first mate

Should this thread be in the traffic section?

Perhaps the Melbourne Grove LTN should be renamed as Melbourne Grove skateboard park.

Good find Spartacus. Is the quoted text above a fancy and rather oblique way of saying that it is things like better transport links that account for less car use, not LTNs?

Do skateboards count as 'wheeling'? These youngsters were not travelling they were practising their skills. It just feels a slightly odd mix, commuters in cars, kids going up and down playing on skateboards, commuters on e-bikes, scooters and motorbikes, pedestrians- all on the roads together.

What is the point of saying "those of you that have posted don't like cyclists". It is ridiculous, divisive and simply untrue. Talk about fanning the flames of the culture wars furnace. Many who post stuff that makes you angry Mal are also cyclists. You know it too, which makes what you post even more offensive.

It feels like it might be an extension of the summer water bombing spate. The sad thing is this could really put off some visiting the park. I really hope the council seriously consider putting some of their huge parking surplus to funding a serious and permanent warden and police presence in the park; it is needed.

So glad the kids that threatened your dog were spoken to. Also good to know police aware of fireworks. I heard some going off again this evening, well before dusk, so they need to get on top of this or with it getting dark earlier it may get a lot worse.

Lots of teenage boys skateboarding up and down the MGN LTN this evening, along with random e-bikes, cars, motorbikes and pedestrians. Is that the intention, that the local roads become a skateboard park?

It may be an inconvenient correlation but unless you can prove there is no link between the recent changes and an apparent increase in certain types of crime in the area, then it should stay in the traffic section.

More let off last night, early evening. I do not ever recall hearing fireworks on such a regular basis at this time of year. For those walking dogs after dark, this must be of concern.

So how many of us think the council will just go ahead and implement the reduced CPZ without the statutory consultation (procedures) their own documents indicate is required?

Fireworks again tonight? Is this going to go on until next summer?

Statutory consultation, now rephrased as statutory procedures. PS, Referendum not mentioned anywhere, except by you, Mal (aka Mr, Mrs or Ms Mischief);)

It rather does and that is my point. If someone in the know can clarify exact meaning of wording ( including wording changes) and process, that would be helpful. One of the documents I read stated implementation in October. They are cutting it a bit fine if there is meant to be a consultation.

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?