TheArtfulDogger

Fault

Lost

Tasty

Kicks

This is how I see you Bob

Hand towel is always an option , or a tiny flannel Bob

Season

Storm

Fury

Off

Miter

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What colour?s going to make your heart sing when > you come home? That?s the one to go for unless > it?s going to piss off the neighbours perhaps. > > HP Or depending how well you get on with your neighbours, the one that will piss them off could be the right one for you

It's interesting to see how Southwark interpret their survey results The highlights from the Dog Kennel Hill survey stated "From 365 valid responses representing a 15% response rate, 49% of respondents were in favour of a parking zone, 39% were against a parking zone and 12% were undecided." Yet this 49% in favour was classed as giving the green light In contrast, the Peckham west survey highlights said "There was no clear majority in response to the question do you want a parking zone in your street with 48% against a parking zone, 43% wanting a zone and 9% were undecided. Results were very similar when excluding visitors to the area (49%, 42% and 9%) with 11 streets in favour and 13 streets not in favour and 8 undecided." So excluding visitors to the area, the same 49% of respondents NOT in favour of a CPZ in Peckham West (which matches those in favour in the Dog Kennel hill one) is classed as no clear majority so they had to then resort to question 2 yet in Dog Kennel Hill it was obviously a clear enough majority to get a CPZ One to challenge the council on I think

The alternative when a council is short of funds is to look internally to see where savings can be made E.g. Reduce top executives pay , golden handshakes and so on Or stop rewarding failure , caused by departments spending all their funding to ensure they retain the same amount for next year, classic example is highways who implement a raft of unwanted works at the end of each tax year but plead poverty when pot holes need to be repaired. Why not try asking them to bank unused money each year, still get the same funds next and when money is needed it's in the bank ? (I realise it's a change in legislation and attitude) There are possibly many savings and ideas to be had to maximise the existing inwards revenue, but sadly a council isn't run like a business or charity, it seems to be have the ability to spend more then it generates, expecting central government, residents and businesses to pay more for "essential" services and bail them out. On a simple note, still can't work out why they relocated to a purpose built office in London Bridge, the most expensive area for real estate and associated charges when it would have been cheaper in the south of the borough , like Peckham or Camberwell, with the benefit of council officers purchasing items (lunch, shopping....) close to where they work thus benefitting the local economy and strategic growth of these areas. Mad decision

Nxjen it's not about the amount, it's about the principle of charging for a currently provided free service that is generating all this upset It's the thin end of the wedge of stealth taxes for services that are currently free, be it brown bin collection, parking in your street,park car park access or late night drinking (the newly proposed Southwark late night levy) as these things need to be nipped in the bud before other services are seen as things that can be charged for.

Socks

Whilst everyone is up in arms over this stealth tax on a service that is currently free, I wonder how many of us will pay it to get rid of their once a month (on average) half filled bin of garden waste ? As someone pointed out earlier, this will impact areas where there are gardens, so blocks of flats who don't generate garden waste won't be impacted, which kind of implies it is a tax on the southern half of the borough (where most gardens are located) It would be interesting to see what Southwark would do if everyone turned around and said "take my brown bin away" Three things come to mind 1. Southwark would lose out on this extra revenue stream they are expecting 2. Residents voices would be clearly heard by decision makers 3. There will be a cost to the council to supply the new caddies and recycle the old brown bins However I suspect people will still want their garden waste removed, so the best result we can expect is that one in every hundred premises keep their bins, thus forcing Southwark to supply a collection service but for it not to be cost effective to them. As a final question, what's going to happen at Christmas ? Will Christmas trees be collected if you haven't paid the stealth tax or will, like some other boroughs , there be abandoned Christmas trees rolling around the streets where they are just dumped thus costing the council more money to go out and pick them up? Someone up the Southwark tree really hasn't thought this through all the way down to the grass roots My two-pennies worth thinks there should be a movement to say no to keeping the brown bins and call Southwark's bluff

Sorry jw Don't understand, I asked a legitimate question and you responded with an insult Now who's insulting who ?

I am curious, do you also object to paying adult prices on public transport when accompanying a child ? Not in the same price range I grant you, unless travelling to Glasgow, but basically a similar principle

Ed I think zebedee means something like Bus'tards 😂

Locks

Short

I am concerned how the council manipulate figures to get the results they want Peckham west There was no clear majority in response to the question do you want a parking zone in your street with 48% against a parking zone, 43% wanting a zone and 9% were undecided. Results were very similar when excluding visitors to the area (49%, 42% and 9%) with 11 streets in favour and 13 streets not in favour and 8 undecided. Sorry but 48% against vs. 43% for is a clear majority against But oh no, the council then used their second question to reverse those figures If the figures were closer (say 46 vs. 45%) then the secondary question could reasonably be considered but wth the larger result against it shouldn't even be a factor If Peckham west is implemented right up to East Dulwich Road based on these flawed results, and the smaller East Dulwich zone is also implemented then there will be increased pressure on the rest of East Dulwich, resulting in a new CPZ consultation in a few years It appears the old adage of "there are lies, damn lies and there are statistics" can be updated to "there are lies, damn lies and there are council statistics" Hopefully the local councillors will support the majority in both consultation areas who didn't want a CPZ by rejecting the officers recommendations Equally I would encourage people to raise this matter at the community council meeting most appropriate to their zone to try and thwart this blatent misrepresentation of the results in both areas

Not exactly small as the majority of roads that didn't want it adjacent to lordship lane seem to have been included in it Wouldn't it have been more sensible to just add the few roads that were vocal near the station to the dog kennel hill scheme and not make the proposed zone so big ?

Lapel