rollflick

ianr - that's not what the law actually says, as benjief correctly has pointed out. Fundamental rules of statutory interpretation mean the regulation would need to state explicitly if cemeteries that include a crematorium have to be closed. It doesn't. As for the argument that the cemeteries need to be closed for grieving families, it is not an issue normally and in these extreme times first the public will be more deferential to mourners, second funerals are required to be much smaller. And in any event ever if the govt does update the law, only one of the closed cemeteries has a crematorium. Again this is just Southwark making it up as it goes along, trying not to embarrass itself by acknowledging its error in wrongly sending out info claiming it was legally required to shut all its cemeteries. COVID-19 is a crisis that will require many restrictions for many more months. That requires transparent, honest communication from public authorities to maintain public trust. It requires agility and proportionality not disappearing down into the safety of a silo if inconvenient facts emerge. Unfortunately the culture in Southwark Council is stuck in the past and unfit for the complexities of the 21st century. If anything positive comes out of this crisis, let's hope the council will learn and change.

As a matter of statutory interpretation, the legislation only closes crematoriums not burial grounds: "5(8) A person who is responsible for a crematorium or burial ground must ensure that, during the emergency period, the crematorium is closed to members of the public, except for funerals or burials." [see ref in my msg above] And as a matter of public health, the cemeteries locally are less risk of transmission than the overcrowded parks. Despite this, Southwark has just sent an email to residents (COVID-19: an update for residents (1 April)), which ends on this subject: "Cemeteries and crematoriums In line with national government legislation during this emergency period, we have closed all of our cemeteries and our crematorium grounds, to all but those attending funerals. This will make the areas safer for grieving family and friends, at an incredibly difficult time, as well as maintain public safety. We will also be limiting the number of people able to attend funerals to 10, in an approach consistent with other boroughs. We know how sensitive these matters are, but must follow public health advice and discourage large gatherings, to help protect our residents from COVID-19." Southwark's claim it's being consistent with other boroughs simply does not accord with reality, e.g.: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/bereavement-services/changes-due-to-coronavirus "We suggest that you do not visit the cemetery or crematoria grounds during this time unless you are attending a funeral but if you do please observe social distancing and take any litter home with you. Currently, cemetery grounds are open to the public during the normal advertised hours."

Does anyone know how you can get compost delivered, preferably peat free? Trying to grow more food to reduce the need to shop and as it's something relaxing to do outdoors. Nunhead Gardener does deliveries for ?10 but have run out, Dulwich pots seems to have email only service with big backlog.

(edited) The virus is an unfolding national tragedy but that should not mean public authorities making up the law as they go along, as we've sadly seen with certain police forces. That brings the law into disrepute and hinders the widespread compliance for a long time that we are likely to need to flatten the peak, rather than just move it back a few weeks. Last week's Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 do not apply to cemeteries (just crematoriums) and even make an exception to the ban on gatherings for funerals: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/5/made There is no particular health risk from a funeral, so long as you keep at least 2m, which is new guidance issued today advises families of the bereaved to keep funerals small: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-for-care-of-the-deceased/guidance-for-care-of-the-deceased-with-suspected-or-confirmed-coronavirus-covid-19 In any event the burial grounds locally are very large with much of their area without space for new plots. And surely most people would now of all times leave space for people to grieve. The cemeteries have been far quieter than parks and tranquil places for quiet reflection in these difficult times. Today I found Nunhead Cemetery closed so for the first time went into Brockley Cemetery which was lovely with bluebells out.

Bringing in the CPZs as planned is very important. It will free up kerbside space for deliveries to run more smoothly when couriers etc. are hard pressed as it is to cater with the increase in demand for online shopping. The suggestion that volunteers making essential deliveries are at risk of parking tickets is at best spurious. Deliveries count as loading, so are not affected by the CPZs and since they are advised not to go into properties where people are self-isolating to reduce the risk of infection, wardens can see what's going on and vice versa. Public transport is increasingly empty so there's no need to provide car parking for medics, in any event the cancellation of routine operations etc. will free up spaces at hospitals. Wider measures are urgently needed to reduce motor traffic, given the evidence that air pollution increases the death rate: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/17/air-pollution-likely-to-increase-coronavirus-death-rate-warn-experts This would also cater for people who need to social distance and avoid public transport, gyms, congested pavements etc. but who need to exercise, as recommended by public health experts: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR5AdOmF2effrg-lpBXtvh0stbxM0W6xTDwV2J-xIgHB8rPfZl5bLVR5eL7VV2m_W9xx5PgH26TB0vq/pub Let's see Southwark moving quickly to follow cities elsewhere by installing road closures and cycle lanes with temporary materials.

