rollflick

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.

Have finally got the "Your services are changing" booklet about this, never received a letter. Dulwichfox - Looks like the sticker for those signing up to garden waste collection will have property address and expiry date on: can just about make this out on p3. sally buying - had exactly the same question, don't want FOUR bins and agree having separate garden & food waste collections is going to cost a lot more, increase collection costs and congestion etc. There's been no explanation at all why we need to separate food & garden waste and does not seem to make sense given info on the Southwark web site. There's only one Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant and it takes weeks to process each batch. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/food-and-garden-waste/what-happens-to-food-and-garden-waste

All speed limits on public roads are enforceable. Police used to object to creation of 20mph zones unless they were 'self-enforcing' but UK traffic regulations were changed in 2016 about this. Though police (or speed cameras) won't normally enforce unless you're going at 10%+2mph over a speed limit, they will in certain circumstances. Such as if even 20mph is unsafe for conditions, e.g. lots of kids spilling out of school. Or if you have been reported multiple times by Community Speed Watch (CSW): https://www.communityspeedwatch.org/ Sounds like dimples has been reported by one of these, which is now operating regularly in Southwark.

My best guess is that in terms of the council, the Highways and the Transport planning teams haven't been talking to each other (their names are nearly at the opposite ends of the alphabet after all) and people have been stuck in their respective silos rather than joining up the dots. The new Londonwide "Healthy Streets" policy was described as a radical shift by the Mayor: the council however seems to treat it like a rebranding exercise. The ward councillors really do not seem familiar with council parking policy, the law on consultations, etc. As for Cllr Livingstone, it's a bit like May trying to deliver B***it: he's made multiple commitments that conflict with each other.

Southwark's Cabinet approved the Movement Plan and Local Implementation Plan 3 (LIP3), which set out policies and proposals for transport, streets and parking, this Tuesday: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6089&Ver=4 (item 16) Though there have been a few positive tweaks, it is incredibly weak on important issues like climate change (driving a juggernaut through the recent council climate emergency motion to make Southwark carbon neutral by 2030), road safety (totally vague and sweeps under carpet fact that progress has stalled since 2013), air pollution (so bad the chart has been taken out of the annual monitoring report) and active travel (just ?200k for a cycling network compared to the ?20m promised in 2015). The consultation did reveal that 77% of respondents wanted less motor traffic on Southwark's streets. This is entirely consistent with other data such as Southwark's Big Conversation, those in neighbouring boroughs and Londonwide, and not surprising given the council's continued failings to deliver. The LIP3 contains the CPZ policy but was not originally part of the consultation (see above in this thread). As a result of my complaint the council was required by law to consult on it, the draft LIP3 was added to the movement plan consultation page. While the 2011 Transport Plan proposed CPZs only where supported by residents (primarily as a means to reduce traffic rather than reserving parking for residents), the LIP3 commits Southwark to delivering "a whole borough CPZ". Southwark was required by law to approve and deliver on a LIP3 that complies with the Mayor's Transport Strategy, a key element of which is to reduce traffic. Southwark failed to put in credible or specific traffic and pollution reduction proposals (such as bus & cycle gates, local congestion charges etc.) so it was left with little option but to commit to a whole borough CPZ. When Cllr Livingstone (Cabinet member for transport) comes to decide on the ED & PW CPZs, he's required by law to make the decision on the basis of Londonwide and borough policy, as I explained at last Saturday's chaotic meeting. People responding to those consultations and speaking at the meeting were focused on commuter parking issues and whether their street wanted a CPZ or not to deal with them, rather than the wider legal requirements or issues, including the clear desire of people across the borough to cut traffic. The CPZ consultation exercise failed to explain the borough's policy, constraints etc. on this decision so failed to give people a chance to make informed comment. Wherever you stand on CPZs, it's undeniable the whole process has been a complete farce. The council - both councillors and officials - need to accept outside help to totally overhaul they engage.

