Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Drawing your attention to the fact that the Townley Road junction decision, as approved by Mark Williams has been made and is now subject to refer to call-in. Anyone know how to make a call-in and what this entails?

See: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=5257

Summary

Decision maker: Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport

Decision status: Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in)

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Purpose:

Implementation of proposed strategic highway improvement scheme, subject to statutory procedures


Decision:

1. That the proposals received a majority of support taking into account all consultation responses received during the consultation period be noted.

2. That the response in the local consultation area itself did not show a majority of respondents in favour be noted.

3. That levels of opposition and response rates were significantly reduced from the previous consultation be noted.

4. That all the schools in proximity to the junction are in support of the proposed junction improvement be noted.

5. That the unanimous support for the proposals of the Dulwich Community Council be noted.

6. That the implementation of the revised proposals subject to the necessary statutory procedures be approved.

7. That pre and post implementation monitoring of air/pollution levels on Townley Road be agreed.

8. That further amendments be considered that will alleviate queuing on Townley Road when the detailed design work is undertaken.


Publication date: 02/04/2015

Date of decision: 01/04/2015

Date comes into force if not called in: 14/04/2015

Call-in deadline date: 13/04/2015

I would like to help BUT:


True to Southwark?s ?transparent? processes, it is hard to tell how the Oversight Committee operates. Do they consider real requests from the public or are they a self-determined spat between Councillors ? cynically, seems the latter?..


According to the website:

It seems that the decision to call in needs to come from the Oversight and Scrutiny committee; details here but on what basis call-in happens, is not disclosed:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/3162/scrutiny_review_of_cabinet_decisions

Scrutiny review of cabinet decisions. The overview and scrutiny committee can review decisions made by or on behalf of the cabinet. This is known as 'calling in' the decision.

? Decisions may only be called-in in certain instances, for instance where it is believed that there was inadequate consultation or that the decision breaches human rights

? The chair or vice chair and three other members of overview and scrutiny committee must all agree that the decision should be called-in

? The call-in must be requested within five working days of the decision being published.

The decision will then be reviewed by overview and scrutiny committee, normally within two weeks from the date of the call-in request.

The overview and scrutiny committee can recommend that the decision is reconsidered by the original decision-taker.

You can view and print papers from call-in meetings.


Is that clear how a Scrutiny committee operates ? probably not.


It is not specific about how ongoing public concerns are placed on the radar for the Committee, or whether there is a self-determining group of Southwark elected officials making a decision based upon their latest penchant. Again, the cynic can legitimately suspect the latter.


Then try here:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/3161/scrutiny_committees


And it seems that no-one involved in the executive decision making can be involved (that on the surface seems to rule out 3 local Dulwich Councillors :James Barber, Rosie Shimell (Vice Chair)and Jon Hartley)


So - what a clear set of instructions upon which Southwark Council can duck, dive, prevaricate, defer, dissemble, disenfranchise. XXXX-up.

Perhaps it needs an email to Mark Williams saying that many would like this called in, so can he tell us what to do?


Is James Barber allowed to steer or is he now too busy with the national campaign? From what you say it does sound as though he could ask for it to be called in. If he doesn't I'd want to know why? Ditto for Rosie Shimmell. In short have they listened to local opposition. And are they representing us?


I am now thinking that transparency of council process and consultation should be at the top of the next agenda for the next council elections.

I can only ask for a call-in via my colleagues sittingon OSC. We'd have to have specific reasons of how this decision has been made incorrectly process wise or is contrary to plans and strategies.

I don't think it meets this criteria so any call-in would fail - BUT let me know why you think it should be called-in. Ideally in an email.

Just spotted this info on a parallel thread (Ask Me, James Barber thread). Absolutely relevant to this thread so excuse me making it apparent. I only saw it by chance.



Posted by first mate Today, 08:27AM

James, will you and Rosie Shimmell be calling in the Townley Road decision?

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

Hi first mate,

I don't think so. A lot of time and effort has gone into these proposals by all parties and I can't see how the decision breaches any policies or strategies - which is reqired for a call-in to Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

Unless you tell me otherwise...

Regards [email protected]

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

James, you are the expert and have far more knowledge of the process than I. I have a hunch that you support the decision too. It is just that there seems to be a disjuncture between use of process to reach the 'valid' decision desired by councillors (for whatever reasons) and local feeling/objections. Who was it said that 'process is the politican's friend'.

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

Hi first mate,

As an opposition councillor we have to weigh up what we call-in via Overview & Scurtiny Committee. We appear to have upset Labour when we chaired this committee such that they now have a Labour chairperson - with a majority they decide this although it is breaking a long tradition of the leading party not chairing the committee that scrutinses the ruling party. We have always been reticent about using this call-in power for fear of Labour umbridge and losing it. With a council majority they can change the constitution as they wish. That is my reticence. Saying that in 2014 they changed the constitution to make it possible for Lib Dems to still be able to call-in decisions.


I've been copied an email sent to OSC members by residents and am very sympathetic to reasons for call-in B2,B3,B4. B1 at the meeting officers anssered to my satisfaction - turning circles for coaches during rush hour.


