Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Disguting state of cleanliness in Wood Green High Road
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by aidan on
-
It's an embarrassment. I spend so much time trying to convince others that Wood Green is a decent place, but it's undermined as soon as they actually see the place. It has the filthiest pavements I've seen anywhere in London. Actually, anywhere in the country.
It's genuinely depressing.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Indeed, but I think the people dropping their rubbish not two meters from the copious number of rubbish bins in Wood Green could think a little about their behaviour.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I'm sure I'll be corrected on this but the cuts should not affect street cleaning directly i.e. streets should still get cleaned and bins emptied, as this is a council service that has long been privatised contracted out. The council has just changed contractor to Veolia who have a made a great deal of their successes in tackling fly tipping and improving the cleanliness of the streets in other boroughs.
Where cuts will affect street cleanliness is in enforcement i.e. stopping/fining littering and fly tipping and probably in contract supervision, where council employees monitor the service and get stuck in to the contractor if they fail to live up to the terms of the deal.
So, cleaning up and refuse disposal is not an area where we should expect to see a deterioration in service in the long term as even the recycling is contracted out now. We should not put down poor cleanliness to cuts and excuse it.
We will, however, have to deal with the fact that tackling the root causes and fine enforcement will be badly affected by cuts as there will not be enough officers to follow up complaints and problems or be out on the streets catching people littering and dumping.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I've never understood why contracting out services is supposed to be cheaper except perhaps to a large organisation where plant and its maintenance is involved. Assuming the enforcement officers are paid the same, the contractors' profits have to be added to staff costs. Or is that too simplistic ? I don't know.
-
-
The thing is street enforcement have a wide remit and deal with all environmental problems from fly tipping to unauthorised street trading. Litter is just one small part of their job. Unlike parking enforcement whose sole job is to patrol looking for parking infringements, enforcement officers have to respond to people's individual complaints and patrol - more like a police officer. They do have litter patrols at peak times and they do catch people (although some have suggested they shouldn't waste their time on cig ends and coke cans) but they also have to follow up so much else that cutting back on the number means the "smaller" issues get neglected.
I think they do a tough job and am sorry that these cuts are likely to make their job a lot harder.
-
Permalink Reply by Danzigger on
-
My understanding of it is that services are only "outsourced" because the contractor offers to provide a service for less than it would cost the council to do it themselves. How they make these savings and still turn a profit is of no concern to the council as long as the contractual requirements are met. Typically private companies save money by hiring cheap casual staff, who don't get paid holidays, maternity, pensions etc
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I read Osbawn's comment as suggesting that "peak times" for the acts of littering and fly-tipping are when there are most pedestrians around. This has an intuitive logic but I'm not convinced.
At any time, day or night, it takes one thoughtless or anti-social resident, trader, builder, or landlord to dump rubbish - which can then get blown - or moved by animals - up and down the street.
And even if we focus on handing out fines, the enforcement-officers-on-every-shopping-street approach has the same flaws as the "more-bobbies-on-the-beat" mantra. It leaves out the so-called "back office" functions. Which include serving notices, preparing cases and taking offenders to court.
So can we find efficiency savings by doing things better? Of course. Though I doubt this is best achieved by splitting jobs into back/front office and contracting out bits of the work. Counter-intuitively these can actually drive-up costs and reduce efficiency. To see why, I strongly recommend taking a look at some of the video talks by John Seddon.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Ruggles on
-
Think you will find that - Offenders are not paying and it is not viable to follow up through court's
Makes a whole joke of letter fine
Ex Enforcement Officer -
-
-
Thanks for posting this, Neville. I haven't been to the shops in Wood Green this week. But I have been out and about in streets near where we live, in Tottenham Hale. And it seems to me that standards are slipping.
I gather that one factor - at least - may be the changeover in contractors - with Veolia due to begin on 17 April. But this doesn't affect the basic issues. Including the assumption by a minority of residents that it's perfectly okay to leave waste on the streets - sometimes near litter bins. As well as down alleys, or on any small corner. No doubt confident that the rubbish elves - whistling cheerfully - will soon be along to clear it.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
