rachp

It is easier said than done with young kids, especially as you need to get them to the park in the first place. Personally I'm not willing to let my 7 year old cycle on Lordship Lane so we either give up on the bike or there are stretches where he needs to be on the pavement. I completely get your point, if there's a cycle lane, use it, and you certainly shouldn't be whizzing past people on the pavement and putting them in danger.

Hi James Please can we discuss this (again) at the meeting. The bins on north-cross road- photos from Sunday afternoon (today). The council licences a street food market and therefore knows there will be waste generated The council does not empty the bins on Saturday morning before the the market starts, or after the market has finished because north-cross is not classified as a main road. Therefore it is simply left like this until the next scheduled clean up (I believe that north x is on the twice a week cleaning rota due to it's status). This is despite the issue being raised month after month over several years. This is a predictable, repeated issue but it is never addressed properly or permanently. I don't know how the council can keep failing to adopt a common sense view that tells us this road needs to be added to the cleaning schedule for the weekends. The law on litter is that cleaning schedules should be determined by the need- this is not happening here.

I wasn?t aware we have many/any cycle lanes to not be using in Dulwich?

It?s surprising how little awareness there is on the log-burner issue, I think many people just don?t realise how bad the impact is.

Thanks for setting this up James. Can we discuss how the council can partner with the community on this agenda too- I think there is a lot more that could be done to have council supported community action.

That whole area has a problem with dog poo, there?s clearly someone who walks that patch regularly and feels at liberty to leave their mess behind. It?s all up Fellbrigg too. Apparently spraying it with a brightly coloured spray paint puts some people off doing it (eco, temporary stuff of course).

https://twitter.com/envirocrime_lbl?s=21

Is this an example of lack of vision & leadership? The councils that are open about having robust enforcement strategies position them as self funding. I believe Lewisham has gone down the route of having a much stronger enforcement strategy just recently- will be interesting to see how that works out. sand12 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not expecting or asking for any ring fencing just > for areas that have seen property values rise. > Should be distributed across the borough to meet > critical needs of vulnerable (Social care, SEND), > but no one can argue that more funds would not be > helpful and property reassessments would be a > pretty straightforward way for councils to do > this. Politicians might not want to touch this for > fear of upsetting their constituents who will have > to pay more. Someone has to have the courage > though to state the obvious. Central govt funding > is inadequate, local (esp London) property values > have risen, yet the formula for calculating it has > not been updated to reflect these changes in the > past 20+ years? > > Makes no sense. > > There are several local clean streets groups > (EDSTN , Dawson?s Heights) and friends of Dulwich > park that also do litter pick ups. I do what I can > as well when I am out, but individuals can?t do > much about persistent fly tipping, over flowing > dog shit barrels, parking, inconsiderate builders > and planning regs not being enforced, or other > anti social issues. Most people do care about > their local areas and I don?t think whether you > rent or own or your salary has anything to do with > it. Collective responsibility and expectations > that there is a negative consequence for > disregarding the rules deter people from this, but > if no one is enforcing things? > > Speaking with several council employees over the > years, the consistent refrain is that there isn?t > enough money to enforce half the laws or regs on > the books. You need actual people to do this > effectively. That means salaries, pensions, and > other labour related costs which the council has > had to shrink in the interests of efficiency. > Cutting labour costs to the bone is a false > economy when the result is blight and > deteriorating critical social and health and > safety services.

Couldn?t agree more Nigello, the community needs to play a part too.

They might not be ring-fenced but when the council had more money, they spent more on services for the vulnerable AND the services that the whole community requires and benefits from. We don?t know how the council would spend increased funds if they were generated. There is sometimes a reaction when people in more affluent areas are bothered by the area becoming dirtier, as if it?s only well off people who are concerned about this and therefore it?s not really a valid concern when bigger issues exist. I wonder how true that is? I was somewhere the other day which was definitely a lot less affluent than Dulwich and there were council funded planters (nothing to do with LTNs) and signs put up by the local residents asking people to respect the efforts they?d made to improve the area by not dropping litter. Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?The area has been a centre of gentrification, yet > the council services have not kept pace, and in > many cases declined. IMO, if councils want to > deliver quality services and residents want > improvements, we have to reasses property values > to the current values in 2021. How is it fair > otherwise for anyone to complain about services?? > > Any increased revenue raised by Southwark by these > means will not be ringfenced to be spent on > keeping the streets of Dulwich clean. It will be > used to meet the needs of the more vulnerable in > the Borough.

