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

[Administrator]

message from Village Ward Cllrs Mitchell and Lyons regarding Townley Road/EDG junction http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1455553

[dulwichquine]

On the website of Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School, it says there is a 3pm meeting this Saturday at St Barnabas Hall to discuss "ongoing local confusion and concern" surrounding these plans. Seems like a good chance to find out why they are supporting this particular plan in first place as opposed to original, less contentious, options and to make them aware of what local parents think about impact of no right hand turn.

[@Woodwarde]

Jane Lyons, Village Ward Councillor posted as below. Good to see the addition to the Forum debate and clarification on the approach being taken to support residents' questions.

>>>Jane Lyons

We are sorry that there is a view expressed on the East Dulwich Forum that Village Ward councillors have not been active on the issue of the proposed no right turn at the Townley Road /East Dulwich Grove junction. This has been the number one issue since the proposals were issued last year. We have been in touch with existing and newly created local residents associations, we have held a meeting and had discussions with various council officers, in addition to responding to as many individual constituents enquiries as possible. At the Dulwich Community Council meeting at the end of last year we were instrumental in ensuring the voices of those present were heard ahead of Councillors, so that the concerns were fully expressed. Jane alone has had a current total of more than 200 emails on the topic in recent months.

Because we represent Village Ward we sometimes forget our constituents with SE22 postcodes may turn to the East Dulwich Forum for information. Please be assured we are very much aware of this issue and perhaps just need to get a bit sharper at communicating this more widely.

Best wishes

Cllr Jane Lyons

[email protected]

Cllr Michael Mitchell

[email protected]

[Zebedee Tring]

I thought that it would be a good idea to link this thread to a new(ish) thread entitled "Cycling Quietway - E&C to Crystal Palace Consultation". This issue is of course inextricably linked to the Townley/EDG junction proposal:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1451849

[slarti b]

Many thanks to the Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School (SRS) for organising an open meeting to talk through the "ongoing local confusion and concern" about the proposed EDG\Townley junction scheme.

Per their blog the SRS team has been working on this junction for many years, "many engineers drawings have come and gone" over that period and they very actively support the option put forward by the Council. I only became aware of this scheme a few weeks ago so I am sure they will be able to explain details that I have missed.

I look forward to them clarifying my confusion on points such as:

- who exactly are SRS; they speak on behalf of the local community but don't give any names on their web site

- what are the details of the junction improvement scheme they supported in the Southwark bid to TFL

- can they assure us that Southwark Council has properly modelled the effect of the scheme, especially the banned Right Hand Turn, on the surrounding network

- why are they supporting a bid that transfers traffic from a relatively safe junction used by pupils at a small number of schools to more dangerous junctions and roads used by a far wider community of schools

- what studies have been carried out on the safety impact of the displaced traffic that will end up rat-running through (often narrow) residential streets that are used by local school children and cyclists.

- how will the junction be affected by the increased traffic created by JAGS's plans for a new music school and car park on Greendale

- does the chair of SRS have any relationship with JAGS

- Final Question (added as Edit). Why aren't SRS supporting one of the other options for the scheme that significantly improves safety for cyclists and pedestrians without the RHT ban and is much more likely to be supported by local residents?

Looking at the documents released end of last week I noticed that the Southwark bid to TFL for the funding was based on the assurance from SRS that "the widespread and active commitment of our schools, parent network and local societies to improved cycling will ensure full cooperation and well organised support in the implementation of any funding received".

That's OK then, wonder why Southwark bothered with consultation exercise ;-)

I am concerned that a large amount of public money ( that's you and me paying) has been granted based on assurances of local support from an unrepresentative (Edited) pressure group. I will be contacting TFL to find out what measures they took to validate this application and supporting statements.

[Zebedee Tring]

Just bumping this thread so that this issue doesn't get overlooked on the EDF - unlikely I know.

[Villager]

@Woodwarde Wrote:

> 1. the first is the statistics and detail on the

> Interactive map which of course will be populated

> largely by cyclists due to the limited visibility

> of the Consultation by Southwark;

> Stats today, 12th Jan on the Interactive map are

> as follows:

> ? 87 people signed up

> ? 380 map comments

> ? 714 people agree

> ? 37 people disagree

There is no credibility whatsoever in these statistics or with Southwark's survey process as any individual can make multiple submissions to these surveys. Hence a cycling enthusiast with nothing better to do can spend all day making positive submissions.