yes micromacro monkey finding it a massive improvement too. Sure will be even better when the zone starts on 30 March. Have any EDers noticed an increase in parking in their streets not least dreaded abandoned taxis? oimissus - the council are responding to repeated consultation results showing strong support of residents (over 75%) for cutting congestion and air pollution and making it easier to walk and cycle. Certainly the area between Burgess Park and Peckham Road has recently been transformed by a CPZ. Of course someone who says they want improvements can also say they don't want to pay ?125 to park their car etc. But without credible alternatives it's clear the council is going in the right direction. Once the CPZ is live we'll see how on many streets only a minority of households own a car and that will create momentum for greater change.

Peckham West CPZ is starting on Monday 30 March - hope the one around ED station starts on same date to make things simpler. Some marks have already started appearing on the roads, look out for parking suspension signs otherwise your vehicle may need to be moved to enable line painting. Get your permits here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/on-street-permits At least they're virtual these days so don't need to wait for them in the post. On street pay by phone parking will be ?2.75/hour or ?3.25/hour for diesel but that will rise to ?4/hour from 1 April, so make the most of those last two days of March! This is so long overdue, can't believe how the streets have become so filled with vehicles over the last decade. This CPZ should have gone in the same time as the Champion Hill CPZ, was always obvious there would be huge displacement.

Many people in this thread are claiming that traffic is only a problem during school drop off/pick up times. But the traffic data gathered by the council clearly shows that traffic - and air pollution - levels are high into the evening. All the data is on the consultation page in the evidence report, here's a link for anyone who's not found it yet: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/our-healthy-streets-dulwich-phase-3/supporting_documents/OHS%20Dulwich%20Phase%203%20Evidence%20Pack.pdf If you think the council data is wrong, please tell us why. Otherwise shouldn't we move on to focus on facts? In terms of public transport, the only credible way now to get improvements is to limit car traffic here. Doing that means fewer delays for buses (so the same number of buses can operate a faster, higher frequency service) and it will increase demand, creating a business case for TfL to invest in service improvements in our area. There's no space for major development in the area so no developer cash. The govt's new "Levelling up" agenda means London won't get more cash at the time when TfL's budget is going down the hole that is Crossrail. Lobbying TfL for more services will get nowhere. The council has a clear mandate for change. For anyone still with misgivings about these proposals despite looking at the compelling evidence underpinning them, the effective way to influence them would be to come up with alternatives that would lead to similar improvements for air quality, cycling etc.

Serena2012 According to official traffic counts, 15 years ago motor traffic levels on ED Grove were a third higher than now and there were four times as many HGVs: https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/47606 Again and again people commentating on this thread are making the assumption this is the only thing that will happen in the area. That's perhaps understandable given years of inaction by Southwark and Lambeth, but both councils are finally stepping up in response to strong public pressure for radical change. These other schemes will also help reduce traffic levels over the wider area and improve the viability of alternatives, particularly by creating continental quality continuous cycling routes and enabling more people to walk. Better train services are also proposed and these schemes should help reverse the drop in usage of bus services. The Ultra Low Emission Zone extension will cover this area from next October. Even if it doesn't reduce motor traffic levels by quite the same extent as it has done in central London (about 3-9%), it will still reduce NO2 levels quickly by as much as a third: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/ulez-reduces-polluting-cars-by-13500-every-day While no one wants more traffic on their street, giving any residents an effective veto will mean we are stuck with congestion, pollution and streets unsafe for a wider range of people to walk and cycle. Yes Lordship Lane needs rebalancing away from the car too, but some improvements are due soon (see my earlier post). There's more chance of getting them if this scheme goes ahead and creates momentum for change.

rahrahrah & Monkey The council does not have the staff capacity to consult and deliver on large parts of the borough all at once and is also busy doing lots elsewhere, e.g. around Rotherhithe. Separate plans are being brought forward for the Lordship Lane area in a few months: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50021892&Opt=0 The main thing is to get strong support for this ambitious Dulwich scheme so that officers and councillors get used to proposing, supporting and delivering effective schemes - rather than just surveys and studies that lead simply to (cycle) symbols painted on rat runs. That sadly seems to be the situation still in the Bellenden area.

