first mate

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.

Really sneaky, cynical move to trash other posters going on here. Slow handclap for attempts to frame and conflate those who disagree with your views on local road management with the "new right" and the implication that they are also going after women and all part of some shady, secret cabal. As multiple local consultations on various local road management schemes have shown, locals are unhappy with what has/ is being done, without their consent. Remember, in their last manifesto, Southwark Labour promised to put residents at the heart of decisions made about their environment.

" An unrelenting anti-council agenda", as you choose to call it, would have to be very much wider in scope than what is written on the threads in this section. To accuse those who question council decisions and process about a few select areas of policy of having some secret political motive and agenda just sounds paranoid. A number of local road management schemes are unpopular with many local residents and have been driven through without mandate and in the face of significant local opposition. Given that opposition, it can be of little surprise that criticism of those measures keeps appearing in a local forum. What is perhaps surprising is that there is a group of persistent voices in favour of these local road schemes and changes that populate these threads, some of whom do not even live in the area, but who consistently push what seems to be a minority view in favour of the changes, while trying to close down voices are against.

Oh, is One Dulwich in some way responsible for 10,000 bus fines made erroneously in Southwark and now having to be repaid? If not, it looks like a desperate attempt to deflect. Nil points, as they say.

I think the OP's comment that they were on their way to a funeral is the point really. Human error and all that...it happens to us all and under such circumstances a fine can feel harsh. But, it is what it is. I just don't know how helpful it is to advise others to be 'aware'. As I said, you can be very aware but under certain conditions, have a momentary lapse in concentration. Sue, I know you were not doling out advice to be 'aware', so not a response to you.

Bad luck. You can overall be very aware of the speed limit and overall stick to it but lose concentration momentarily and, if near a camera, you are done for. I do not for one moment think you are not 'aware' of 20mph.

I cannot find anything about the decision to implement this revised CPZ without further statutory consultation on the council website. Can anyone on here shed any light on this?

But a number of posters have said that in their experience they hardly ever see a cyclist on that route. There does not seem to be any data on cycle usage. Stand to be corrected if you have it?