Regards [email protected]

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

If JB is sympathetic - what does this mean? Forget the politics of labour vs others. This is supposed to be an Oversight committee to ensure transparency and due process. So will JB pursue?


Has Southwark Council stopped legitimate investigations happening? How can this Scrutiny committee be Labour chaired given the nature of its remit?


Are we looking at a serious and deliberate constitutional flaw that inhibits scrutiny.

The overview and scrutiny committee can review decisions made by or on behalf of the cabinet. This is known as 'calling in' the decision. The key rules around calling-in decisions are

? Decisions may only be called-in in certain instances, for instance where it is believed that there was inadequate consultation or that the decision breaches human rights

? The chair or vice chair and 3 other members of overview and scrutiny committee must all agree that the decision should be called-in

? The call-in must be requested within five working days of the decision being published.

The decision will then be reviewed by overview and scrutiny committee, normally within two weeks from the date of the call-in request. The overview and scrutiny committee can recommend that the decision is reconsidered by the original decision-taker.


So, it seems that the core members of the OSC are responsible for any decisions. OSC Reserve members (includes Barber and Hartley) don't have call-in rights as such. If a core member is not able to attend a meeting the reserve member would be asked to attend in their place.



Details of the OSC are here:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=308


? Councillor Gavin Edwards (Chair)

? Councillor Rosie Shimell (Vice-Chair) Note: sits on Dulwich CC

? Councillor Anood Al-Samerai

? Councillor Jasmine Ali

? Councillor Catherine Dale

? Councillor Karl Eastham

? Councillor Tom Flynn

? Councillor Rebecca Lury

? Councillor Adele Morris

? Councillor Johnson Situ

? Councillor Evelyn Akoto (Reserve)

? Councillor Maisie Anderson (Reserve)

? Councillor James Barber (Reserve) Note: sits on Dulwich CC

? Councillor Dan Garfield (Reserve)

? Councillor Jon Hartley (Reserve) Note: sits on Dulwich CC

? Councillor Hamish McCallum (Reserve)

? Councillor David Noakes (Reserve)

? Councillor Martin Seaton (Reserve)

? Councillor Bill Williams (Reserve)

? Councillor Kieron Williams (Reserve)


Support officer: Shelley Burke. Phone: 020 7525 7344 E mail: [email protected]

That's interesting @hopskip. There clearly was inadequate consultation on many different levels. But I do wonder whether a Labour-chaired scrutiny committee (if what Cllr Barber says is correct) in a Labour-led council will have to courage to call the decision in...

Considering how Southwark treat people who work there, it does not come as a surprise to me that this issue has reached the conclusion that it has.


Most of the letters they claim to send out are in fact not sent out.

I have had confirmation from Southwark, that it is for the councillors who are members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to make a case for call-in. They would have to be in by midnight tonight (13th April).


If Southwark do receive a call-in, then the officer concerned has a formal role of assessing whether it is a valid request in terms of the council?s procedure and rules. The officer has one working day to do that.


So, we should therefore be in a position to be advised tomorrow (Tues 14th) or latest Wednesday (15th) of the outcome.


I will update this thread when I hear more.

My view is that Councillors representing us wanted this to go through but did not feel it politic to be upfront about it so used the getout of appearing sympathetic to local concerns while stating the process ties their hands. I remember the same tactic being used for the M&S debacle.


What hope if those we voted in to fight our corner actually pursue a different agenda and one we are not necessarily aware of.

first mate Wrote:

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

> My view is that Councillors representing us wanted

> this to go through but did not feel it politic to

> be upfront about it so used the getout of

> appearing sympathetic to local concerns while

> stating the process ties their hands. I remember

> the same tactic being used for the M&S debacle.

>


Exactly right. The DCC approved the scheme unanimously which means that every Councillor in Village, East Dulwich and College wards voted on favour of it - irrespective of whether they were Labour, LibDem or Tory.


Duplicitous b******s!

So that is that. Major changes effected with only the appearance of consultation, a seemingly corrupt process and our elected Councillors using that process as the reason why they cannot intervene on our behalf.


We see the same approach in regard to introduction of 'free' parking (in reality the roll out of restricted parking) and 20mph. All foisted upon us, genuine objections ignored, inadequate consultation, Councillors use forum to give appearance of supporting local voters but always seem to fail at last hour, citing process.

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> Yes, we got played for mugs by the Tooley Street

> cadre.

>

> We can console ourselves at the forthcoming

> election.



How?

Labour have such a following in Southwark they'll never be replaced...




Unless



We all vote UKIP lol ... What a mad system ... We're just mugs ... run by mug voters .. and dogma .

I understand the frustration felt by people about this but it is hard to see how 113 people (who objected, locally, at the consultation stage) can hope to "unseat" Labour in the forthcoming election.


Am I misreading this? Beyond the tiny few who post here (and who obviously feel very angry and frustrated), the 113 who objected at the final consultation stage, is there really a massive local objection and rejection of the workings of local politics?


It might be very annoying not to have got your way but I'm not sure why you feel that you automatically ought to.


Unless, as I say, I am missing something, this seems like a noisy campaign but not one that commands universal support.

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...