I complained to southwark last summer (or maybe the summer before) about ouside the tate modern I acn't rmember exact details but basically southwark do not do any form of vermin control in public spaces/streets etc and have no department to deal with any investation. Thames water do sometime put bait in the sewers, so if you wanted to get something done about the rats at potters field it may be worth contacting them.
> I complained to southwark last summer (or maybe
> the summer before) about ouside the tate modern I
> acn't rmember exact details but basically
> southwark do not do any form of vermin control in
> public spaces/streets etc and have no department
> to deal with any investation. Thames water do
> sometime put bait in the sewers, so if you wanted
> to get something done about the rats at potters
> field it may be worth contacting them.
Here's a quick guide to tell you who to contact if you spot vermin in your area.
Please contact us on 020 525 2000 (24 hours) or email firstname.lastname@example.org if you think there is a problem with rats or mice in any of Southwark's parks.
Council housing estates
Sightings of rats or mice on housing estates should be reported to the area housing office. Click here to find your nearest area housing office.
Privately owned land
If rats and mice are causing a problem on privately owned land (e.g. an overgrown garden, building site etc.), Southwark's Residential Group can serve a notice on the landowner. The notice will require that the land is treated and the problem dealt with.
We may not be able to help with the following
Unregistered land - this means land that has no owner
Accumulations of inert material such as building rubble
Overgrown gardens - unless it can be proved that it is attracting vermin
If we are able to help, we will usually serve a notice on the owner of the land requiring them to resolve the problem. The notice is a legal document listing all the work that must be carried out to rid the land of the problem. If the owner does not meet the conditions of the notice, we can take formal action against them.
A notice is usually served around two weeks after the first inspection of the property. The owner is given 28 days to deal with the problem, although it may take longer for the problem to be resolved.
Contact the Residential Group
Tel: 020 7525 2000 (24 hours)
Fax: 020 7525 3077
London SE17 2DG
Ivanhoe has confessed [on a thread near here] to roasting whole animals ... maybe he could be employed to roast some in the park to serve as a warning ... though I don't imagine they should be eaten ...
Should this post be moved to a summer socials thread?
Very useful link, as usual lang rabbie. So potters field would be dealt with by the parks section but as far as I can see There is still no control of vermin in other public spaces eg by the river and in streets as these are not parks, nor housing nor private land
As long as the illegal traders continue to sell burgers and ice creams in the area the problem will contine. Fat poured down drains after a days selling certainly doesn't help!
Southwark's solution to the trading problem is to introduce 5 licensed fixed ptiches along the River Walk (not selling food of course) The idea is that they will police the area and deter the illegal traders. The food traders will still continue. Apparently they plan to increase the Street Enforcement Visits to daily funded by the income for the licences for these pitches.
Maybe Southwark could use some of the vast profits from Tourism in the area to fund solutions to the environmental problems that local people face living here.
Southwark are planning to hand over the running of Potters Fields to a new trust, which will have the responsibility, amonst other things, of deciding which and how many events are held in the park, and who should be allowed to have vans or other catering concessions. I am sitting in on the preliminary proposals representing the Tooley Street and Tower Bridge Community Association and am doing my best to make sure that we have as large a say as possible in the ultimate running of the park.With luck this should all be in place by the end of the year so hopefully after that date local people will have much more influence than now.
alan chapman Wrote:
> Southwark are planning to hand over the running of
> Potters Fields to a new trust, which will have the
> responsibility, amonst other things, of deciding
> which and how many events are held in the park,
> and who should be allowed to have vans or other
> catering concessions. I am sitting in on the
> preliminary proposals representing the Tooley
> Street and Tower Bridge Community Association and
> am doing my best to make sure that we have as
> large a say as possible in the ultimate running of
> the park.With luck this should all be in place by
> the end of the year so hopefully after that date
> local people will have much more influence than
What? Why the hell are Southwark proposing to hand over responsibility for the park to a trust? What is wrong with keeping it within the responsiblity of the Council? Inept as they may be, at least it is possible to hold them to account for any mismanagement. If it is handed over to a trust (I presume More London and the GLA feature prominently in this - what about Berkeley Homes?) then the Council will simply throw their hands up and say 'Not us, gov, take it up with the Trust'! Fat chance of holding that lot to account. What are you going to do - say 'I won't vote for you Mr More London, or I won't vote for you Mr Livingstone'?
If you allow the running of Potters to be handed over to a trust, you'll have beaches, David Blaine style stunts, closures to allow casinos for City banks' staff christmas parties (I kid you not - this was on the cards in 1999 and the Residents Association had to threaten judicial review to get it stopped) and so on.
Excuse me for being a tad cynical here, but isn't this the GLA and More London manoeuvring to take control of what they see as their backyard, simply because Southwark is too impoverished to do the job properly?
What kind of public consultation is Southwark running on this proposal?
Sorry for delay in coming back to you.
Idea was first proposed by Pool of London Partnership who are behind proposal to spend money on the park.
The only reason the trust was proposed was because Southwark say they do not have the funds to maintain the park. ( I personally think that this is crazy). Pool of London do not want to spend the money unless the park can be maintained afterwards. Therefore they have proposed setting up this trust to get round the problem. I personaly like the park as it is (that is if it were properly maintained) but have taken the view that if we have to have the improvments (?) and a trust then local residents should be have as large a say in the running of that trust as possible. Together with Fair Street Housing we are trying to engineer it so we, combined with the representatives from Southwark should have control of the trust. Unless this can happen I agree with you that we should fight the whole proposal.
I live just 100 meters away from the park and want it to remain a pleasant place to relax in. I detest the idea of corporate hospitality, David Blaine, and all the other uses that you have envisaged.
Any support you can give, by whatever means, would be gratefully appreciated.