Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Jennys]

Part of Village Ward is also SE22 as well.

[Cora]

Hello James,

I am finding the ?16 cost for collection of bulk waste really galling. I have 1 armchair to collect but am allowed up to 10 items. I have asked a neighbour if they have anything they would like to get rid of and we will share the cost. I also thought that if other items come up I would be able to amend the collection but no, once I have handed over the money I am not allowed to add anything else to my collection. Why has the cost gone from 0 - ?16?! and why is it so inflexible that if I find an old stereo that can go I have to fork out another ?16?! rather than add it to my collection. I completely understand why people fly tip now, what's the incentive not to? ?16 is a lot of money and I do believe that bulk waste should be part of residential waste collection. I do not have a car so I have no alternative.

I understand this was a Labour council decision.

[JohnL]

Most boroughs charge now - some much more than Southwark. It was free I agree.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2017-02-16/borough-by-borough-guide-of-getting-rid-of-bulky-waste/

[rendelharris]

Cora Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hello James,

>

> I am finding the ?16 cost for collection of bulk

> waste really galling. I have 1 armchair to collect

> but am allowed up to 10 items. I have asked a

> neighbour if they have anything they would like to

> get rid of and we will share the cost. I also

> thought that if other items come up I would be

> able to amend the collection but no, once I have

> handed over the money I am not allowed to add

> anything else to my collection. Why has the cost

> gone from 0 - ?16?! and why is it so inflexible

> that if I find an old stereo that can go I have to

> fork out another ?16?! rather than add it to my

> collection. I completely understand why people fly

> tip now, what's the incentive not to? ?16 is a lot

> of money and I do believe that bulk waste should

> be part of residential waste collection. I do not

> have a car so I have no alternative.

>

> I understand this was a Labour council decision.

Ahem. Perhaps one needs to go a little further than that. It was the decision of a Labour council that's had ?12M cut from its budget by a Tory government, and so reluctantly can't afford to provide all the free services it did previously.

[James Barber]

Hi rendelharris,

But it has enough money for Golden Goodbyes to Labour councillors who chose to stand down as councillors back in December.

At the February budget setting Lib Dems showed how to make sufficient savings, from memory ?5M, to avoid any increase in Council Tax. Amazingly this was rejected and Council Tax increased by 6% this year.

It is political choices that caused the ?16 fee to be introduced.

[Jim1234]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi rendelharris,

> But it has enough money for Golden Goodbyes to

> Labour councillors who chose to stand down as

> councillors back in December.

> At the February budget setting Lib Dems showed how

> to make sufficient savings, from memory ?5M, to

> avoid any increase in Council Tax. Amazingly this

> was rejected and Council Tax increased by 6% this

> year.

> It is political choices that caused the ?16 fee to

> be introduced.

Disgraceful indeed, however 'savings' are a euphemism for austerity and outsourcing I'm sure.

I am disappointed to see Labour introduce what is effectively a poll tax, but the Lib Dems are far worse ideologically.

[Loz]

Jim1234 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am disappointed to see Labour introduce what is

> effectively a poll tax, but the Lib Dems are far

> worse ideologically.

In what way?

[nxjen]

?I am disappointed to see Labour introduce what is effectively a poll tax, but the Lib Dems are far worse ideologically.?

Nothing like a poll tax which everyone is compelled to pay. You only pay the ?16 bulk collection fee if you want the council to take away large items i.e. you pay for the service.

[JohnL]

There is worse than the ?16 charge out there - I see it increasing if anything to be honest. As it is it's probably fair.

I save up - until I have a few items.

[Jim1234]

My view of Lib Dem ideology is that they are basically Tories with a friendly face. They privatised the Royal Mail, reek of privilege and have no interest in economic equality, yet are somehow seen as centre left.

Id call it a poll tax because its a public service, but I do see your point.

[Administrator]

Please keep this East Dulwich specific

[rendelharris]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi rendelharris,

> But it has enough money for Golden Goodbyes to

> Labour councillors who chose to stand down as

> councillors back in December.

> At the February budget setting Lib Dems showed how

> to make sufficient savings, from memory ?5M, to

> avoid any increase in Council Tax. Amazingly this

> was rejected and Council Tax increased by 6% this

> year.

> It is political choices that caused the ?16 fee to

> be introduced.

?17k James, no idea if that was justified or not - you would have a better idea of the ins and outs of local government than I - but a bit of a drop in the ocean compared to ?12M cuts.

ETA I have immense respect for you and your work, but I assume the proposed ?5M savings couldn't have been made without some cuts to local services, or charging for previously free ones?

(Admin please delete if inappropriate but I'd say what's happened to Southwark's budget is quite relevant to ED?)