If you are going to tackle air pollution, carbon emissions, road danger & congestion by enabling a wider range of people to get around without a car, it's hard to see how anything other than these plans would work. And as that's what most people have said they want in countless consultations, whether in the Dulwich area, borough wide or in London as a whole want, we should now get on with it. Yes there will be some angry and shouty people seeking to dominate the public meetings, yes there will be teething problems. What is important is that rather than put faith (and more time & money) in traffic modelling, which is at best an inexact science, physical measures such as the permeable closures are implemented quickly in temporary materials, so there can be fine-tuning along with the further changes to adjacent roads the consultation mentions. Lambeth is consulting on major improvements to Rosendale Road, making improvements to Turney Road particularly more important for there to be continuous, safe and unpolluted routes to enable a much wider range of people to walk and cycle. spider69 - there is going to be a similar consultation for Camberwell including Champion Hill, hopefully proof of joined up thinking emerging!

And coming full circle back to my earlier post. People are clearly (and rightly) concerned about air pollution, safe routes (particularly to schools) for the Dulwich area within the consultation. But this consultation fails to give any info about the measures needed to bring pollution within legal or safe limits, or the previously proposed routes. Other tremendous examples mentioned like Barcelona or indeed closer to home in London did not take this bizarre approach of residents mini-referenda on each traffic restriction that Southwark seems increasing driven towards. It's a silly way to design area wide traffic measures that won't deliver the radical changes we need to breathe clean air or enable 8-80 year olds to feel safe on foot or cycling. Plus without holistic area measures like emissions based CPZs, you risk ending up with more pollution on through roads.

There's a new consultation out for Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich, be quick though as it's open for less than a fortnight, closing on 24th - surely we'll see yet again the council realising that's too short and extending? https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/ohsdulwichphase2/ Public asks from the last exercise were to cut air pollution and deliver area wide traffic reduction. While there's lots of trendy graphics, I'm left feeling the consultation exercise is becoming like trying to pin the tail on multiple donkeys. Key problems with the consultation process are: - nothing being learned from the past: e.g. a focus is making junctions safe for walking and cycling, but two of the three junctions the public have just highlighted as the worst are the ones Southwark has just spent ??? on supposedly improving! Or all the traffic calming that hasn't made our streets safer in the last 6 years. - no info about existing or proposed cycling & walking routes: as we've learned tackling junctions does not encourage people out of cars if the streets in between are rat-runs. - nothing about how effective different options would be in delivering the clean air people so clearly want (plus is a legal requirement), or delivering the big reduction in emissions needed to address the climate emergency the council is claiming to take seriously. e.g. traffic calming often makes air pollution worse and in the age of satnavs simply doesn't discourage through traffic 48 different options is a lot but the results may be contradictory if people chose a combination that mean some streets are cut off. There are various half a dozen of one, six of the other options, like school streets, permeable closures and camera access filter. Meanwhile it's hard to see how the objectives would be delivered without better parking management, junction overhauls (not simply banning turns), new pedestrian crossings and protected cycle lanes. Surely would be much better to have say three different packages proposed taking different approaches, e.g. with indications how much each would improve air quality by? That would help gauge relative support and possibly end up with some combination or variation. Then try things out then get feedback from people. I'm left feeling the biggest problem is the way Southwark plans these schemes compared to the better boroughs north of the river.

Gubodge - yes if cycling is to offer health benefits it will need to engage those who aren't already active 20-40 somethings. After Camberwell Grove was reopened there's not a single route suitable for all ages & abilities between Brixton & New Cross. Rye Lane & Denmark Hill both manic. This is reliably the worst bit for me for cycling into central London. sally buying - those roadworks are my fault, I got funding as the junction had no safe pedestrian route and was difficult for drivers pulling out due to the angle. The pain will be worth it, should actually make everything safer and smoother for all, especially people on foot, once finished not to mention look nicer!

Given London councils are still in breach of 2010 air quality limits, they have to take action so this suggested legal case sounds doomed. Needless to say the climate emergency also has some relevance. After road/congestion charging, parking controls and charges are the most effective means to cut motor traffic, and with it air pollution and CO2 emissions. Over 3/4 of those surveyed in Southwark's biggest consultation exercises supported cutting traffic and concern about climate change is at record levels. So the borough has compelling grounds to take action. The mayor's policy requires Southwark to ensure "London?s streets will be used more efficiently and have less traffic on them", so Southwark has adopted policies to "Introduce a borough wide CPZ & Review parking charges to charge most polluting vehicles more." The time limit for challenging that is over and any CPZ decision taken on the basis of that policy will be robust. The suggestion that parking policies are about favouring driving residents over driving commuters is not true and not reflected in any borough policy. That's not of course to say everyone will or should agree with parking controls, at least those who don't could suggest alternatives to cut emissions to respect the desires of the majority for a healthier, greener borough.

