first mate

Some 4-day party! Sorry, just my view, but I feel random fireworks are really anti-social. If scheduled, with plenty of notice, people who need to can at least escape for the duration (well most people, I guess). I know those who adore fireworks will feel differently, but they can cause so much costly suffering and damage to animals and owners.

So, I guess, your solution, rather like Cllr McAsh', is by using indirect methods build up as much pressure on drivers at peak time as possible, in the hope they stop driving and start cycling?

Does anyone know the reason for the random fireworks over the last few nights?

How awful. After the spate of water bomb assaults by a group of youths a few weeks ago this is bad news.

Attempting to undermine other posters via character assassination really does nothing to strengthen your argument and reflects rather badly on you. In all of this the closest behaviour I've seen to a tantrum was when Dr Goodman was filmed on CCTV, glancing around before hastily ripping down an anti LTN poster displayed on private property 😉

Nonetheless, if people wish to discuss that on here it is not for you to tell them they cannot, unless you are now an admin?

Should I really have to? Why would a local councillor announce in a local magazine that a revised CPZ has all been "agreed" when statutory consultation for the same, as stipulated in a council document on the matter, has not yet been carried out? Why would that be do you think? March, some ago you suggested that the council were perhaps a little behind on schedule. Given Cllr Smith has recently been so publicly clear everything is now agreed (with who, we do not know) what do you suppose is going on?

And the cavalry have finally arrived. 'Charge and deflect'🤣

You'd think that a Cllr choosing to announce in a local magazine, sent door to door, stating everything has been "agreed", might add some details like a timeline for implementation? Am I the only one to find it a little odd that the council chooses to announce measures via an independent publication, but omits to communicate with the residents actually affected?

I think it is really cynical to be so completely partisan that you are happy to discount broken manifesto pledges as small beer and be so dismissive of others that take issue with that. Last election many wanted to punish central government for behaviour during Covid; that will not be the case this time round, I think. Broken promises break faith in those you have handed power and trusted to make decisions on your behalf. This could really become an issue that blind followers of the incumbent council come to regret.

Again, this refers to changes being made right now, without mandate (u-turning on a manifesto pledge to put local residents at the heart of changes that affect them and their environment; directly against the majority in opposition to proposals at initial consultation, against detail of their own process stating revised proposals are subject to statutory consultation- which has not happened). To keep bleating that all this was half a decade ago is wilfully misleading.

So, in your view, to u-turn on a manifesto pledge is absolutely fine?

Once more, they u-turned on a manifesto pledge; now with the revised Melbourne Grove South, they seem to be imposing a revised CPZ without the statutory consultation their own documents said was necessary. Note, this is current, the revised CPZ has not yet been implemented, dates for implementation have not been communicated to residents affected.

Especially not when a local Councillor has announced that a new, revised CPZ for three roads in East Dulwich has now been "agreed" despite no further statutory consultation taking place, which the council's own documents said that decision would be subject to. So not only has the council done a complete reverse ferret on a manifesto pledge, it has also seemingly abandoned its own process.

It is nonsense to keep insisting they have a mandate to impose specific local LTNs and CPZ when quite clearly they don't. They have u-turned on a manifesto pledge to place residents at the heart of decisions that affect them and their environment, ignoring consultation results with a majority against measures imposed.

So what then is the point of a clear manifesto promise to place residents at the heart of decisions that affect them and their environment? Is it your view that is worth absolutely nothing? How is completely overriding and ignoring the results of various consultations on road management and CPZ consistent with that manifesto pledge?

Well, according to council documents on the matter, posted back in June, the revised CPZ was subject to statutory consultation and that has not yet happened. It is confusing because Cllr Smith recently announced in SE22 Magazine that the revised CPZ had now been "agreed", so who knows what will happen next.

Pure speculation, but I wonder to what extent Cllr McAsh would care if he made claims that the council cannot meet? Given recent events?

Member 8.3k Posted 52 minutes ago Earl replied: You are just wrong. We live in a representative democracy. The fact that you cannot grasp this, or understand the difference between a consultation and a referendum is ridiculous. Earl, you are plain wrong. The Council had no mandate for the specific interventions under discussion. Not only that, in their manifesto they made a firm promise that local residents would be placed at the heart of decisions affecting them and their environment.

Getting back on topic, it is worrying that the council have messed up on this one. I also wonder how efficiently and completely the monies will be recovered? Might some of the council's enormous parking surplus be used for this?

To be accurate: some of us 'support what he/they have to say' about some local/ Dulwich/ East Dulwich traffic management schemes imposed by Southwark Council, without mandate and after a majority consultation result against those schemes. To keep inferring that majority view is also part of a far right plot sounds desperate. It can be no surprise that objections to a local issue keep appearing on a local forum. If an organisation echoes those objections on local issues there can also be little surprise those are quoted too. As an example of why there are concerns, can you explain why a revised version of the rejected East Dulwich CPZ is to be imposed anyway? And, why has a councillor announced this is all now "agreed", despite the matter not going to statutory consultation, which the council's own documents stated was necessary? Is this not breach of process? Remember, no mandate, and a consultation majority against the CPZ.

Penguin said : "Does this remotely matter? If they are politically motivated - then so is the council, and they are being funded by all of us whether we want to or not. It's not as if they could be some hidden commercial interest trying to leverage profit. And there would be no point in a political party secretly campaigning - that's not how political parties work. Frankly, it doesn't matter. Either people (including the significant majorities locally who have expressed an opinion when they are able to) are against what the council is doing, or they aren't. There is no reason why anyone, or any group, should not campaign against the council. Or do you believe that if 'the people' suddenly realised that it was Tories behind this (I've no idea) they would suddenly change their minds about their opposition. Most unlikely." This response clearly illustrates why some who are regularly posting 'what about One Dulwich' in response to criticism of some local road management schemes is cynical delivery of a large, fat, red herring, designed to deflect.

Still no sign of further consultation on the Melbourne Grove South revised CPZ, referred to by Cllr Charlie Smith as now agreed. I have searched on the Southwark website under MGS CPZ and keep getting 404 notices that documents no longer available. Could one of you that seems to have more success finding Southwark documents on traffic schemes post up the latest? This is a genuine question. If a local Cllr states something has been agreed surely detail should be easy to find? The revised CPZ Cllr Smith referred to is meant to cover all of Melbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove and Colwell Road. If 'agreed' it would be useful to see the results of statutory consultation on the matter and when this took place, as well as a timeline for implementation and other details.

But how could the Chair of a sub committee purporting to represent local views and with input to Southwark Council expect to be anonymous?

Yes please. if March could provide a link to the report that would be really helpful.