Why no change to the definition of a CPZ?

In the current consultation there appears to be no mention of CPZs ... an ideal opportunity to correct matters that the DfT have been aware of since 2007 in relation to the arguments raised in my case.
They have sought to amend other definitions at Regulation 4 however.

3) Amendment of regulation 4 – Interpretation - general

• The definition of a "designated lane" has been added in order to permit broader use of the solid white line marking to diagram 1049 which currently indicates the boundary of a priority lane for buses or cycles. This allows for the implementation of other priority lanes such as High Occupancy Vehicle lanes.

• The definition of "enforcement agency" has been added to cover any future change of name for the ‘Vehicle Inspectorate’. The name has already changed to the "Vehicle and Operator Services Agency" (VOSA), and could change again in the future.

• The definition of "equestrian crossing" has been amended to include the permitted use of the new nearside repeater signal.

• The definition of "maximum laden weight" of a vehicle has been amended as the reference to the "construction and use requirements" in section 41(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was incorrect and should have stated section 41(7).

• The definition of "portable signal-controlled pedestrian facility" has been added. The required signs and signals are stated as are the optional carriageway markings.

• The definition of "signal-controlled pedestrian facility" has been amended to include the permitted use of the new nearside repeater signal.

• The definition of "Toucan crossing" has been amended to include the permitted use of the new nearside repeater signal.

• A definition of "traffic officer" has been added to take account of the role played by the Highways Agency’s traffic officers in maintaining traffic flows on all-purpose trunk roads, where they are required to give instructions to the public which may infringe traffic prohibitions or directions.