Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am just wondering how necessary it is to have a large brown wheelie for almost every property in East Dulwich?


I am lucky and have a garden large enough to house a compost heap, so have done away with my brown wheelie. If I have a lot of garden waste to get rid of (too much for the compost) then I use those free paper sacks you can get from the library.


For food waste I have one of the small brown bins, which we don't even half fill (family of 4) every week.


I just wonder if any other ED residents could swap their large brown bin, if they hardly use it, for a small one? I get the impression that most of them are empty or almost empty nearly all of the time.


It could free up a bit of pavement space and make our front gardens look less cluttered perhaps?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/40189-large-brown-wheelie-bins/
Share on other sites

Or share, maybe? We have one big bin between several households in my road. People generally aren't gardening at the same time so if ours is full there's another nearby with room. We also share one blue bin between two. Seems to work out OK.

Our huge bins are hideous. Our local streets were part of the Southwark regeneration scheme with Victorian railings, tiled pathways and plenty of potential for little flower beds or pot plants.


Unfortunately the size of the bins means that any such planting would obstruct the bin men, so narrow is the space. Putting our bins directly next to our front door and planting on the other side of them, under the bay, is even more hideous, with the bins crowding round the path, looming by the door and filling the view from the front bay window.


In Edinburgh the council provide several jumbo bins that are used by the whole street. They sit in the road. This saves money on rubbish collection as well, I assume, and it leaves the fronts of old houses looking good.


Maybe Southwark just don't trust Londoners to make the effort to walk a few feet to put their bin bags in one of these?

Yes, the big freeholders in Chelsea like the Cadogan Estate and the Grosvenor Estate have some pretty restrictive covenants in their leases about what can be on show at the front of their properties (such as no Estate Agent signs, no laundry drying on balconies and, quite notoriously, no net curtains in some cases) which is rather Big Brother ... but then you get those lovely unfettered uniform terraces which do look good, no doubt about it.


Meanwhile, I'd be happy if we could just have fewer wheelie bins in East Dulwich!

lane lover Wrote:

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

>

> I find the green bin is too big as well. The size

> of the blue one (while unsightly) is required.


xxxxxxx


You can get a smaller size green bin (it's larger than the small brown bins, but quite a bit smaller than the ordinary green bins).


Just ask the council. They'll take the old green bin away.


The blue bins are absolutely hideous, so I have two boxes instead, which are at least dark blue rather than bright blue. However they're often not big enough, epecially at Christmas with all the paper and bottles .... But there is no way I am having a bright blue bin, it's bad enough seeing all the others down my street :(

I have both types of brown bin. In the Winter, I only use the smaller to dispose of the food waste, but Spring to Autumn I do frequently need the large bin for garden waste. As has been pointed out, if you don't need the larger bin, you can request it's taken away. If you still have a need to dispose of garden stuff occasionally, you can use the brown paper sacks instead. Aesthetics aside, it's a great service imo.

Huggers Wrote:

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

> Ive now got a slim blue bin and it s more discreet

> than the overspilling boxes I had.


xxxxx


Is that the same size as the small green bins, Huggers?


I suppose it's too much to hope for that it's dark blue instead of bright blue? The council did say that they would move to a less bright blue when new bins were ordered, but when on earth is that likely to be? Never, probably, unless they're biodegradable .....

Bromley council only collect recycled goods fortnightly and they only give one small blue box per household. Daughter's recycled blue box is frequently over flowing and the foxes drag stuff out as does not have a lid. We have 2 blue, 2 green and 1 brown bin in our front garden, One green bin is usually half to three quarters full, blue usually full sometimes have to use 2, brown variable if doing any gardening on top of food waste. rather have wheelie bins that boxes or bags any day.

Huggers Wrote:

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

> Because it is slim I have now pushed my bins to

> the end of the front bit that's furtherest away

> from front door so it doesn't look so horrible. It

> doesn't look half as bad as the full size.


xxxxxx


Thanks, I might consider this, I have a separately accessible space for my bins, also in the bit furthest away from the front door! I'll have to measure up.


Could keep the blue bin always at the back except on recycling collection days. Or maybe I could cover it with something to hide the hideous blue. Like that lovely (joke) leafy fablon or whatever it's called these days :)

There seem to be several sizes of brown caddy, and plenty of unused ones litter the streets in ED.


It seems a shame to undo all the good that's been done by having people learn how to sort their household waste, but the number of wheelies and boxes is making us re-assess whether having communal bins would work better.


In apartment buildings, especially, unless folk agree to keep compost buckets free of meat and fish waste, they soon stink and neither landlords nor maintenance teams imagine it would be viable to set up smaller, local collection points. Yet 'dalek' style bins work very well, and provide you with free, on-the-spot supplies of good potting compost after a few months.

It is less costly for Councils if we can fit one in to our immediate locale than if they pay lorries to come & take compost material away. Also you can add shredded paper & card, woodpulp eggboxes & fruit punnets, and rags of natural fibres e.g.wool. linen, cotton. This reduces the amount going into blue wheelie bins.

fl0wer Wrote:

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

> There seem to be several sizes of brown caddy, and

> plenty of unused ones litter the streets in ED.