It is a complete dog's dinner.

[Jennys]

Spent this afternoon with a group of people who live locally. None of them seemed to have heard about these plans.

[@Woodwarde]

I will not be surprised if all the roads that should have been consulted have not been. I think the identification of roads to mail is not always well thought through by the planners. They don't know the area.

[Villager]

@Woodwarde Wrote:

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

> I will not be surprised if all the roads that

> should have been consulted have not been. I think

> the identification of roads to mail is not always

> well thought through by the planners. They don't

> know the area.

I asked Southwark under a FOI request, 5 weeks ago, ss to which residences they consulted. They have have not responded. So much for FOI. It's a stitch up.

[@Woodwarde]

Then you will not be the first FOI refused from what I have discovered; what reasons were given and did they conform with Southwark's obligations? I think it is helpful to disclose that here. If not reasonable then you have the choice to refer for an Internal Review - that is a complaint and a request for scrutiny of the reason for refusal. And of course another 20 days delay....

I don't want to be overly negative but it does seem peculiar that the FOIs are not being answered.

[holymoly]

I asked via a Councillor and have the details of the distribution - so it is available. Probably incompetency. However, FOI requests are taken seriously by Councils - or should be. Most do and some excellent examples and policies are on the websites of other Councils. But not Southwark. Southwark are looking very disorganised and frankly, incompetent.

Ask via a Councillor as Chris Mascord seems to respond to that source of enquiry.

[Tessmo]

Open meeting organised by Safe Routes tomorrow, Saturday, at St Barnabas Parish Hall at 3pm if you're 'confused' or 'concerned' about the junction proposal...http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/

[slarti b]

I understand the meeting has been organised by Tim Warin for SRS and he may be chairing it.

Tim Warin is the "Bike It Plus officer for Southwark,employed both by Sustrans and the Dulwich and Herne Hill Cycling to Schools partnership"

Separately I see that Sustrans has a "multi-million pound delivery contract" with TFL to support rollout of the Quietway network

So, a question to add to my previous ones.

- Is the proposed RHT ban anything to do with the Quietway that may go through this junction?

If Tim is employed or funded by Sustrans isn't there (yet another) conflict of interest in him chairing a meeting to discuss a scheme that affects a project his employer has been given millions of pounds to help roll out?

[mockingbird]

Lovely lady bothered to come to speak to the residents of the Dutch Estate and hear concerns. Residents here are very concerned about u-turns in Green Dale if the right hand turn ban goes ahead. The new JAGS plans to relocate their car park here where the Scout Hut is make this even worse. Councillors are coming next week to hear why the junction changes should not go ahead and the new school parking plans need to be evaluated.

[holymoly]

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=18934

This is the development management planning application for the music school at JAGS 2011 - for a new music school to be built on the existing car park - that being displaced to a new park - yes, on Green Dale or the local roads - which are stated to be under utilised. That traffic has clearly not been modelled for the new proposed scheme.

Take a look and see what is said in support by the Chair of the Dulwich Transport Society (although the Dulwich Society is said 'not' to have been consulted (how does that work?) and the ever present support of Dulwich Safe Routes. One of the councillors involved is - Peter John - now Leader of Southwark Council. South Camberwell Ward Councillors (notified on 4th November 2010: Cllr Peter John, Cllr Stephen Govier, Cllr Veronica Ward)

There is significant local concern at the time about the impact on the traffic at the Green Dale junction and pushing traffic into Green Dale and its impact on cyclists.

The targets for increasing cyclists are low - and no provision made for extra cycling bays. Not quite in line with the message coming through now.

Skim read it if you have some time to squander.... It is what you might expect but sheds a light on support noted in the press for the 'Townley' safety improvements from the principals of JAGS. A commercial gain nested in a safety issue perhaps.

[skylorikeet]

The response from Alastair Hanton, Dulwich Society Transport Committee, reads like a press release from the school.