By way of context, the spine was announced as Southwark's flagship cycle route in Oct 2014 for completion by April 2019. Other than widening traffic islands and now tweaking kerbs on Crystal Palace Road nothing's happened yet. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/cycling/cycle-improvements?chapter=3 According to police data, the most dangerous junctions on it are where it crosses Peckham Road (Kelly/ Lyndhurst), East Dulwich Road and by Borough Road. There's lots of different stages of the spine, so maybe easiest to update from north to south below. - Borough Road to Burgess Park: has been quietly dropped even though critical for new housing developments, the most deprived areas and to relieve congested crossings of New Kent Road - St George's Way to Kelly Avenue: recently approved this is the best bit but does propose some right angle bends even worse than those recently introduced on Rodney Road/Heygate, not accessible for all types of cycle - Peckham Road: this is TfL's responsibility and being considered as part of the long delayed Peckham Town Centre scheme to tackle pedestrian fatalities. Apparently plans were just gesture engineering so have been sent back for a rethink and strengthening, unclear if consultation will still happen in 2019 - Lyndhust to Chadwick: plans were strongly rejected in public consultation, in particular by people who cycle, but officers fiddled the figures, withheld Southwark Cyclists' consultation response from the decision maker and after 2 years of making a few tweaks is pressing on with statutory consultation. See attached showing how segregation (in green) won't tackle cycle collisions (as stars), worse still it creates car/cycle conflict by forcing people to cycle in the wrong place around the gyratory then cut across drivers. It also delays drivers and in particular the P13 by being as tight as east end of Chadwick Road but also inadequate even for current peak hour cycle flows - Bellenden parade: being redesigned, don't hold your breath for action to tackle this rat run - Maxted Road to Goodrich Road: more statutory consultation, again mixture of badly designed and simply waste of money interventions while not targeting problems actually faced cycling. Typical example are Southwark's unique speciality of "traffic carpets", expensive paving that is disruptive to install but then obliterated with markings painted all over (rather destroying the point), that become loose within months. Examples are at top (ED end) of Camberwell Grove and much of quietway 1, council has been wasting money like this for years. - southern end: pointing towards the golf club and woods, unclear where route is actually leading to or how will get there other than some very circuitous manoeuvres over Lordship Lane Southwark Cyclists is preparing a legal objection to the new traffic orders, calling for a return to previous plans to remove the gyratory that won majority support. It's not just a case of these proposals being a waste of money but because the plans deliberately create conditions that will in places be more dangerous and unpleasant for cycling. More generally the council still pretends simply putting in a few cycle logos and humps will make rat runs accessible for a wide range of people to ride on, e.g. Adys Road (pictured in rush hour) will just get a few cycle logos. As one councillor recently observed: "Proof that Quietways aren't working. Canvassing on Q7 in Dulwich Village and all the families I've seen this morning have been cycling in the pavement." When will the council listen or learn?

The final report is now online http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50020432&Opt=0 A map of the zone and precise parking bays is in Appendix 1 In short it proposes a combined zone for Peckham West and small part of ED to operate 9-11am Monday to Friday. If Cllr Livingstone decides in favour then this will go to statutory consultation. Despite local councillors protesting about bus cuts, it no longer includes any measures to reduce bus delays on Lordship Lane, increasing the likelihood of further cuts as TfL's financial position continues to worsen. Although the healthy streets proposals in the wider area (now outside the proposed zone) achieved strong support, these aren't going ahead. Due to being scaled back, the proposals will have negligible impacts on air pollution despite levels exceeding legal limits now and even in 2025 still at one ED junction. Also there's no mention of the new policy to implement a CPZ across the borough, considered vital by the cabinet three months ago to tackle congestion and climate change. In short it's hard to see how these amended proposals could be lawfully approved, another right old mess. The revised times seem the worst of all worlds: the zone would start unnecessarily early but won't tackle parking pressures at other times of the day. And officers remain blissfully unaware of the growing numbers of long stayers (e.g. see threads on here about abandoned taxis & commercial vehicles) that will simply be displaced to the streets around the leisure centre and east side of Lordship Lane.