One of the EDIBA spokespeople at last Saturday's meeting mentioned they had heard the concerns of residents who wanted a CPZ and EDIBA were suggesting alternative arrangements. Does anyone know what those are or how we can find out about them?

When deciding whether to make traffic orders for things like CPZs, the council is legally required to consider many more factors that simply residents' views, such bus reliability, congestion, obesity & air pollution. This was briefly mentioned towards the end but was easy to miss: "Any parking controls or street improvements that we introduce will take into account the results of the consultation as well as existing highway safety issues in the proposed zone, feedback from emergency services, and our wider transport policies reflecting our responsibilities to air quality and active travel." With the council failing to meet its legal obligations on air quality and progress on road safety stalling since 2013, more action is clearly needed. The consultation questionnaire failed to give people an opportunity to make informed comment on alternative means the council could implement to help achieve these wider borough objectives. It was simply - and wrongly - focused on whether you had parking problems or not. Likewise the consultation report fails to mention the legal context the decision has to be taken within. That's not going to help ensure a fully informed discussion at the community council meeting. So it's easy to see why people are questioning the council's approach, it should have been communicated consistently at each step of the process, otherwise people will understandably have concerns. The Dog Kennel Hill CPZ certainly has had an impact, a positive one. It's made the streets more pleasant, no longer dominated by a wall of metal on both sides of the street and enabled delivery vans, Ubers etc. to stop without causing a blockage. Now it's gone in, people have got used to it. Similar measures are needed particularly to help the P13 route run more reliably through 'Peckham West' and improve conditions for cycling and walking such as on Adys Road.

With bus travel declining in Southwark by 12%, the biggest drop across all of London, and the government cutting all subsidy, TfL clearly had to do something. On part of route 40, there were double the numbers of buses travelling than needed for passenger demand, meanwhile on the RV1 route in Bankside every journey was being subsidised by ?3.20. Of course people had strong feelings but simply telling TfL to protect a bus service won't solve the financial pressures it faces. Other boroughs like Camden and Hackney are implementing radical measures to prioritise buses, like on Tottenham Court Road, London Fields and Wells Street. By tackling bus delays, operating costs can be reduced and passenger numbers increased, making their services viable for the future. Sadly local politicians over here have done little more than just pose for photos at protests. By the way 20mph actually helps buses by making their journey times more competitive compared to their biggest competitors, private cars, Ubers etc., that don't have to stop often. It also reduces collisions, which according to TfL are the biggest cause of disruptive congestion that plays havoc with timetables.

It's funny how many people claim their opposition to a CPZ is driven by concern for the shops on Lordship Lane when most of those in the consultation who expressed an opinion opposed the measures to increase bus priority. According to the 2015 LBSU study, almost 50% *more* people travelled to Lordship Lane by bus than by car. At a time when our bus services are under threat, bus drivers reported delays here due to parking and in a borough where the majority don't own a car, hindering bus access is not going to help the street's viability. The council did a really good job in the consultation by seeking the views of the wider area beyond the parking hotspots, having listened to those (disclosure: including me) who highlighted how they failed to consult or listen to those affected by displacement from the Dog Kennel Hill zone. But however many times Cllr McAsh points out again on this thread or elsewhere that this was never a vote but a consultation as part of a parking study, sadly it seems some will never listen. On his question 1, there's a strong case to include the streets between North Cross Road and Crystal Palace Road, where there was also resident support. Otherwise that area, which is still walkable to ED station, will have two new CPZs on either side and inevitably face serious pressure. There's a strong case including the northern bit of Crystal Palace Road and Oakhurst Grove/Solway Road north of the road closure. Although there isn't currently resident support for these, the latter will face displacement from the Peckham West zone, which it should have been considered part of. Meanwhile the Crystal Palace/ED Road is the most dangerous junction for cycling on all of the proposed spine route (at least on roads controlled by Southwark) and only by increasing the length of the cycle lane significantly can it be made safer. On question 2, some people will have wanted a CPZ to operate longer in the evening (as some have pointed out in this Forum, there are parking pressures then) so it does seem the best approach is to go for 8.30-6.30 as proposed. If I have any criticism it's that the consultation process seems to have failed to engage those who currently or potentially travel by bus or cycle, even if non-resident. The more people that travel by bus and cycle, the more viable and safer our bus and cycle routes are.