There is clear double counting re the onsite parking spaces as the teachers are expected to park on the sports club spaces and so are music school and sports club users. I think they are assuming all three groups won't be vying for spaces at the same time but they often will be. The parking will be displaced to local streets but that's OK because - hey we did a survey and the surrounding streets have lots of spaces.

[slarti b]

Thanks for that Holy Moly, This sheds some new and very interesting light on the whole scheme.

The Safe Routes to School people are clearly very worthy and well meaning. But they are also arrogant, naive and emotive. IF their statements are correct they have been duped by the council over this scheme, but, given their close relationship with JAGS they surely can't deny they knew about the effects of the new Music School

In an earlier post I set out some questions which need raising at the SRS open meeting this afternoon. My questions about traffic studies, rat-running and safety of neighbouring junctions will probably be answered with "don't know". I remind readers of the question which can and should be answered by SRS.

- what are the details of the junction improvement supported by (Dr) Laurie Johnston, chair of SRS, in the Southwark bid to TFL on July 2013

- why are SRS supporting a bid that transfers traffic from a relatively safe junction used by pupils at a small number of schools to more dangerous junctions and roads used by a far wider community of schools

- what relationship does the chair of SRS have with JAGS school and parent's organisations

- why aren't SRS supporting one of the other options for the scheme that significantly improves safety for cyclists and pedestrians without the RHT ban and is much more likely to be supported by local residents?

- Do all the 13\14 local schools represented by SRS support the scheme? I assume they will have representatives prsent

It would be good to get a statement by the Dulwich Society on this scheme. I hope they have someone at the meeting who can do this.

[Green Goose]

For those of you who were unable to attend the meeting today at St. Barnabas Parish Hall on this subject, here is my take on the event.

The initial debate on ?the process? and funding of the proposed changes to the junction were very skillfully handled by the chairman Mr Andy Simmons. During questioning, it was revealed that the funding for this scheme was related to safety and cycling.

Andy Simmons then introduced ?Tim? who turns out to be Mr Tim Warin from an organisation called Sustrans . Tim said Sustrans was a charity appointed by Southwark as ?Delivery Agents? on certain proposals.

A quick search shows that Sustrans is short for ?Sustainable Transport? which is a lobby group for cyclists!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans

Sustrans has also closely associated itself with Safe Routes to School to gain additional leverage.

Mr Warin, under pressure from the floor, eventually took up the issue of the No Right Turn but seemed to down play the implications. He also subsequently went on to present graphics which, in his opinion, demonstrated the benefits of NRT?s in other locations in London! He did not take on board the message from the people of Dulwich.

?Nuf said!

Edited to make corrections

[bawdy-nan]

not quite 'nuf said

the person that chaired the meeting was Councillor Andy Simmons

[Zebedee Tring]

I can't agree with Green Goose's summary of the meeting. Perhaps I'm being na?ve but I thought that Tim Warin and the Councillors who were present got the message loud and clear that the right turn ban would be crazy and dangerous and that they would be passing this message back to Southwark officers and other Councillors. Whether, however, this will result in a sensible final decision is quite another matter.

[Townleygreen]

Sustrans is the sustainable transport charity who speak for cyclists, walkers and public transport.

Tfl has given them the task of delivering the Quietways in conjunction with each borough.

[Green Goose]

From Tim's Twitter page...

I work as Sustrans BikeIt+ Officer in Southwark.

So, I guess, he's really impartial then.

[Villager]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> Sustrans is the sustainable transport charity who

> speak for cyclists, walkers and public transport.

>

> Tfl has given them the task of delivering the

> Quietways in conjunction with each borough.

Tim Warin is employed by Sustrans whose main activity is promoting cycling. Just look at this search:-

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enGB511GB511&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=%22tim+warin%22+sustrans

The meeting today was a political ploy whereby they can say they consulted the people of Dulwich and then put any spin on it they want.

[slarti b]

@TownleyGreen

You said "Sustrans is the sustainable transport charity who speak for cyclists, walkers and public transport"

To me, Sustrans is the organisation that has been awarded a "multi-million pound delivery contract" to implement the "Quietways" in London.

I cycle to work every day, walk a lot and use public transport in preference to other forms. Sustrans doesn't speak for me because they haven't asked me. Can they justify their claim?

Who is Tim Warin, does he live locally or have any knowledge of local issues?

Look forward to you response....