled out and planned for—the hallmarks of careful statutory compliance.

---

2. Transparent Documentation and Thorough Policy Alignment

• The reports clearly show alignment with the Streets for People Strategy 2023, including objectives on safety, public realm, active travel, and reduced dependence on car use. This demonstrates that the proposal is linked to democratically adopted policy frameworks.
• The scheme is also explicitly connected to the Climate Change Strategy, including carbon reduction and active travel encouragement—again showing that decisions are anchored to council wide strategic goals. 
• All costs, funding sources, and resource implications are disclosed, including the £15k estimated implementation cost and confirmation that existing Highways budgets will cover it. This represents strong financial transparency. 

---

3. Use of Evidence and Data to Inform Decision-Making

• The inclusion of Automated Traffic Count (ATC) data across multiple local roads (mean speeds, 85th percentiles, AADTs) demonstrates an empirical foundation for understanding traffic patterns and identifying pressures on Ryedale. 
• Officers offer an analysis of how traffic behaves in relation to local junctions, indicating that the proposal is grounded in observed patterns rather than assumptions. 
• Evidence from other Low‑Traffic Neighbourhoods (e.g., safety benefits, modal shift) is referenced to support assessment of likely outcomes, showing use of broader research context.

---

4. Comprehensive Equality Impact and Needs Analysis (EINA)

• The documents include a full Equality Impact and Needs Analysis, aligned with the Public Sector Equality Duty. This ensures decision‑makers are aware of impacts on protected groups and mitigations needed. 
• The EINA explicitly considers socio‑economic aspects, added duties under council policy, and the need to ensure decision‑makers have sufficient information—an indicator of maturity in equality governance.
• Officers concluded that the measures advance equality of opportunity for vulnerable road users (children, elderly, disabled individuals) due to reduced traffic volumes—a positive, proactive equality consideration. 

---

5. Cross‑Departmental Input and Multi‑Disciplinary Engagement

• Multiple teams provided comments or input—Highways, Waste, Legal, Climate, Governance & Assurance, Strategic Resources—showing collaborative governance rather than siloed delivery.
• The Waste department’s detailed operational feedback is explicitly recorded, demonstrating willingness to engage with operational realities and incorporate service impacts into decision‑making.
• The involvement of the Climate Change Director, Strategic Director of Resources, and Governance/Assurance teams demonstrates a high level of organisational oversight.

---

6. Built‑In Monitoring, Proportionality, and Adaptability

• The scheme is experimental, showing a proportionate, “test‑and‑learn” approach. Rather than implementing a permanent change, the council intends to monitor effects and adapt accordingly.
• Officers plan regular traffic counts in the first six months, ensuring continuous feedback to inform decisions on permanence. 
• The ETMO framework enables modifications (within statutory limits), demonstrating institutional openness to refinement.
• Officers explicitly identify potential displacement impacts and propose monitoring adjacent streets—an important indicator of responsible, systemic thinking.

---

7. Structured Governance Pathway with Defined Sign-Offs

• The documents outline a clear pathway: IDM → Delivery Board → Strategic Board → LMB → Cabinet Member approval, showing transparency around internal governance stages.
• Responsibilities are clearly assigned: Cabinet Member decision‑making authority, officer report authorship, and legal/finance sign‑off all appear in the audit trail.
• Detailed timelines (ETMO drafting, publishing notices, implementation periods) are provided, supporting clarity, accountability, and predictability.

---

8. Strong Emphasis on Safety, Accessibility, and Public Health

• The scheme prioritises vulnerable road users and aligns with safety evidence from similar interventions—this is a core statutory consideration under highways and traffic management law.
• The health impact assessment links the proposal to improved air quality, increased physical activity, and reduced noise—consistent with public health obligations. 
• Emergency vehicle and refuse access are retained or considered explicitly, demonstrating awareness of essential services. 

---

Summary

Taken together, the Ryedale ETMO documentation demonstrates numerous governance strengths: a clear statutory basis, transparent documentation, cross‑departmental engagement, equality and health considerations, structured approval pathways, data‑driven analysis, and a proportionate experimental approach with built‑in monitoring and adaptability.