Definitely noticed an increase too but Southwark already had second highest number of reported fly tipping of garden waste in whole UK! https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/high-numbers-of-london-residents-illegally-dumping-garden-waste-a4138031.html Council really ought to have had a credible plan to tackle this before introducing a charge that would make the problem even worse.

Any chance of dishwasher powder too? No one seems to sell it now. Various local shops expressed surprise that anyone would not want the convenience of tabs, so have to get it online. Ecover's tabs are individually plastic wrapped & fiddly, while the ones that have packaging that dissolves in the dishwasher are ??? and full of chemicals. Modern dishwashers can adjust the best mix of powder, salt & rinse aid for ED's hard water and the grease level of your crockery. Anyway excited to spot the dispensers appearing in the shop & looking fwd to you opening!

In response to those absolutist, bah humbug comments above, over 28% of all the people in the EU affected by the highest levels of aircraft noise are under the Heathrow flight path, many of them here in south London. While Concorde was just a few times a day, the flights now are far more frequent and as often as every 90s, especially first thing in the morning. There are serious economic and health impacts, putting more pressure on our NHS for instance. As this recent report by the London Assembly notes there are particular issues for those areas also affected by City but also practical solutions such as respite periods and opposing further expansion: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/aircraft-noise-report.pdf Definitely agree about the need to measure noise with windows open for hot summer nights, which are being made more extreme by air travel induced climate change. Unless Heathrow wants to buy us all double glazing, A/C and zero carbon electricity to power them that is.

While there is a good case for a fairer reallocation of Heathrow flight paths rather than concentrating them ever more over us, that's already proposed at least as part of the 3rd runway plans. This petition is the wrong tactic at the wrong time. One consultation (on flight path strategic principles) has just finished and another (on 3rd runway) is about to start. To be effective, and reduce the risk of engagement fatigue, quiet(er) skies campaigners should really focus on that: https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/press/june-18-announced-as-launch-day-for-heathrow-expansion-statutory-consultation/ The elephant in the room is the climate emergency and the govt has acknowledged it needs to rethink how an expanded Heathrow could fit with tough new climate targets. Heathrow airport obviously has given much less thought to how flight paths could change if it doesn't get its expansion (or if legal challenges drag on).

James just keeps on digging...unfortunately digging the hole he's in, rather than about the council's decision to continue with introducing garden waste charges despite the govt announcing its plan to ban them in February. The resident consent policy for CPZs was contained in the 2011 transport policy, which has now been replaced by the 2019 movement plan & LIP3. So it's no longer policy, end of story. With Southwark's own monitoring showing its progress meeting most of its transport objectives (road safety, air quality etc. etc.) stalling or even going backwards since 2013, it's incredible to hear James suggest the council should keep on twiddling its thumbs, splurging council tax on yet more consultants for traffic studies etc. for 20 years before it might actually need to take real action. In terms of a CPZ not being necessary to reduce traffic, collisions, air pollution and carbon emissions (don't forget Southwark's pledge to go carbon neutral by 2030), it would be helpful if James could explain what other measures he 'personally' (does that mean this is a matter of faith for him, rather than about evidence?) believes in? Alternative measures for mode shift & traffic reduction are set out in the guidance to officers on third LIPs available at https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs/local-implementation-plans Many of those listed are nice to haves, e.g. Legible London wayfinding signage for walking and delivery collection points, as part of a wider package but won't reduce traffic significantly in themselves. The significant ones are: -Deliver Cycle Superhighway and Quietway programmes supported by local cycle networks. [NB plans for Lordship Lane to be Superhighway were scrapped, while the Southwark Spine proposals through here were so poor TfL rejected them] -Expand cycle hire [promised for whole borough in Labour's 2014 manifesto but err...] -Use filtered permeability [road restrictions] to create low-vehicle zones across inner London. -Apply the Healthy Streets Approach wherever possible to deliver vehicle-free town centres and local centres accessed by quality bus, cycling and walking routes and served by off-peak freight deliveries. -Reduce parking across inner London, particularly in town centres and at other major car trip generators. Expand CPZ coverage. -Local congestion charging options, and workplace parking levies. -Significant re-allocation of road space to bus and cycle on radial routes, potentially creating some bike- and bus-only corridors. -Incentivise inner London residents to give up parking on residential streets. -Increase land use density to enable car-free living. -Ensure the vehicles that do remain are the cleanest possible, for example, emissions-based parking permits. -Review local restrictions that prevent night-time deliveries. -Systematic re-allocation of residential parking to other kerbside activity, including cycle parking. Southwark's policy is to introduce a CPZ primarily as a traffic and pollution reduction measure. As a matter of law the CPZ consultation ought to have provided an opportunity for people opposed to a CPZ (or wanting a more limited version) to set out alternative means to achieve the same effects, such as from the list above. It didn't do that, the whole thing is total a mess.