The council is undoubtedly in a very difficult place with cuts to funding and having to make tough choices. With the stark reality of less money to go around, could they adapt to think smarter and more creatively on things like litter & fly-tipping? Of course keeping vulnerable people safe from harm is more important but living in a well-cared for environment is still important to many peoples? wellbeing and happiness and it?s something that affects everyone. It's interesting the comments re. Lewisham as whenever I've been to comparable areas in Lewisham (Blackheath and Forest Hill), I always think they seem to be doing a good job- I guess the grass is always greener. I think litter and fly-tipping are self-perpetuating- the more people see it happening, and getting away with it, the more inclined they are to follow suit, and ultimately this costs the council as they do have a legal duty to intervene at some point to clear it up. I have no evidence for this but I imagine there is also a link between environments being well cared for and businesses thriving which is all positive for jobs and money going back into the local public purse. I?m sure none of this is straightforward and requires thinking through by people who know more about these things than I do but just carrying on with the singular focus on clearing up the rubbish when there is less money to fund street cleaning teams is obviously going to lead to the place being dirtier. A few examples of ideas that could be worthy of consideration: Focus more on prevention ? Have a good bin infrastructure: a lot of Dulwich, especially in areas with high foot fall, will keep itself pretty clean if there is adequate bin provision because most people don?t want to drop litter and would be embarrassed to be seen doing so. Most of the litter I see in busy areas is where there is no bin, or the bin is full and people stack it on top of the bin or optimistically ram it in, for it only to fall out five mins later. Yes, it costs money to empty bins more regularly/provide more but may be this is a better way to spend funds than getting people to clear up after the event. On days when you know it?s going to be busy e.g., Saturday morning, make sure the bins are empty because we know people are going to go to the market and coffeeshops and buy takeaway food and drinks- if there?s nowhere to put the rubbish, it will lead to some form of littering. (although the throw away culture is obviously a whole other problem in itself which needs to be tackled). ? Use self-funded enforcement: enforcement schemes can fund themselves via fines. I?m sure this is fraught with challenges and the council is probably reluctant to roll-out another fine based initiative with the furore around LTN fines still raging but this is at least targeted at activity that most people would agree is wrong. Tap into the community There are community schemes all over the country that have taken on a role in supporting the effort to keep neighbourhoods clean but for this to reach any scale, this does require some funding and support from somewhere and the council could play a role in this (their cleaner, greener, safer scheme only covers permanent fixtures like gardens and painting fence posts). I have approached the council and volunteered to partner with them to set up such a scheme- as yet there has been very little meaningful interest and has gone no-where. It feels like a lack of leadership on this agenda when you can?t offer help in exchange for some support (even if they just pay for some litter pickers). Examples of where other areas are adopting such an approach are here: ? Lambeth Neighbourhood Champions: https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/your-community/get-involved/community-groups-projects/become-neighbourhood-champion ? Chichester adopt-a-street: https://www.chichester.gov.uk/adoptanarea ? Malvern Hills adopt-a-street: https://www.malvernhills.gov.uk/community/adopt-a-street ? Lewisham: https://lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/environment/environment/environmental-volunteering

St Christopher?s (and possibly other charity shops) can take fabrics for recycling- they sell it on (the bins are often full or not near the high street).

I wasn?t really trying to get into area bashing. Just reflecting that ED/Peckham seems to be a place where I see groups of younger people hanging out at the pubs etc, possibly a bit of a destination whereas I haven?t observed that so much in FH. I?ve lived in both and see them as having different characteristics.

Anywhere in East Dulwich is safe by London standards, but not particularly cheap. I think you get a bit more for your money in Forest Hill/Honor Oak but it?s probably not as dynamic for young people. Although I lived there when I was younger and the the transport is good so you can get around easily. But nowhere round here is as good as spots on the tube if you want convenient transport. So really, it depends what his priorities are? Peckham Rye is popular with young people, probably not cheap, not sure how safe it?s considered to be?