Edited 5 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[EDlifechat]

This is clearly false. 

"The scheme is experimental, showing a proportionate, “test‑and‑learn” approach. Rather than implementing a permanent change, the council intends to monitor effects and adapt accordingly."

The ETO has obviously been used to avoid consulting in advance and so I have zero faith they have any intention of modifying it. You are willfully blind to the obvious procedural failings. If they actually wanted to do the above, they could have limited the initial period to the six months required for the statutory consultation. 

Not to mention the failure to follow  statutory guidance that recommends informal consultation in advance to avoid exactly the issue shown by this thread. 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Oh I see. We're not discussing the full content of the FOI objectively, or even pretending to have an honest debate?

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah you don't seem to be that keen to discuss the content, just argue about which AI summary is more accurate. 

I don't know about anyone else but when I look at the documents within the FOI then @Lebanums AI summary seems far more balanced than yours.

The fact you have the gall to post something to suggest that it demonstrates "numerous governance strengths" when a key excerpt is email traffic suggesting the council avoids it's own internal governance process is beyond laughable. 

You are making yourself look a little bit myopic over this - there is no defence for the way the council has behaved over this.

The FOI materials are beyond damning - one person even withdraws from the process due to the approach being taken - no doubt to protect their own reputation and, possibly, career.

[Penguin68]

13 hours ago, rollflick said:

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.

Out of interest it also, rather tellingly, excludes topography from this map - Camberwell Old Cemetery is built on a hill (the hill that gives our ward its new name) and which means that for the old and/ or infirm the cycling and walking routes up and down this hill pose real barriers, very much lost on this map without contours. If East Dulwich is now to be only the land of the young and the fit - well shame on every councillor who has (possibly unthinkingly) endorsed this.

[Earl Aelfheah]

33 minutes ago, Rockets said:

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah you don't seem to be that keen to discuss the content, just argue about which AI summary is more accurate. 

Nope. One is a summary, one is not (but has been dishonestly portrayed as such). My recent post above, is tongue in cheek - it's an illustration of how one can easily produce a completely biased response through a directed prompt (that one obscures). 

This thread is embarrassing. You've got Lebanums being transparently dishonest about the prompt he's used to produce what he claims is an objective summary of the material in the FOI, but clearly is not, and people who seem to either not understand how prompting works, or simply don't care about what's true, whilst calling for accuracy 🤣.

Edited 2 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Just now, Earl Aelfheah said:

This thread is embarrassing.

The thread is only embarrassing for the council, councillors and those who blindly support them in their active-travel/LTN quest.

It is yet another proof point that what some of us have been saying about the way the council and councillors have been abusing the process may well be true.

[CPR Dave]

3 hours ago, first mate said:

 

 

For those who have read the FOI- does part of the ai summary below seem fair?
 

 

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.

---

Yes, it does.

10 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The thread is only embarrassing for the council, councillors and those who blindly support them in their active-travel/LTN quest.

It is yet another proof point that what some of us have been saying about the way the council and councillors have been abusing the process may well be true.

The Councillors themselves are clearly ashamed of this scheme, wanting it implemented immediately last autumn, in the vain hope that people will have forgotten about it by the time they come up for election in May.

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah you have carefully avoided saying whether you think any of the statements in the document provided by @Lebanums are untrue. Tell us which if any statements are untrue?

[CPR Dave]

It looks like one of the Dulwich Hill councillors will be standing down at the next election. I wonder if they are the same person who was willing to “own the backlash and bad press”.

[EDlifechat]

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the AI summaries, has anyone actually had a substantive response from the council on next steps? Personally I'm fine with them trying to do some traffic calming as long as it's done in the round and with some warning and consultation. Unlike this proposal. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

@Earl Aelfheah you have carefully avoided saying whether you think any of the statements in the document provided by @Lebanums are untrue. Tell us which if any statements are untrue?

