first mate

Interesting, the wording in an earlier version which said "subject to statutory consultation" has seemingly been changed to "statutory procedures". The earlier wording suggested the reduced CPZ would require further consultation (and poster March suggested they were behind schedule). Now it seems they are counting the consultation where a majority was against a CPZ as satisfying any statutory requirements? if anyone can clarify in terms of usual process that would be great. It is claimed that (some) residents on these streets want a CPZ, hence the decision, yet the council has not been in direct contact with these streets since the decision was made. Unless, they are only speaking to those residents that allegedly asked for a CPZ.

Another impromptu fireworks party tonight?

I wait to hear the results and whether the OP is able to successfully challenge the penalty or not. I also doubt they can as the fine is legitimate and Southwark want that revenue.

What an incredibly arrogant and nasty statement. The fact you feel you can state this about another poster reflects badly on you.

I think I apologised for that already...though I think my record of posting off thread is nothing compared to some Mal 😉

Issues kept public may help hold the council to account. It is pretty clear no-one really seems to know what is going on with this one or quite why Cllr Charlie Smith chose to announce in a local magazine that the reduced CPZ had now been agreed. Obvs, if this is of no interest to you Earl then feel free to stop reading my posts on the matter.

There is a view that some Councillors much prefer one on one emails around issues. Some would say it is a tried and trusted technique when it comes to controlling the narrative around issues they view as key or politically sensitive. So, I feel there is value in keeping all this as public as possible, especially as the revised CPZ, although allegedly "agreed" has not yet gone to statutory consultation, been implemented, or flagged to residents affected.

@march46Your comments are noted and it will be interesting to see how many times you repeat them. Frequently, would be my guess, simply because you have to say something that deflects from council actions, while seeming to be 'helpful'. You are usually so interested and involved in posting on council involvement on LTN and CPZ issues but on this you seem curiously disinterested. Annoying as it may be to you, I think there is value in letting fellow forum users know how the MGS CPZ is progressing and how the council are handling it.

It amazes me how offensive some of you CPZ and LTN supporters are when issues you would like to be shut down just won't. With your apparent hotline to the council on road and traffic management, you are usually so happy to correct factual errors or what you state is disinformation, but on this issue your lips seem very firmly sealed. Why are you so incredibly keen I stop posting on this? You are not forced to read any part of it if you choose not to.

The council assures locals there will be no CPZ if it is unwanted, then proposes a reduced version of the rejected CPZ " subject to statutory consultation", omits to do that or to communicate with locals affected, but then announces in an independent local community magazine that it is all "agreed". But those of you who are LTN and CPZ supporters say ' move on, nothing to see, just ask the council'. What I find odd is none of you that seemingly support the above have said ' that doesn't seem quite right' there is just a resounding silence and the now familiar refrain " email the council" while castigating the poster for being 'boring, tedious, blinkered, monomaniacal' or what other undermining line of character assassination they can muster. The aim is to shut it down.

Don't you think local councillors should be communicating with residents directly affected by the proposed version of a rejected CPZ, especially via statutory consultation as outlined in council documents, before announcing that it has all been "agreed" in a local magazine. You all seem to be refusing to comment on this and prefer to deflect by suggesting I email the council. It is a red herring. If the CPZ has all been agreed then the council should be in touch with residents affected, surely you agree?

This was posted by someone else on this thread, in the lead up to the consultation on the MGS CPZ earlier this summer. There has only been one consultation, with the majority resoundingly against any sort of CPZ. That is the point, council officials apparently attended meetings with the public and gave assurances there would be no CPZ if a majority was against. Despite that, after the one and only consultation Southwark then published online details of a proposed reduced CPZ "subject to statutory consultation". There has been no further consultation but Cllr Smith has announced the reduced CPZ is now "agreed". There has been no communication with residents in the reduced CPZ area. Yes, that would suit the Council very well. No, I prefer to share how this has all been handled. If Councillors are choosing to announce things in local magazines, without communicating with residents affected by those announcements, then I think it is fair enough to also share matters on a local forum.

Just been to the Meeting at the back of the church and you can hand the consultation forms in there and talk one to one of the Councils representatives. if the majority say NO to the CPZ they assured me that it will not be put in I was reminded of the observation of another local who posted a council response while the first MGS CPZ consultation was underway, above. If the smaller, revised CPZ is implemented it will mean that the council officials were not being honest at meetings as there was a resounding majority against an ED MGS CPZ. If, as Cllr Smith recently announced, the revised CPZ is "agreed" why have residents living in the "agreed" CPZ not been informed? This is bizarre.

Such a shame the council do not show the same investment of resources and attention to detail into areas like the Rye park, where there is currently a need for a Warden presence, probably two at a time for safety. I believe there is a way for money made from parking and permit fines to be reinvested into improving the park, making it feel safer for all, so I hope this is considered. Sorry to go off thread.

Whatever way you slice it, it does not seem the streets are 'safer' - touted as a major LTN selling point.