Penguin68

The ornamental cherries locally have been magnificent this year - I suspect the balmy period in February helped that along - but for a couple of weeks that planting in the streets has really worked. [And private magnolias have also been particularly good].

I think we can reasonably be certain that the chosen method of implementation will be the one that places major parking stress on adjacent roads - this is part of the 'spread (by which I don't mean alleviate) the pain, increase the revenue, spit on car owners' policy of the council.

If the two compostable components are not combined at the curb side - does this really mean that Southwark will have 2 collection lorries attending the same property every week for the collection of compostable waste? Reading between the lines, I suspect that the garden waste collection frequency will at some time drop from weekly to some longer period, and may even be withdrawn in the winter months. The Veolia people on brown bins (the actual collection guys) certainly believe at the moment that they will be making a joint collection of food and garden waste together, but that may change. The one watchword I will not go for is 'trust the council to get it right.' The evidence is that they won't (based on their wholly flawed logistics so far). The actual process they should have followed is (1) get people to sign-up, or not, for garden waste collection - (2) issue bin stickers (for the large bins remaining) and (3) automatically supply kerb side caddies to all - (4) Then, and only then, change the collection process and (5) then collect unneeded large brown bins (to make sure no one is left without an organic waste collection method. The chances of them getting this sequence right is, frankly, minimal, based on their current logistics approach. There will be many (the elderly, the disengaged) who, despite the one letter so far received will find ali this change as a shock and surprise. There is no evidence that anything has been factored in for this. Which will, as I and others have indicated, actually incur additional and unnecessary cost to add to the council's money problems before any revenues will even kick-in. I suspect that they hope that Veolia will be forced to pick up an additional cost burden on all this - but even that company, prepared, to get the contract, to put up with a lot, may baulk at bailing Tooley St. out.

If you don?t already have one they can be ordered & a kitchen caddy will also be supplied. This is, of course, yet another costly policy insanity. Most people with brown bins already have kitchen caddies - it will be the kerb-side caddy they mainly don't have. Logistics would suggest that it would be far cheaper to deliver a kerb-side caddy to everyone who now has a large brown bin - and to collect at the same time those bins which are no longer required for garden waste. The costs of administering an 'individual order' scheme far outweigh the cost of inadvertently supplying an additional kerb-side caddy to someone who already has one with their large garden waste bin, particularly when the process will give most people a kitchen caddy they don't need (as they will already have one). This process only makes sense after the big 'change-over' when new residents come in requiring new services - when issuing the two food caddies together would make sense. If you are going to make a huge change having somebody (anybody) who understands process flow and costs would seem a first port of call. But not for the boys in Tooley St., evidently.

The government cuts are forcing even the most Labour of councils to behave like Tories. By stinging 'the rich'? - I think you'll find that's always been Labour policy - I think I recall the late and very much lamented Dennis Healey making reference to 'pips squeaking' - if memory serves. https://wordhistories.net/2017/09/10/until-pips-squeak-origin/ https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44473/Five+reasons+to+squeeze+the+rich+until+the+pips+squeak

As the lorry will still have to drive up and down all roads emptying the brown bins and the food caddies, I struggle to see how it will save money. I don't think this is being prayed-in-aid as a cost saving exercise as such, but as a way of introducing charges to the (minority) of residents in Southwark with gardens. I have already argued that this will in fact probably lose money in the first year of operation (when the costs of large bin recovery and small bin issue are taken into account) and will have a minimal impact (taking account increased admin costs and the costs of sending out special bin lorries to collect paper sacks) going forward - at least at the initial ?30 p/a charge. [NB the large brown bins will originally have been costed in over their expected life-times - now to be substantially reduced by this early recovery]. I would however argue that this action (and others) are creating an environment when price hikes outside the normal community charge setting round (and outwith the controls and price cap on increasing community charges) will be only too possible.

To a all the people who claim they don't make any noise difference whether planes fly above us or not, please have a listen today - when they don't - and realise how badly Heathrow is located. Or how badly you are located? Or did you move to your current address before the airport was built?

I requested a new brown bin at the weekend (we share ours with neighbours and as much as I?m unhappy with the charge and Southwark?s ludicrous reasoning behind it, I still want to continue green recycling) - turns out they won?t be supplying anymore until the charge is introduced. Loathe as I am to giving any credit to Tooley St., but it does make sense to hold up issuing 'new' brown bins until they have gone through the exercise of collecting lots of old ones (they assume) which they can then re-issue - that at least is a reasonable approach to cost saving.

