Siduhe

I think the idea is that political debate, election stuff and politics/policies go in the Drawing room but locals can ask for help/raise local issues with councillors (or anyone else) in the ED bit of the forum. Not easy to draw the line though especially at the moment.

Oliver Kempton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Siduhe, you're right that recycling should go up > anyway, partly for the reasons you've outlined but > also partly due to growing awareness of the > importance of recycling. But we've set an > ambitious target (to double the rate), so we'll > have to do more. > Agree we can always do more. But, if I understand what Veolia said correctly, the existing plan is to double the rate to above 40% over 4-5 years and that is what the new facilities are designed to do - so your "doubling the rate" plan is already in place. Or is it that you are going to bring the rate up to 40% more quickly than the current plan? It's a particular area of interest for me so would be good to understand genuinely what you are going to do over and above what is already in place.

The line doesn't count for anything - it's a courtesy by the Council to draw attention to the drop. Parking across the drive is only an offence if a) you're obstructing the driveway owner from getting out of his drive or b) it's a PCN'able offence if he requests a PCN to be issued. So I think he's fine to do what he's doing.

I very much agree with Willow and (at the risk of repeating myself from another thread), there are two things that have been demonstrated to make a big difference to recycling rates: a) commingled kerbside recycling (i.e. put all your recyclables into a single box rather than having to separate as currently) and b) requiring kitchen waste to be collected separately from household waste). a) is coming very soon as I understand it from the nice lady at Veolia who stopped by a few days ago to ask about our recycling habits and b) will very likely come in when the new MBT and facility at the Old Kent Road is opened up. Even if kitchen waste recycling isn't compulsory, it will give Southwark a way to do it cheaply (and potentially generate money from the energy sent back to the grid - depending on the technology they use). So recycling rates are likely to go up (maybe dramatically) in the near future because of existing initiatives - it just takes time to get things like planning permission and facilities in place. Not saying we couldn't do more(especially for flats and estates) and I have no connection to any political party, but it isn't going to be Tetra-pak recycling that does it. It's going to be the stuff put into place about 2 years ago now.

I agree with Mellors - it's not lawful access unless you have permission to cross the Council-owned bit of pavement. I looked at this for someone else on the forum recently - my basic understanding is: s34 of the Road Traffic Act prohibits the driving of motor vehicles on anything that isn't a road (and specifically mentions driving on footpaths). Some bright people figured out s34 only applied to "driving" cars across pavements to park, so started pushing their cars across to try and get round strict wording of the legislation. The result was a TMO which applies across all of London (as far as I know) which makes it an offence for any motor vehicle to park or to move a vehicle across a pathway for the purposes of parking (unless it is specifically exempted and signs indicate that you may park partially or wholly on the footway or there is a lawful access such as a drop kerb). In short, unless he can show he picked up the car and dropped it into place without going across the rest of the pavement, he's committed an offence.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He sells cars. It?s part of his business. The > section of pavement in front of his shop is his. I > don?t think there is anything to stop him from > putting a car up for sale on it. Agreed, but he doesn't have the right to drive across the bit of pavement which isn't his, to park the car there in the first place.

I'll be disappointed unless it lives up to this:

It depends where your drop kerb is and whether you need to get onto the drive or off it. s14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport Act 2003 says that it is a PCN'able offence (i.e. Council enforcement) to block a legal dropped kerb but a PCN will only be issued at the request of the householder. However, under s86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, if the drop kerb is in a special enforcement area, the Council have the authority to remove the car or issue a PCN. Also, if your car is on the drive and needs to exit, it is obstruction and the police have powers to remove the obstruction - whether they consider it is proportionate to exercise these powers is up to them - there is no obligation to remove the car. As an aside, they also have the power to arrest anyone causing an unreasonable obstruction (and this has apparently been done on rare occasions eg a neighbour who consistently and maliciously blocks a legal dropkerb). However, if the car is blocking the entrance to your drive and you need to get back onto it, that doesn't count as obstruction.

Loads of info here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200084/recycling_and_waste/426/what_can_i_recycle http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200084/recycling_and_waste/343/how_to_recycle and http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200084/recycling_and_waste/1363/garden_and_green_waste Or just phone up the Environmental line - they are pretty good about ordering you any missing boxes or bags (although you may have to wait for a bit to get a new blue box)

It looks like works on the pathway or to pipes under the pathway. There are barriers around the earth and a works sign up now.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All good points. > > I may have this wrong, but I had the impression > that in order to gain the maximum benefit of > maternity payments from work there was an > obligation to return to work afterwards. > > There's more than a few ladies who have worked for > me and others who confided they took the cynical > position of claiming they would return to work in > order to derive maximum financial benefit - when > they had no intention to and didn't. Me too - although I don't believe it was ever a plan from "day 1" in the cases I am aware of, but a decision they came to towards the end of their leave. I also don't think more "prohibitive" type legislation is the answer, but would like to see some incentive or positive break for business owners to offer more flexible working conditions where appropriate. For myself, I have always accepted the good and bad sides of the environment I work in. Right now, it's a bit frustrating but I understand the concerns that are driving it.