>


xxxxxxx


There are two sizes - smaller for inside, larger for outside.


They are often "littering the streets" because they are quite light, and if empty may get blown away in the wind. At least, mine has been several times - retrieved each time some distance away from its usual resting place :)

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

    • Robin's tree ideas in Village ward described by here inspired us East Dulwich Councillors to have the cherry trees planted on the northern section of Melbourne Grove and elsewhere in what was then called East dulwich ward and now largely Goose green ward. 
    • Anyone know what’s happened on the Lordship Lane Estate? Lots of police, ambulances, areas cornered off, police tape everywhere. Lordship Lane side of the Estate near Melford Road.
    • This is my take of the scheme and planning committee report: Railway Yard Scheme 402 objectors and 22 supporters. Huge local concern about this proposal. The scheme is out of character and contrary to The Southwark Plan and Suburban zoning for the site. The adjacent schemes 18-22 Grove Vale is ground and three stories, The Charter School North Dulwich is 3-4, the Tessa Jowel Health Centre is ground and two stories.  This proposed scheme is significantly higher and bulkier. And the corrugated iron looking top floors will be visible for some distance from the site. All the views in the report demonstrate how out of keeping with the Suburban zone this scheme in. What is the point of having such policies if they are ignored? Council officers and members have agreed the site must be redeveloped with an indicative capacity of 53 new homes. The proposal is 3 to 4 times bigger than that with 53 homes and 360 student rooms and additional shared spaces. (2.5 student rooms equating to 1 home). The officer report incorrectly talks about buses going to Brixton, which makes me concerned about the PTAL calculation which partly I would imagine officers have based their acceptance of this over development.  PTAL 4 for the site. TfL PTAL calculator. The social housing will likely be 3.  The assumptions are crow flies. If it is time to access public transport then much of the remainder of the site becomes PTAL3 and the rationale for the officers recommends would be incorrect.  Student accommodation demand comments appear to date from three years ago. Since then various research showing significantly reduced numbers which have not been included in the report. BBC 5 March states 14% drop in foreign students. The House of Commons library 25 March states most foreign students are now postgrads therefore questionable if this accommodation would meet their needs.  ONS reporting that the number of children who will become students has been consistently falling. That Southwark itself is in the process of closing up to 17 primary schools! This will feed through to reduced undergraduate numbers.  The report suggests circa £10,000 is spent by each student in the area. I would suggest vast majority is on accommodation and not circulating in local shops and facilities or indeed Southwark more widely. Additionally they receive free public transport so will not be contributing towards any required improvements.  The report then suggests each student residing at this scheme would be spending around £5,400 in the immediate East Dulwich area each year. This seems extremely unlikely.  The report states members should give some consideration for daylight and sunlight loss with 21 minor, 8 moderate, and 20 substantial adverse reductions. A good scheme would have avoided this.  Any normal school in the Subriban South Zone would have avoided this. Overlooking. Officers state this as minimal. That the reduction in living conditions is acceptable.  That is so easy to type in a report. Many objectors have stated the reduction is not accepted by local residents. Objectively the average person has reached a different conclusion.  Members have the unenviable task of telling ordinary people they are wrong if you approve this scheme.  I would suggest the residents who would suffer this as disagreeing! The blocks will loom over houses nearby. Down to 8.2m gaps on place! If the scheme were to be approved then corridors overlooking 18-22 Grove Vale, Railway Rise scheme proprerties as a minimum should be opaque or angled away. No one wants lots gawping students! I was amazed to see under fire safety a stay put policy would apply. Really? Could a Southwark Planning Committee post Lakanal and GRenfell approve a scheme that relies on that - especially when many students could have English as a second language.  The trip generation stats. From the 53 homes and 360 students stated they would generate 0.76/78 trips per am and pm bus. The am buses are already rammed. And extra 2.4/2.5  people on each peak train.  That would be 33 students and residents across 42 buses serving the 40/176/185 bus routes 7-9am each day. The P13 & 42 would be incredibly inconvenient so can be discounted. Plus only 9 trains 7-9am  going into london so that would be 22 residents and students. So each working day officers have agreed with the developer only 55 people of the 360 students and 53 social homes would be on public transport in the peak times.  This appears quite the fiction. The 53 homes alone are likely to have more than 53 people in employment!  The report talks about limiting student moving in and out times. But the surrounding streets Comtrolled Parking Zone doesn’t cover weekends. Each weekend day we can anticipate an extra 50-100 vehicles needing to park before and after dropping students at this proposed development. This issue has not been covered and is unsolvable to the satisfaction of local residents.  The report even talks about the local tube station which we don’t have! It would be hard to spread this into weekdays as that would risk clashing with the adjacent school start and finish times placing pupils at risk.  This also requires the disabled parking spaces to be relinquished for several weekends each year. How does that work. Part time disabled? Real risk the controlled parking in the area would need to become 24/7 as a number of residents may have cars and they try and park outside the current CPZ operating times.  402 objectors and 22 supporters. This peaks volumes. 
    • If you have lost your Zip card and your first name is Emma or you know Emma please PM me and I will tell you where to find it.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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