For completeness - I have also posted the message below on James Cash's councillor thread, as I would like a local councilor's opinion on this:- I have now had a chance of reading full details of the council's planned garden waste scheme. It appears that in future even for those paying the ?30 annual fee only a single brown bin of garden waste will be collected weekly. Any additional waste (in paid-for paper sacks) will have to be collected only by subsequent special arrangement with the council. My garden (and I'm not alone in this) gets 'blitzed' on a monthly basis March-December - and at some times - e.g. autumn - I generate far more green waste in such a blitz than I can reasonably compost ( most of my garden would become a compost heap). In the past I have had as many as 10 paper bags filled in addition to my brown bin. At the moment all the waste is collected at once, meaning that there is no need for an additional collection (with the costs that that entails). If residents are to either pay for sacks and/ or brown bin collection for garden waste surely the most efficient method of collection is to collect once a week from streets taking everything (which will have been paid for one way or another) at once. Otherwise my only conclusion is that the council is interested in reducing organic recycling - or encouraging people to e.g. pave or landscape more of their gardens away. Neither seem to me to be a 'green' approach. We are being asked to pay for a service which was previously covered by Council Tax, and in paying for it, it is also being reduced. Taking away with one hand and then taking away with the other. And you wonder why we are cynical about politicians local and national?

James I have now had a chance of reading full details of the council's planned garden waste scheme. It appears that in future even for those paying the ?30 annual fee only a single brown bin of garden waste will be collected weekly. Any additional waste (in paid-for paper sacks) will have to be collected only by subsequent special arrangement with the council. My garden (and I'm not alone in this) gets 'blitzed' on a monthly basis March-December - and at some times - e.g. autumn - I generate far more green waste in such a blitz than I can reasonably compost ( most of my garden would become a compost heap). In the past I have had as many as 10 paper bags filled in addition to my brown bin. At the moment all the waste is collected at once, meaning that there is no need for an additional collection (with the costs that that entails). If residents are to either pay for sacks and/ or brown bin collection for garden waste surely the most efficient method of collection is to collect once a week from streets taking everything (which will have been paid for one way or another) at once. Otherwise my only conclusion is that the council is interested in reducing organic recycling - or encouraging people to e.g. pave or landscape more of their gardens away. Neither seem to me to be a 'green' approach. We are being asked to pay for a service which was previously covered by Council Tax, and in paying for it, it is also being reduced. Taking away with one hand and then taking away with the other. And you wonder why we are cynical about politicians local and national?

Just to make a point - but the bin lorries that collect kitchen waste will still be collecting weekly from each household, as before, and, as before, small amounts of waste will be consolidated by the bin men into large bins to be tipped into the trucks, with additionally a few household large brown bins with garden waste tipped in. In addition a number of large brown bins will be collected by Southwark (and done what with - presumably disposed of as plastic waste which can't be easily recycled?) and new kerb-side caddies bought and distributed. So we have one-off costs of collecting old bins and providing new ones - and I would guess very little actual time saving in organic waste collection. In the first year of operation this will presumably run at a loss, and subsequent years will see rental income (you are now renting your large brown bin at ?30 a year) - but no operational cost savings (but of course an ongoing operational cost to charge and collect rentals, deal with queries and complaints etc.). As a revenue generation scheme it looks poor, its NPV will I imagine not be that compelling compared with Southwark's overall budget. And it will lose (a certain amount of) votes. [Those who like to see 'the rich' penalised will still be voting labour, those who don't may chose not to, where they once did]. Overall and at the charge now quoted - but perhaps watch this space this will make a very small, if any, net contribution to council income (as a pack of a fag packet exercise).

Like the NHS 'free at the point of use' I suppose. It's a shorthand.

Penguin68 - Did you see my suggestions above? My initial post on this thread after the consultation report came out was to ask a few quick questions of people on here. I will repost it here for ease: James, it was precisely to your initial post that I was responding - I said Let's see how far our local ward representatives get in any toning down of the proposals they seek on our behalf. as an 'I hear what you say, but what impact will you (and other local councillors) actually have over the apparat?'. You have suggested a reduction in the geographic scope and a review of the CPZ time limits, based on any responses to you - which my post was intended to be. I rather thought I had been answering, in my way, your 'few quick questions'. I was then querying how effective local opinion being fed back to the Tooley St machine would be, based on their interpretation of their own polling results. I hope to stand amazed at your effectiveness.

... 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 Agreed, and once the principal of itemised charging is introduced, rather than charges on rateable value raised through the general community charge (which can be controlled) then further price rises can be engineered with very little chance to object - they fall outside the normal budget debates which surround setting the community charge. ?30 one year can become ?60 the next very easily. As can escalation of parking charges. It ceases to operate under principles of taxation. Indeed, they can become flat rate charges, without regard to ability to pay, rather like the hated and soon abandoned poll tax.

Not sure how that will work ? Will they take the large Brown bins away and replace with small brown bins. My Kitchen caddie bin only holds one small food waste bags. I usually use 2/3 a week. There are also 'kerb-side' caddies which are about 3-4 times the cubic capacity of the kitchen caddy. I assume these will be the replacement. They are very vulnerable, when empty, to high winds so will be blown about often during collection days. Hey ho.