Ed Anna, they are definitely being emptied less frequently and it seems to be getting worse. The one outside coop is always a complete mess.

Gardens has been good in my experience?

Whilst the points of objection on the original post are understandable on a human and personal level (it would be really upsetting if you had got used to uninterrupted views of Dulwich Park, to then lose them, I get that) they do seem to be referencing facts of life that most residents living around here have to deal with (excessive noise from building works and lack of uninterrupted views over green spaces being the two most notable ones)and are outweighed by the greater issue of people who have no permanent home. Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was proposed to be a three story building, but > Labour Southwark once again railroad another potty > scheme where the proposed block of flats is an > eyesore and doesn't match with the rest of the > estate. > > Southwark have a track record of attempting to add > social housing by either building on green space > or on spaces that are inappropriate. > > I doubt residents of the estate would have issues > if it was a three story design that blends into > the surroundings and didn't spoil views of Dulwich > Park for residents.

I?m not sure what the alternative is if we accept that more homes are needed- where is a good space to build desperately needed affordable homes in an urban setting?

Yes, that is my choice of words that I would use to describe that mindset?

Maybe but it had been like that over a number of days and it didn?t take much effort to rearrange the various bags so they were closer to the edge of the pavement rather than strewn all over the place. If everyone starts taking the ?it doesn?t really matter? approach, the pavements become inaccessible for wheelchairs, visually impaired etc KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair, if a builder is blocking the pavement > temporarily to complete a task it?s reasonable > that he gets left to it - especially if he?s using > heavy tools, machine tools, or materials that may > splash, like cement and paint. > It?s often less hassle to cross the road with a > pram than it is for a builder to stop his task, > mind his tools, clear a path, then start all > over. > Obvs pavements are a right of way, but sometimes > an objective approach is needed rather than just > obsessing on ?rights?, especially when it?s a > temporary situation. > > rachp Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes, I spoke to a builder on my road last week > as > > there was barely room to get a small pushchair > > through, let alone a wheelchair. He looked at > me > > like there was something wrong with me and told > me > > he he would be moving it when he?d finished?and > > yes, flytipping is definitely increasing.

Yes, I spoke to a builder on my road last week as there was barely room to get a small pushchair through, let alone a wheelchair. He looked at me like there was something wrong with me and told me he he would be moving it when he?d finished?and yes, flytipping is definitely increasing.

Just because there are too many school places doesn?t mean there are too many nursery places?. When I put my now two year old down for a nursery place (when I was 3 months pregnant), we only managed to get a place because she had an older brother at the nursery. So based on my own experience, there was a shortage a couple of years ago (most nurseries never even bothered coming back to me). This situation could have changed due to COVID but we?d need to see up to date data to make that judgement.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It still amazes me how some are still clinging > onto the hope that somehow their posts are > persuading us readers that somehow Dulwich LTNs > are a fair and just use of such government > funding. People on both sides of this debate keep posting views to persuade others of the merits of their position in the hope/belief that if their posts are persuasive enough, people are going to change their original position. Whilst there may have been some minor shifts in views, most people have taken a position and are sticking to it steadfastly, interpreting and choosing evidence that supports this. That's one of the reasons why this thread is at 263 pages.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pro -LTN research reminds me of climate change > -denier research. It goes something like - oh > there isn't an increase in pollution and traffic > on high density ribbon roads due to a human > intervention - see look at this 'data' we have > gathered and manipulate to prove our theory. Oh I > know that it looks like there is idling traffic > but that's just a one off. Oh it's all going to > evaporate soon...just wait... > > Climate deniers - oh there isn't an increase in > climate change due to human intervention - see > look at this data ........... Oh I know it looks > like the ice-caps are melting and Madagascar is on > fire, but that's just a one off. It will all go > back to normal soon - it's just a blip. > > Very similar ignoring of the 'facts' This is just human beings- human beings pay attention and give credence to evidence that backs up their current world view- whatever that might be.

Totally agree Nigello, I take a bag out about three times a week and manage to fill it each time on the same ten minute walk. The number of people who think it's ok to just chuck stuff on the floor is quite shocking.