Finally after four years of saying no Southwark Labour have joined Southwark Lib Dems and even Southwark Conservatives to support the Greater London National Park City campaign.

The campaign aims to create a joined-up network of parks, water and open spaces across the capital for East Dulwich, Southwark and London residents to enjoy.

“A city where people and nature are better connected. A city that is rich with wildlife and every child benefits from exploring, playing and learning outdoors. A city where we all enjoy high-quality green spaces, the air is clean to breathe, it’s a pleasure to swim in its rivers and green homes are affordable. Together we can make London a greener, healthier and fairer place to live. Together we can make London a National Park City.”

Bizarrely Labour councillors such as Charlie Smith in our own East Dulwich ward have refused to engage in this idea – until now. So well done to everyone who helped put enough pressure on Charlie and his peers to U turn on this and accept that East Dulwich deserve a greener place to live.

The Council’s £16 tax on residents who want to get rid of their bulky waste items must be scrapped, Liberal Democrat councillors have demanded.

Government figures which show that Southwark has the fourth worst level of flytipping in England, Liberal Democrats have called for the Council to make reporting flytips easier and for more regular clean-ups of streets and estates.

Southwark Labour councillors introduced a £16 tax for all residents who wanted to have their bulky waste items collected from their home. Using the Council’s own figures, flytipping on Southwark’s streets then increased by 10%.

Liberal Democrat councillors have also highlighted how:

• the bulky waste collection service can now only be ordered online and only by those residents with a debit or credit card. This excludes a large number of Southwark residents without access to the internet or a bank account
• the Council has removed recycling points from public areas such as supermarket car parks because of the level of flytipping – you could not make this up!

Southwark Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called on the Labour administration to scrap the bulky waste collection tax, make it easier to order bulky waste collections and count all flytipping incidents. Labour councillors have avoided debating this repeatedly.

Southwark now has the fourth worst level of flytipping in the whole of England and Labour’s new bulky waste tax is just making things worse. Everyone can see that Southwark’s streets and estates are getting dirtier. Despite our warnings though, ruling Labour councillors don’t seem to make the connection between their £16 tax and increased flytipping.

Southwark Council with so many tens of thousands of trees receives a number of lciams for subsidence caused by those trees routes every year.

The latest stats I have after submitting a Freedom of Information request:
2010   69 claims
2011   70
2012   47
2013   41
2014   34 claims – but residents have up to 6 years to make a tree subsidence claim

Average time to resolve – 12-18 months to resolve a subsidence claim which is apparently is pretty average for councils. The council logs when a claim is raised and when the claim file is ultimately closed. However this does not measure how long a claim takes to resolve. For instance, a building insurer may raise a claim, ask for initial pruning to be introduced and then the claims handlers hear nothing further from the claimant. However they are required to keep the claim open for a significant period of time in case further communication from the claimant is received.

Tree root liability claims take longer to resolve than most other types of public liability claims as various sets of technical data are generally required along with a period of movement monitoring through a growing cycle, normally 12 months.

Top 3 Reasons cases take longer than the industry average/ best practice:
1. Technical data is not complete or provided – the council must ensure that the technical data is sufficient to show the cause of the subsidence before it moves to take remedial action, especially if it relates to a tree removal. People get very upset when well loved trees have to be removed. Occasionally a further period of monitoring may be required if the monitoring results did not show significant movement or the nature of movement was inconclusive requiring additional period of monitoring. There may be another cause to subsidence movement such as leaking drains, or unusually wet or dry periods.
2. Receipt of arboriculture reports – speeding up this process would in particular improve the average time to resolve the smaller less complex claims such as boundary walls and driveways.
3. Challenge to proposed tree removal – once the process begins to fell trees, delays can arise when challenges are received to the proposed felling. In addition this can also impact the speed at which arboriculture reports can be finalised.