At this rate the government's proposed ban on garden waste charges will have come in by the time we get the stickers! see: /forum/read.php?5,2016023,2034657#msg-2034657 With Southwark now having the 2nd highest number of reported garden waste fly tipping in the whole of the UK, wonder how much worse it will get? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/high-numbers-of-london-residents-illegally-dumping-garden-waste-a4138031.html So a right mess on the garden waste as well as the CPZ plans, definitely living in a 'you could not make this up' borough.

Defra, the bit of the government that covers waste policy, has just consulted on a new national approach to dealing with waste. Rather than explain Southwark's plans for garden waste, it raises fundamental questions about them: see pp26-31 in https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/consultation-on-consistency-in-household-and-busin/ First Defra suggests that "each household should be supplied with a fortnightly collection service for garden waste and that this service should be free of charge". Surely it's crazy for Southwark go through the hassle of introducing garden waste charges if the government is about to require it NOT to charge?!? "Given the dispersal of subscribers across an authority, collection services for charged collections may be more inefficient and represent a higher cost per household serviced than when there is high participation in a free service. This is because vehicles might have further to travel between pickups and collect less material overall. In addition, monitoring of garden waste capture rates across the various disposal and recycling routes suggests that following the introduction of charging, large proportions of garden waste may be entering the residual waste stream. ... Our estimates are that if every householder with a garden had access to a free garden waste collection service then overall household recycling rates would increase by 6% points compared to their current levels, reducing the risk of this material ending up in landfill." While that 6% figure is likely to be less in an inner London borough with many flats, there's still likely to be a net negative impact on the borough's recycling rate, which has been stagnating recently. Second on food waste: "We therefore propose to require that from 2023, all local authorities offer all households separate weekly food waste collection. Generally food waste should be presented separately from garden waste, so that the food waste can ideally be sent to anaerobic digestion" (AD) This is suggested because: "When collected with garden waste, food waste cannot be sent to AD and is sent to in-vessel composting. Unlike AD, in-vessel composting does not produce biofuel for energy generation and is a comparatively more expensive waste treatment option. On the other hand, mixed food and garden waste collections can be more convenient as it does not require separate arrangements for collection of food and garden waste... [but] Technologies like in-vessel composting (IVC) and mechanical biological treatment (MBT) require mixed organic feedstocks with some amount of food waste to work optimally, and it is possible that separate collection of food waste may compromise the viability of these technologies....Where practicable, we would expect authorities that normally use IVC treatment for mixed food and garden waste to allow householders to present food waste separately and then to have this mixed with garden waste at kerbside, transfer station or treatment facility to meet long term contractual commitments to in-vessel composting facilities" Are separate collections really practical for the whole borough though? Southwark could simply collect food waste separately (e.g.flats in north of borough) from those areas where most homes have gardens, hence combined garden & food waste (e.g. ED and further south). Southwark is locked into a waste contract to 2033 with Veolia. The hassle and cost (financial and also environmental) of separate collection of garden & food waste, remixing the contents of our bins outside our front doors etc. is unlikely to outweigh the benefits, especially if food waste can be reduced through behaviour change campaigns. So surely worth waiting what the govt decides, rather than sending out lots of separate food caddies? All in all seems Southwark's waste & cleansing department has made an almighty mess! Who will clear things up?

Last few times I've used the conveyor belt tills the scanners used seemed pretty knackered, so the staff had to keep typing the bar codes in. Meanwhile the self service tills are particularly annoying if you want to use your own large bag and wait to approval every time it leans over. Really glad to hear this new service is coming, sure my phone camera will work better as a scanner. Plus you won't need to remember to bring the Nectar card, as it seems integrated in the app. And hopefully having bar codes you can print out for loose fruit n veg will mean Sainsbury's can finally reduce the mountains of packaging it currently uses.