[Loz]

Jim1234 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My view of Lib Dem ideology is that they are basically Tories with a friendly face. They

> privatised the Royal Mail, reek of privilege and have no interest in economic equality, yet are

> somehow seen as centre left.

You might want to re-acquaint yourself with Lib-Dem policy - you seem a little confused.

[Abe_froeman]

I don't think we'll hear very much more from the East Dulwich councillors on this forum.

[jamesmcash]

Hello all

Thanks a lot for all the posts on here over the past few days. On the two substantive issues raised:

-- Tree felling on St Francis Park

I have directly messaged northernexile, who raised this first, but for the sake of everyone else: this park falls into Champion Hill ward, and not Goose Green. The local councillors there are Peter John ([email protected]) and Sarah King ([email protected]). I have no doubt that they will be happy to look into this if you email them. I would not like to tread on their toes by acting on it myself.

-- Bulky waste collection

Thanks for raising this Cora. JohnL and rendelharris have already raised the important points about these charges have become common across London boroughs (with many charging a lot more), and about the political context of massive cuts to local authority funding from the Conservative-LibDem and Conservative governments since 2010. I won't dwell on this any further as I do not want to overly politicise the thread. Feel free to contact me by email if you want more information on the subject. My email address is [email protected]

I have looked up the second issue of not being able to alter your booking once you have made it. This seemed odd to me but when I looked it up I discovered that when you make your booking the crews and vehicles are allocated to your order, and that subsequently altering your order comes with a cost to the council. In the current financial climate this sadly cannot be absorbed.

I hope that this is helpful for you

Best wishes

James

[JoeLeg]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think we'll hear very much more from the

> East Dulwich councillors on this forum.

On the other hand...

Give them a chance, eh?

[Sally Eva]

deleted

[rendelharris]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I don't think we'll hear very much more from

> the

> > East Dulwich councillors on this forum.

>

>

> On the other hand...

>

> Give them a chance, eh?

I'm not sure how to do the smiley face emoticon thing so I'll just give an old fashioned hear hear. Proof of the pudding and all that.

[Penguin68]

This seemed odd to me but when I looked it up I discovered that when you make your booking the crews and vehicles are allocated to your order, and that subsequently altering your order comes with a cost to the council. In the current financial climate this sadly cannot be absorbed.

I very much doubt that Veolia (who I think have the contract for this collection work) really incur costs if the cancellation is a number of days away from the scheduled collection. This is simply the cost they charge to the council as a penalty. Most of this work will be scheduled electronically, using 'best route' software, I would have thought. It would be possible for Southwark to renegotiate its contract to allow a cancellation/ reschedule window without cost to it, if it chose to do so. If it's in-house that would be even easier. Certainly a cancellation only a couple of days before scheduled collection might incur a real cost, but not longer. These are the same vehicles which can be (very quickly and comendably so) sent out to deal with unauthorised fly-tipping - so they are not really on such a tightly delimited schedule over a long-ish period.

Can I suggest to the new councillors that (even where they control the council) they should not automatically believe what the apparat is telling them. They should remember that they represent us, not the council officers.

[Sue]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think we'll hear very much more from the

> East Dulwich councillors on this forum.

And you base that positive contribution on what evidence, exactly?

[singalto]

When the bulky waste collection was free, you could alter what you wanted collected so I cannot understand why you can?t when paying for the privilege.

[Alan Medic]

Hello James,

a street lamp on Crystal Palace Road (opposite the Great Exhibition pub) has obviously been hit by a vehicle. It looks like it could be dangerous given the angle it's at. It is located in the middle of the road on a island for pedestrians (don't know the correct term for this).

I rang the council to report this on Friday but I have to say I wasn't convinced that the person who took the call was interested or even took note of it.

Perhaps you could arrange for this to be dealt with urgently?

[jamesmcash]

Hi Alan

Thanks for raising this. I?ll look into it right away.

Best wishes

James

[cella]

Hi James

Can you advise on when the fence blocking the pavement will be removed at the front of the new flats next to the East Dulwich gym in Crystal Palace Road? The main works have been completed some time ago and the flats are now on sale. It has been quite precarious trying to cross the busy road to and from the gym for a very long time and additionally the builders big vans are often parked outside blocking most of that side of the road. I've witnessed people with buggies having to wait quite a long time to cross and yesterday I had to wait while a car tried to leave the gym building and couldn't see round a van parked immediately by the fence. I had to wait til he had manouvered round before I could safely enter. Think the developers have had long enough!

Many thanks.

[wonderwoman]

Yes even if it's still needed should it not be taken further back into the pavement, there's absolutely no need to have the fence so far out. People are having to precariously dodge traffic and go into the road with children. It's so selfish and inconsiderate imo!