Jump to content

Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale


Recommended Posts



Of course he will. It's the politicians who make the final decisions - or at least I hope that they do because they're accountable for the actions taken by the Council.


BTW which body will be making the final decision on this scheme? Presumably something as important as this is at least going to a Committee. If not, why not?

Hi ZT,

The final decision for this will be taken by the Cabinet member/councillor with responsibility for Transport.

I asked and it has been agreed the scheme will be presented at the 28 January Dulwich Community Council which can make recommendations which hopefully the cabinet councillor will follow.


Why?

Because this is the constitution for Southwark Council that the Labour party have passed. As an opposition councillor the constitution we have isn't the one I would wish for. But that debate is for another day.



James, if the Cabinet Councillor does not follow the Community Council recommendation, is he/she required to give reasons for failing to follow the recommendation? This would be analogous to a Planning Committee that refuses planning permission against officer advice giving full reasons for its decision. Surely transparency is paramount in such cases.


Will the report that is going to the Community Committee be made available at or before 28 January and will it be available on line?

Hi ZT,

Yes that would be normal. A cabinet members decision can also be called in to Overview and Scurtiny Committee. But it would need a reason such as contrary to other policies, etc.


Yes the report will be available at least a week in advance of the Dulwich Community Council.


And I've just had confirmation that the DCC meeting will be held at Herne Hill Baptists Church, Half Moon Lane, SE24 9HU http://www.hernehillbaptistchurch.org/

Corner of Half Moon Lane with Winterbrook Road

Someone just pointed out to me that sometime yesterday (the last day of the "extended" consultation) Southwark sneaked out some new documents on the Web Site. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4031/townley_road-_frequently_asked_questions


The Main document, dated 18 Dec, is headed "Frequently Asked Questions" but it really sets out the objectives (rather different from previously set out) justifications for the council scheme that they wish to bulldoze through and then an assessment of the effects of the scheme based on a rushed traffic survey. It has clearly been put together in a hurry without being properly checked (look at spelling of Carton, sorry Calton, sorry CARLTON avenue) and I assume it is a rushed attempt to address the well founded criticism of this process.


There are no dates on the traffic maps and no description of the methodology used. No LINSIG traffic modelling.


A few key points on these so called FAQ's

- They conclude that the displaced traffic will rat-run through streets such as Gilkes, Dovercourt, Melbourne, Woodwarde etc but don't think it matters

- A "paramount" objective is to reduce or remove potential conflict with the increased number of cyclists on the proposed Waterloo-Crystal Palace Quietway. (ie nothing to do with local issues at all! and obviously no indication of expected numbers,detailed plans, effect on previous modelling etc)

- Removing traffic from the junction, (even though it rat runs through smaller residential streets)

- Key "local interest groups" involved in this scheme are Dulwich Society, Southwark Cyclists (given they only have 10 active members for the whole of Southwark they cant have that many in Dulwich?) and Dulwich\Herne Hill Safe Routes to School. No mention of local residents associations etc.


I have been arguing for rational improvements to the junction based on logic and evidence. I have responded to the consultation in detail pointing out the flaws in the studies and conclusions. I have been wasting my time.


The Council and the pressure groups have drawn up the scheme based round a banned right turn and then selectively chosen evidence to support their choice. To avoid scrutiny and discussion they have released documents only after considerable pressure, as late as possible and, in the case of this "FAQ", without publicity.


This is a disgrace.


When I have time I will go through the FAQ's in detail but is there any point? It seems the politicians will be making a decision on the scheme they wanted in the first place. To paraphrase Ian Hislop, if this is democracy I am a banana.


If you are concerned about the scheme then I encourage you to lobby your local councillors, express your concerns and ask whether they support or oppose the right turn ban.


Members of the Dulwich Society should contact the committee for their opinion and what they contributed to preparing the scheme. I can remember no mention of this in the last 2 magazines.

The officers sit in a room with a red pencil and draw lines on a map.


Post a piece of paper on a lamp post and hope no one noticed what is happening


Local pressure groups badger Cllrs and the thing gets passed.


Most locals have no idea it happens.


Join a local green or cycling pressure group and find out.



Any thoughts on my comment made earlier on 11th December. Not surprised

Sorry, slarti. I should have thanked you as well.


Looking on the positive side, maybe the decision makers at Southwark will think again, once they have seen the strength of opposition to the right hand turn ban proposal.

  • 2 weeks later...



The new Q&A document added on the final day of the consultation, changes tack.


The original consultation framed it: Local stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians and cyclists at this junction, particularly during morning and evening peak hours. Pedestrians have been observed to cross the junction diagonally (not using the staggered crossing facilities due to excessive waiting times) and conflict has been experienced between cyclists using the junction and traffic turning right out of Townley Road. The key aim of the proposals is to significantly improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians at the junction, whilst ensuring that there is no adverse delay to traffic on East Dulwich Grove.


Following pressure for the evidence to be published, which showed two minor incidents in the past 5 years, the new Q&A document posted on the final day (19th) of the consultation introduced the following:


The need to safely cater for anticipated future significant increase in cyclist

numbers going through the junction between Townley Road and Greendale on the

established cycle route that is to become a ?Quietway?.


It seems that Councillor Mark Williams has encompassed this in the Cycling Strategy which you can listen to on the link: (listen to minutes 27-30 for the East Dulwich Grove statement). This was a presentation to the Southwark Oversight and Scrutiny Committee on the 10th Nov - well before the Townley Consultation was released. What was the reason for this to go on to YouTube; there does not seem to be anything else from the Oversight Committee on YouTube.