The council stated they wanted to stop 'commuters' parking up in ED - apparently at the request of (some) residents - we warned that many of the 'commuters' were in fact teaching, medical, shop keeping staff and tradespeople who were coming into ED to serve us in ED, not to pass through. Through commuters could have been deterred by a limited time (2 hour) CPZ - but not those coming to meet our local needs. So the council's intent to support a day-long CPZ - against the broad wishes of probably a majority (the figures are fudged here) - means (probably) that they realize that without that, any CPZ would be seen by those clamouring for one as not working - were through commuters the real issue. I just hope all those living in the (quite few) streets that were majority CPZ are relaxed about schools and clinics closing, or finding it difficult to recruit, about not being able to get local tradespeople to serve them and so on. Those if us who were against a CPZ at all will of course just have to go hang - but then no change there. If the CPZ 'zone' was smaller - not including roads that expressed a contrary opinion - and was for a 'through commuter deterrent' time slot I could be happier to believe that the council was responding to local opinion. But then, it's really not so responsive - this is part of its stated anti-car agenda. Let's see how far our local ward representatives get in any toning down of the proposals they seek on our behalf.

As the council actually sells the compost it makes from garden and other waste maybe, as a quid pro quo for charging those with gardens to take away the waste, it should also offer them a discount on buying the subsequent compost? Also - can anyone clarify whether garden waste in paper sacks will be taken free from those who do not choose to have the large brown bins and pay for collection? I suspect that either the sacks will be charged for, or will not be taken away from residences who have not paid the fee. Otherwise the policy makes no sense at all. In which case those who have brown bins and need additional sacks for any one collection will be paying twice - for the brown bin and for the sacks. They gets us coming and they gets us going... Southwark's topology of course means that it is mainly the leafy suburbs of the old borough of Camberwell which will be hardest hit by all this - but no surprises there. Unlike Millwall maybe it is only Tooley St. that hates us, and actually some of us do care!

Admin - this thread has become a vehicle solely for personal abuse and ad hominem attacks. Could it be closed? Or moved or locked? Maybe when Saucy is really going to re-open as a going concern it could announce so on a new thread, in the Business section? I wish it well (as apparently does everyone who has posted on this thread, even those more sanguine about culpability regarding its very extended 'almost opening').

Because they count for a small percentage of vehicles on the road And clearly Rolls Royce's and Bentley's should also be excluded for the same reasons.

it's a no confidence in the council officers who actually run the council Council officials operate as agents of the ruling party(s) and at the behest of elected officials and committees. Where malfeasance is alleged - it is either the responsibility of the elected councillors (if the officials are acting properly under instruction) or it is a disciplinary offence. In neither case is there any possibility of any formal 'no confidence' proceedings against officials. Where you believe an official has acted improperly your first point of call would be a local councillor (in your ward) to raise the issue with the executive on your behalf. Like civil servants, council officers (appointed officials, not elected members) act as instructed by elected members either directly or through the application of agreed rules. If they follow instructions they have no independent culpability for the impact of these (save where they run contrary to existing laws etc.). That rests with the elected members.

Two, how do we get a motion of no confidence ( or similar ) raised against the councils running of the borough ? There is an opportunity every three years. The only other remedy is judicial review if you believe the authority is acting outwith its statutory powers, or against the intent of these. These do not come cheap. Where a borough is more closely run electorally (i.e. there is a strong opposition, or a coalition running the council) council members may effectively challenge the apparat, but this is not an option in the People's Republic of Southwark. A choice we made last year. Electors (judicial review apart) only can express a legally binding view once every three years, as I have said.

Not to mention, but I have, education charges for those without children (or whose children do not use the state system)... The idea of graduated taxation is that everyone pays according to their means (or a proxy thereof like property values) and uses according to their need. Once you start distinguishing, and charging for, separate elements of a service (or indeed entire services) then people not using any service feel that they shouldn't then be paying towards it, particularly when they are being asked to pay separately for a service they do use.

but surely it's dangerous to public health everywhere? Young children aren't just found around schools! Whilst that's true, the Pareto Principle (80:20 Rule) would suggest that concentrating on areas around schools would have a greater impact on children than random sweeps - given any fixed resource. Poo around schools has a much higher chance of impacting children than just randomly in streets away from schools.

Picture House membership is useable across all Picture Houses, which opens the Ritzy in Brixton, the one in Greenwich and the new one in West Norwood to members - you can normally find a film and time to suit. And sometimes a price!

It is worth noting that whilst Picture House prices can be high, for some showings, there are numbers of cheaper options - Mondays are close to half price, Thursdays cheap for pensioners and all prices are reduced for 'members' - including a number of free seats to use through your membership year at will. There are also special reduced price showings for e.g people with babies, children etc. Having a cinema again in Lordship Lane I take as a bonus, and, whilst Peckham Plex is definitely cheaper, it is not, in my experience as comfortable and clean. It is a choice for us (where before there was none). As with all things, caveat emptor, at least as regards checking comparative prices, is a reasonable watchword. I am lucky that I can normally choose, within reason, when to go to see films, and thus choose my (economic) moment. I have no interest (other than being a 'founder' member of the ED Picture House).