Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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. 

Does anyone have the councillors email addresses please? 

 

I will email them this afternoon asking if the new CPZ has been agreed for Melbourne Grove, when that decision was taken and where the consultation documents and other papers can be found. 

I will then post any replies I get on this thread. 

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.

The Record of Decision materials on the link says (point 3):

Notes that the design of the permit scheme will be amended to include only the roads noted in paragraph 1 for the statutory consultation.

That is dated May so does that not suggest there will be a statutory consultation?  

Record of Decision.pdf

Edited by Rockets

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.

Edited by first mate
1 minute ago, malumbu said:

Can you show me where there has to be a referendum?

@malumbu no one is suggesting there needs to be a referendum but the council documents online certainly suggest there needs to be/will be a statutory consultation which, as far as I am aware has not been executed yet.

The Record of Decision is very clear in that regard. I mean, let's be honest, the council regularly chooses to ignore the results of stat consultations anyway but if they go ahead without it then that's a significant point of attack for campaigners against the measures - although weren't there stories of the government wanting to give councils more power to roll these out without the need for consultations etc?

 

 

11 minutes ago, first mate said:

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?

I do, and I watch with interest and quite a bit of concern. It doesn’t affect me directly but it smells bad. 

  • Like 1

Ah that started to happen in Dulwich Square too way back when but the fun police soon put a stop to it....apparently the space was opened for the exclusive use of bikes only - skateboards were seen as a potential hazard and the kids doing it were told to go somewhere else!!!

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.

No hint of statutory consultation for the proposed ( or 'agreed) reduced MGS CPZ. Slated for implementation in October.

March, what makes you think this will not go ahead without further consultation, as flagged in the online documents (genuine question)? 

Edited by first mate
On 23/09/2025 at 22:35, first mate said:

March, what makes you think this will not go ahead without further consultation, as flagged in the online documents (genuine question)? 

Because they have to do statutory consultation.

What makes you think they will go ahead without it?

Because a Councillor for the proposed CPZ area announced it was "agreed" and the last I read online it was set for implementation in October. Would a councillor announce a CPZ was agreed before it had gone to statutory consultation? If not, what could be meant by the announcement?

Edited by first mate

Really? I hope your generous interpretation of the exact meaning of Councillor Smith's statement about the CPZ  is correct. I, for one, will be very pleased.

Just a reminder, his article in SE22 magazine opened with:

"The Melbourne Grove South Controlled Parking Zone has been agreed".

He then goes on to explain that 'due to resident feedback the zone will be smaller than what was originally proposed' and explains what the hours of operation will be. In such a detailed article you'd think he say something like, 'subject to statutory consultation.'

 

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 current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...