I'm also not convinced that legislation is the answer, but I agree that something more needs to be done to encourage the retention of talented and committed female employees who choose to balance a family and a career. Like legalbeagle, I work in a primarily male dominated sector for a well known and generally well thought of organisation. I hold a senior position, don't have a family and I don't think anyone could question my drive and commitment to my work. Yet, the fact I got married a year ago has been brought up on numerous occasions. On the one hand I understand that my department head doesn't want to promote me if I'm just going to disappear for nine months, but it's the underlying assumptions that are so hard to break. Several years ago, in a different organisation, I sat through a senior management meeting where a mid-ranking mother who's just come back from her second maternity leave put in a reasoned and compelling case to go part time. Everyone agreed that she could probably handle it and she was plainly committed. And yet, her request was denied on the basis that "if we give it to her, everyone will want to do it". Those attitudes still exist and are entrenched in some sectors. I would love it if Huguenot's "market forces" theory worked in practice, i.e. if there's a business case for it people will give it a try, but my experience is that a lot won't even consider it.

Do you mean Dulwich Van Hire? If so, see the James Barber thread - Southwark Council enforcement officers are involved. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,336529,423994#msg-423994

m7post Wrote: > Now even the > http://www.dulwichcommunityhospital.nhs.uk/ > website has disappeared from the web after years > of showing how big and wonderful the whole project > would be. Here is an archive of the proposal page. You can still navigate the links on the left to show what the project proposal looked like: http://web.archive.org/web/20080604111023/www.dulwichcommunityhospital.nhs.uk/index.php?PID=0000000215 The site says that the Southwark PCT proposal to build the new hospital was always subject to the approval of a Stage 1 business case by the Department of Health - did they ever get it?

The Big Issue have previously said (will try to find a link) that bogus salespeople are a massive problem for them (and those legitimately selling the magazine). I'm not sure how they get hold of the mags - but if they haven't got a Big Issue bib or ID, they're not legit. Edited to add link - http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/220/220329_rooney_falls_for_big_issue_scam.html

There is a very long, similar thread from last year - if it is the same woman, she is fairly well known around these parts: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,211732,211732#msg-211732

SimonM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The solicitors/conveyancers who acted for whomever > bought/leased the flats in that house would or > should have advised them of the uncertain legal > status of the house. So I guess they took a gamble > and it looks like they may lose, or may at least > have some sort of legal redress against whomever > built or sold them the flats? The certificate is needed because the white house was built about a metre closer to the old concrete house than was permitted. My understanding (from someone else who is connected to the flat owners) is that all of the purchasers and their solicitors were supplied with plans by the seller which showed the buildings complied with the permission, and the issue regarding the breach of planning was only identified after many of the flats had been legitimately sold. It sounds like a nightmare situation for them to be honest.

I'm pretty sure that Tapatalk only works on vBulletin software, not Phorum (which is what this forum runs on).

The Councillors for Rye Lane are Mark Glover and Gordon Nardell - why not try emailing them - presumably they will be very engaged in getting things sorted, as it's their patch and they should be able to tell you what is planned for the Lane. (No offence to James by the way, I'm sure he's very engaged too - but the Lane is a Peckham ward issue, not ED). [email protected]/[email protected]

Also, get your carpets cleaned (if you use a professional cleaner, they can use an anti moth/flea solution) - the moths lay their eggs in it, not on your clothes. But hiring a proper carpet cleaner from HSS or similar for a day will probably do the job just as well.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was in wandsworth over the weekend, and they > have a compulsary 'Dog chipping' policy for > residents, which begs teh questions of > 1) How do they know if you are a resident or a > visitor ? > 2) what happens if you visit, and your dog isn't > chipped ? > 3_ hopw will they check, some sort of doggy > scanner like the new heathrow body scanners, > positioned at every park gate ? The new chipping scheme only applies to council tenants and leaseholders, not visitors to the borough. They must get their animals chipped and registered on a borough-wide database. Any failure to do so means they will be in breach of their tenancy and lease agreements and in an extreme case they could be evicted from their homes if they do not comply.

They were low, but definitely up in the sky - didn't look like much to worry about. The same house had a similar display exactly this time last year, so maybe a birthday?

When I lived in SE1 and a similar issue occurred in a particular park, a proactive "poo committee" of responsible owners spent two weeks flagging every stray poo with a can of gold (non perm) spray and a stick/flag arrangement. If they saw the offender, they wrote down a description of dog and owner on the flag. It cut down on the amount of stray poo dramatically by all accounts. I guess the problem here would be that a lot of this is on the street, so would be cleared by Southwark rather than serving to highlight the scale of the issue?

JBARBER Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mixed collections will reach East Dulwich during > the summer and allow even more different types of > items to be recycled. > > Let me know if you?d like to know anything else > about recycling. James, I'd be interested to know if any of these planned new types of recycling are going to include kitchen waste collections (the new waste site will have an MBT, I understand but presumably that won't be up and running for a while yet). Having tried and dramatically failed with kitchentop composting, that's the one service that would seriously cut down on the amount of waste I send to landfill.

magpie, I asked the same question when the last set of 20mph consultation took place. TFL managed roads like Lordship Lane aren't included in the proposals because Southwark isn't responsible for managing them. Not sure about Barry Road though.