Be aware that while we focus on Townley, the Cycling Strategy is also out for consultation until the 1st Feb.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy/3623/cycling_strategy

And to entice you - a chance to win ?100. And don't worry about the 500 character limitation - this is lengthy questionnaire for you to answer.


This Townley consultation is far from transparent and there is no clarity on the process for the consultation nor any sense that its impact on the community is going to be taken into consideration.


Has anyone conducted an FOI request?

Hi Charles Notice,

Local councillors are typically asked about the counsultation area for such schemes after an initial suggestion from council officials.


Hi hopskip,

Yes, we need lots of feedback about the Cycling Strategy.

slarti b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> - Removing traffic from the junction, (even though

> it rat runs through smaller residential streets)

> - Key "local interest groups" involved in this

> scheme are Dulwich Society, Southwark Cyclists

> (given they only have 10 active members for the

> whole of Southwark they cant have that many in

> Dulwich?) and Dulwich\Herne Hill Safe Routes to

> School. No mention of local residents

> associations etc.

>

> I have been arguing for rational improvements to

> the junction based on logic and evidence. I have

> responded to the consultation in detail pointing

> out the flaws in the studies and conclusions. I

> have been wasting my time.

>

> The Council and the pressure groups have drawn up

> the scheme based round a banned right turn and

> then selectively chosen evidence to support their

> choice. To avoid scrutiny and discussion they have

> released documents only after considerable

> pressure, as late as possible and, in the case of

> this "FAQ", without publicity.

>

> This is a disgrace.

>

Thankyou SlartiB,


Your post sums up my issues with this ill-considered proposal nicely.

And from South London Press 24th Dec (A Turn for the Worse)

http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=19323&headline=A%20TURN%20FOR%20THE%20WORSE, it seems that that Councillor Mark Williams is indeed fixed in his views and that the man's NOT for turning :-). So perhaps he is saying that the decision has been made regardless of the Consultation. Why is that when there are other preferred alternatives?


"Councillor Mark Williams, Southwark's cabinet member for regeneration, planning and transport, said: "It is vital that we bring forward safety improvements for this junction that sits between two schools. To create the safe space and enough time for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, our proposals include removing the right turn at Townley Road.


"We want to hear what local residents, businesses and parents think about these proposals to improve safety at this junction.


"The 'no right turn' measure is an integral part of making the proposals work.


"We will review all the responses before making a final decision early next year."


East Dulwich ward councillor James Barber said: "If motorists can't take the most direct route, they will go elsewhere and be on the streets for longer and that will make roads more dangerous than they are now.


"Improvements to this junction are long overdue, but it is unnecessary to ban this turn. These proposals will not carry public support. All of the other changes are fantastic."

If I'm correct, Cllr Mark Williams is the person who will be making the final decision on the proposals on behalf of the Council. And if he is really saying that the "no right turn" measure is an integral part of the proposals and then makes his final decision on this basis, arguably he has fettered his discretion before he has even considered the representations against the "no right turn" measure - this would be challengeable legally.


Perhaps James B could point this out to him.

Did anyone receive any reply from the Village Ward councillors? I emailed all three of them separately about these proposals in mid November but have heard nothing except an automated out of the office reply from one.
Arguably Village Ward residents are potentially more affected by the proposals than anyone else. The cynic in me realises that Village Ward Councillors don't have to face the electorate for over three years. However, it would be courtesy (if nothing else) if they were to take note of the concerns of their constituents.

Hi ZT,

You could always point this out to him and the councils monitoring officer Doreen Forrester-Brown asking them to confirm the decision making process considering such fettered comments.


Hi Jennys,

Write a letter to a local newspaper asking them - you'll get a response then!

http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/3261-high-standards-of-behaviour


ZT - this link is of possible interest.


High standards of behaviour

Details Created on 13 November 2013 .


Last week's issue of Southwark News carried a piece which was easily the most surreal article to date.

The Southwark News reported that, since 2010, there have been 30 complaints against local councillors, adding Southwark got more complaints than any other London borough..............................

...and of the 30 complaints only 2 were upheld and of those 1 was for talking about information already in the public domain. The other I believe one was about me freaking out and escalating a concern to the wrong person after having my fears ignored.
I am coming late to this thread, but just want add in yet another voice: As a pedestrian who uses that junction nearly every day, I am all for improving it. But removing the right hand turn is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I don't need any fancy studies (which are usually commissioned with an eye to confirming the commissioners' preconceived notions; he who pays the fiddler, calls the tune and all that). That smacks to me of typical special interest politics.Village Ward elections may be 3 years away, but I, for one, won't forget this.
perhaps, but that still doesn't change the fact that there have not been any serious accidents at all. I am sure there are some rude drivers, but I have encountered some rude cyclists who do not stick to the rules of the road, especially at that junction,

There is an update posted on the online petition (https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-townley-road-junction)


UPDATE There is a meeting of the Dulwich Community Council at 7pm on Wednesday 28 January 2015 at Herne Hill Baptists Church, Half Moon Lane, SE24 9HU where local councillors will report back on the public consultation. There will be further debate, so please come and make your voice heard. If you would like to help with leafleting local roads before this meeting, please email [email protected]. Please also continue to ask local residents and businesses to sign the online petition.

Jennys Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did anyone receive any reply from the Village Ward

> councillors? I emailed all three of them

> separately about these proposals in mid November

> but have heard nothing except an automated out of

> the office reply from one.


I also emailed the three councillors on this subject and did not get one response.


I recall also one of the Village Ward councillors coming round canvassing 3 years ago and in the conversation we had he admitted that he hadn't even heard of the E.D.Forum!


And these people represent us??

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...