The Mayor of London has proposed taking over train services in south London, with East Dulwich being identified as one of the main stations to benefit (see attached plan). Its train services would increase to 8 an hour in both peak and off-peak, so about every 8 minutes in each direction. Overground, Thameslink and services to Victoria through Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill would each increase to 6 an hour/ every 10 minutes. Some fares would be cheaper, especially if changing onto the Overground or Tube. This is all (alleged) to cost just ?1.7bn, guessing that doesn't include increasing passenger capacity within stations though, which would definitely be needed with Peckham Rye having an incredible 52 trains an hour! Main downside is that train services would be simplified so you'd need to change for some destinations like East Croydon. There's no info however about extending night services to this part of town at weekends and it's not clear how many years this could take to deliver. More at (full report at bottom) https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-calls-for-tfl-to-control-rail-infrastructure All Sadiq needs to do next is find the extra cash and get Chris Grayling on side...

Worth remembering there are multiple reasons for parklets. For those with walking difficulties, it's really reassuring to have a place to stop and rest. I only really appreciated this when I couldn't walk far recovering from an injury last year. Recent equality and public health laws mean the council now needs to put more seats into streets. Breaking up the wall of metal (parked cars) calms traffic and makes streets easier to cross on foot. Okay that particular reason isn't relevant on Adys Road, maybe there it's something to do with the school and changing travel behaviour around it or providing a nicer place for parents to wait for their kids. Also the CPZ area has lost many trees recently and new rules mean that trees of similar size can only be replanted in bigger tree pits, i.e. taking up some carriageway. Maximising 'tree canopy' area reduces summer heat and can help tackle air pollution. There's already a lack of green space in much of this area, see attached map from Southwark's Open Space Strategy. Yes the parklets would be a small start but better to test them small scale while seeing how much space the CPZ frees up. While they are new in Southwark, parklets have already popped up in other boroughs, maybe the council could gather info about what has and hasn't worked elsewhere?

bonaome - the reason is once you get in a car you may as well keeping on driving to the supermarket etc. That's why enabling people to walk and cycle more is good for local shops. dulwichresident01 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was only on the news and in the papers yesterday about the death of local high streets caused by local councils... Err any source for your latest claim? It's widely reported as internet shopping and lack of consumer confidence: https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/shops-most-risk-after-high-13837036 This isn't your average CPZ that's just about parking, the proposals include measures to improve walking, cycling and buses (i.e. help the majority of people get to Lordship Lane) plus environmental enhancements through extra greenery and tackling air pollution. Southwark certainly don't always get it right but this looks really good. Surely if we'd like people to spend less time and money online, making our public spaces cleaner, safer and nicer is the way to go?

dulwichresident01 wrote > I don?t think we should start making ?assumptions? on how local businesses will be affected without speaking to them > first. Several I?ve spoken with are extremely concerned, one even stated that it could affect up to 30% of their trade. But should we rely on the assumptions of local businesses either, dieselresident01? Studies in multiple countries show shopkeepers overestimate how many of their customers drive in by about 100%: http://www.tut.fi/verne/wp-content/uploads/Shoppers-and-how-they-travel.pdf The 2015 council survey showed only 22% of Lordship Lane visitors drove. Of that 22%, if the CPZ goes in, many would still just use the remaining free parking. Those who want to stay longer than the 30 mins are unlikely to notice paying ?2.75/hour. After all that'll barely buy you a turmeric latte these days. NB soon to be ?3.25/hour for diesel

