Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Southwark EnviroGrant scheme relaunches for its sixth year, offering community groups and schools the opportunity to be awarded up to ?1,000 for environmental projects that enrich the local area. Projects that help to reduce, reuse and recycle waste are particularly welcomed.


Established by Veolia, Southwark Council?s recycling and waste partner, the scheme has been designed to support communities with projects that benefit the local area. The voluntary assistance of Veolia employees can also be requested for any cleaning, building, painting, planting or other general tasks required in projects.


So far over ?17,000 has been awarded, benefiting 34 community projects in the borough. In 2015, projects included an environmental film screening (pictured), community gardening and composting, plastic bottle greenhouses, give and take days and more.


If you?re part of a community project and you?d like to apply for funding to support your plans, further information and an application form can be found at www.veolia.co.uk/southwark


The deadline for entries is 30 April 2016. Best of luck.

... unless charging for bulk waste collection creates a great increase in fly tipping, which entails a greater cost to the council. So maybe the saving's not a saving at all. Did the council attempt to calculate the impact of their decision? 'Savage cuts' is no excuse for a possibly ill-thought out policy.

Fly tippers though are not people putting out the odd sofa or washing machine are they, which is who the bulk refuse scheme is aimed at.


I'd hardly call charging a savage cut either. 73% cut to youth services is a savage cut, along with the coming cuts to adult social care, including care services for the elderly. Those are the extent of government cuts on Southwark. Compared to that, having to pay a tenner or whatever the charge will be to have your 'stuff' removed isn't really a big deal is it?


Or would you rather an elederly person has shorter care visits so that everyone can have their bulky items removed for free? If you can afford to buy a new anything, you can afford to pay to have the old one removed.

I didn't say charging was a savage cut. I meant that those who defend any and every action of the council with a kneejerk "It's the cuts" response shut down any possible argument that the council might be sometimes cocking things up thmeselves.


And don't lay that guilt trip on me, man.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.”
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...