The whole framing of Lebanums so called 'synopsis' is dishonest (something you seem unconcerned about). I'm not going to engage with a misrepresentation of the content of the FOI. 

My balanced view of the the actual information contained within the FOI however, is that firstly there is no evidence of conspiracy, but rather robust statutory compliance, and strong alignment to Southwark's publicly declared and democratically mandated policy.

Secondly, they've considered potential displacement impacts, and potential impacts around waste collections - and are instituting a trial, with planned monitoring; This seems to be reasonable and proportionate way to proceed. They've also undertaken equality and health impact assessments, and there is clear cross‑departmental governance in place with transparent reporting.

The absence of informal consultation, and compressed timelines are obviously things they're aware of themselves as being potential areas for criticism. I think it's not ideal, but also, as they're doing this as a trial and in the context of the above), not totally unreasonable. You can tell they're mindful of the FOI / One brigade, who are more interested in wrecking tactics, than genuinely engaging with what works, as amply demonstrated on this thread.

What is clear (and rather depressing) is how a handful of people who post regularly on this section and have a very particular agenda, have given up on any attempt at objectivity, or in some cases, even pretence of good faith debate or honest dialogue.

Edited 17 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

6 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

It looks like one of the Dulwich Hill councillors will be standing down at the next election. I wonder if they are the same person who was willing to “own the backlash and bad press”.

Unfortunately I think the incoming candidate may have to live with the "backlash and bad press" as I suspect assurances by them of the council consulting, reviewing and amending post-election may not hold much weight with the electorate - we have seen this so many times before and we know how this goes. This is likely to erode a lot of trust in Southwark Labour - no matter who the councillor is.

The question really needs to be answered why the rush - it seems to be political suicide to try to rush this out so close to an election and most councillors would want to wait until after the election. Who has been pushing this to be so urgent and why? Is it because they were worried about losing the ward, is it because someone had made a promise to someone/some group about this going in, was it because they had budget and have to get it in this financial year....the rush suggests there is some motivating factor most are not aware of that is driving this.

[CPR Dave]

I think you're right. Residents deserve an explanation as to what is going on.

There is one email that doesn't seem to the have the usual Southwark council sign off that many of the others do which reads: "I am writing to express my concern that the closure of Ryedale (one of Dulwich Hill's agreed ward priority projects) is not yet ready to implement. The autumn really is the latest time that this is feasible, so that the scheme can become established." 

Suggests to me that in part they were hopeful that even the 6 month post implementation consultation would be over before the elections.

Maybe the council have other reasons for the rush. An initial consultation before implementation would have allowed them to explain themselves properly, but they have avoided that for some reason.

I also think there are emails from both councillors in there and you can identify which they are if you look closely.

[Earl Aelfheah]

57 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The question really needs to be answered why the rush - it seems to be political suicide to try to rush this out so close to an election and most councillors would want to wait until after the election. Who has been pushing this to be so urgent and why? Is it because they were worried about losing the ward, is it because someone had made a promise to someone/some group about this going in, was it because they had budget and have to get it in this financial year....the rush suggests there is some motivating factor most are not aware of that is driving this.

 

The emails suggest it's due to the statutory process, the governance timetable, and the need for monitored real‑world data... Delaying implementation would delay the wider traffic strategy, compress the legal modification window (the earlier the scheme can start, the more time there is for monitoring, community feedback, and possible adjustments before the legal modification window closes), and would risk undermining the procedural integrity of the scheme. If you read the whole thing, instead of fake AI summaries, or the bits you think might vindicate the view you've already formed, it's clear what their reasoning is. Whether you agree with their reasoning is then a legitimate point of debate.

Edited 19 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

10 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

one of Dulwich Hill's agreed ward priority projects

Agreed with whom? one wonders.  Not (knowingly) with me, for sure. As an elector in Dulwich Hill. Agreed with someone in Ryedale, one assumes.

[alice]

As I posted much earlier up thread, I wonder if the identity of that someone will be revealed. 

Edited 16 minutes ago by alice