Southwark has lost more than a thousand street trees over the last few years, see attached. Some roads in ED like Copleston have lost as many as five trees recently. Saplings will take time to grow and in any event are often smaller species as rch has pointed out. This means a growing loss of tree canopy coverage. The Mayor of London's Environment Strategy includes a target to increase tree canopy coverage across London, which is currently 20%, in recognition of its importance to reduce extreme summer heat, tackle air pollution and improve quality of life. A map of canopy coverage has been produced too: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/parks-green-spaces-and-biodiversity/trees-and-woodlands/tree-canopy-cover-map Other boroughs like Hackney have ambitious plans to increase canopy to 25% by 2025, through a developing a Public Realm Green Infrastructure Plan. As you can't simply reforest the parks, this requires reallocating some space from car parking for bigger tree pits. While Southwark CPZ consultations appear to be recognising the opportunity to increase street greening, there does not appear to be any borough wide plan or target to increase the tree canopy.

The CPZ has very noticeably freed up space on the Grove Hill Road side of the hill - but the streets just outside are now rammed. It took 18 months from consultation (incidentally which was clear about the pay bays) to going live. Does that mean those of us next to it could have to wait until July 2020 for the totally obvious knock-on effects to be tackled, even if the consultation for an ED & West Peckham CPZ happens soon? Southwark has very limited CPZ coverage compared to other inner London boroughs. With the commencement of the Ultra Low Emission Zone in April 2019, our streets will become the dumping zone for those who don't want to pay 24/7 ?12.50 daily charge as we're the nearest free parking to central London. It's bad enough already with all the abandoned taxis. No one in the council seems to have thought about this though. At least Zipcar offer residents a handy way to avoid the ULEZ charge, such as if you need to pick something up, and the money they pay for their permits goes to road repairs etc. It's great they're giving people the option of electric cars without the cost of buying them.

From Old Grove Vale library closing on 11 Dec, new one by ED station opening with extended hours on 17 Dec.

nxjen - this type of survey could have made sense in the summer when Southwark was drawing up this draft. Now that there is a draft there should have been a consultation asking for views on it, see for example Lambeth's, which may be of interest for those living close to or travelling across the borough boundary: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/have-your-say-on-lambeths-draft-transport-strategy Without those sorts of questions, you can't gauge public support for policies, e.g. saying X% liked this. Or are you saying the approach of other boroughs is wrong? And while Lambeth is consulting on its implementation plan (LIP3), Southwark doesn't even mention it let alone ask for views. That's the bit that contains the policies on CPZs for instance. Siduhe - you're right, Southwark does vary the further you get from central London, maybe the policies or targets could be differentiated depending on whether you're within inner ring road, south circular etc. or TfL fare zones.

Thing is, it's not actually a consultation asking your views about the movement plan. Instead it's an incredibly fiddly survey about travel habits and much more, asking you stuff like why do you like your neighbourhood, which neighbourhood you most identify with. After seeing there were over 50 questions on page 2 (and nine more pages to go) I gave up it was so bad. It's hardly going to get a representative sample of people responding. There's no consultation at all about the implementation plan, which includes things will provoke Marmite reactions for certain EDF contributors. By contrast other councils like neighbouring Lambeth and City are actually consulting on their plans, asking you to rate your degree of support for each main policies, genuinely engaging with local people and seeking feedback. How could Southwark get consultation quite so wrong?

Funny it was kind of at the back of my mind there are a lot of cabs parked around here, then after seeing this post actually twigged. Counted five today while going along Copleston Road. And without the TfL licence plates, at least the ones I could see easily while going past. Maybe there's a massive glut of cabs due to the rise of Uber and we are the parking lot being one of the nearest areas to zone 1 without CPZs? Fear problem will be more noticeable once the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ goes live, signs already up now but covered. That said had an (ex-Uber?) Prius left for months on my street and as it was low emission didn't need to be taxed. So Southwark Council wouldn't remove it until it got a flat tyre, which meant they could deal with it as abandoned.