Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Putting the ludicrous "we should all be cycling" comment to one side, the car park does seem a little unnecessary. Most people in East Dulwich are within walking distance of either PR or Dulwich Park, and if for some reason you do need to drive, there tends to be plenty of space along Colyton Rd.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> It could be disabled parking only.


Why..? Do only disabled people go to the park.. ?

I walk to the park but there are some folk who are not registered disabled that still have mobility issues.


There was a car park there long before the Caf? was built.

There was an old caf? where the toilets are now.. The ones that in the main are closed / locked up.


Sunday morning on Blackheath there used to be lots of people with their kite and other activities.

A virtual ban on parking has resulted in very few people using the heath these days.


If the parking is further restricted, the caf? will not be viable and will be forced to close.


DulwichFox

If parking is restricted then the cafe will no longer be viable?? That's ridiculous!!! Do you seriously think that the cafe will go bankrupt if visiting the park by car is made a bit harder? Car addicts will say any old rot to try and make people as scared of change as they are. Shame on you Dulwich Fox!


Please be mindful of the air quality and obesity crises London is facing and CHANGE YOUR WAYS!

Tuffstuff100 Wrote:

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

> If parking is restricted then the cafe will no

> longer be viable?? That's ridiculous!!! Do you

> seriously think that the cafe will go bankrupt if

> visiting the park by car is made a bit harder? Car

> addicts will say any old rot to try and make

> people as scared of change as they are. Shame on

> you Dulwich Fox!

>

> Please be mindful of the air quality and obesity

> crises London is facing and CHANGE YOUR WAYS!


Tuffstuff100


The unfortunate reality is


No Car Parking = Bankrupt Businesses


I agree with you on air quality and other issues but the reality is many businesses need customers and the majority of customers are passing trade and most drive cars mostly for good reasons.


Sales Reps

Mums with children

Old people

People on their way to work .. further away that it is reasonable to cycle

People who are physically incapable of cycling especially in poor weather

Etc

Etc


You feel strongly that everyone should cycle but you must be realistic for most people cycling simply isn't practical.



Now the problem with cutting parking for businesses is creating a worst environmental issue


WHY


As an example my elderly neighbours don't go shopping on Lordship Lane or Peckham Rye they don't even go locally for a coffee or lunch.

Where do they go .... Bluewater Lakeside or a Sainsburys.


So removal of local parking = increased pollution because car drivers travel 10 - 500 times further to get a cup of tea or some shopping.


The knock on effect of reduced local parking creates more problems environmental or congestion and it bankrupts local small businesses.


It's a constant drive towards big business.


So your desire to reduce local parking is a big vote for big businesses to dominate and a vote to kill small independent businesses and we know Southwark hates small business too.


Conclusion Reduce Local Parking if you want to increase pollution and have dead high streets full of bland chain stores.



Using your logic Lordship Lane would be a dead zone with CPZs and soulless pound shops .. not very clever.


It's about striking the right balance incentivising the use of electric vehicles and building suitable local parking facilities that keep drivers mileage down and also add cycling facilities like dry secure bike parking and safe routes for those who wish to cycle.



I look at Peckham Rye and all I see is a missed opportunity as it's mostly empty because there's little parking Dulwich park has lots of parking and it's a busy vibrant used public space.


I agree with DF re Blackheath it's a public disaster and has become a difficult place to visit.


These councils are abusing their powers and the result is impoverishing the local people and killing small businesses insane!


If you can see this from a different perspective I think you may have a change of opinion.

parking at PR should not be reduced IMO.

what's with the obligation to ride a fecking bike ? while car drivers are busy texting while they drive and cut each other up and not giving two fecks about whether you're on a bike or not.

do me a favour with the evangelic bike-ridey crap.

Tuffstuff100 Wrote:

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

> If parking is restricted then the cafe will no

> longer be viable?? That's ridiculous!!! Do you

> seriously think that the cafe will go bankrupt if

> visiting the park by car is made a bit harder? Car

> addicts will say any old rot to try and make

> people as scared of change as they are. Shame on

> you Dulwich Fox!

>

> Please be mindful of the air quality and obesity

> crises London is facing and CHANGE YOUR WAYS!


Car addicts will say any old rot to try and make people as scared of change as they are. Shame on you Dulwich Fox!


Please be mindful of the air quality and obesity crises London is facing and CHANGE YOUR WAYS


I have already said I walk to the park.. Elsewhere I have written that I mainly use my car for my weekly shop..

I average <20 miles per week in my car. so hardly a car addict.

I walk an average of 5-8 miles a day. I am in my mid 60's and I am not obese. 9 Stone .


So please eat your words of advice..


DulwichFox

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The new Heygate development in Elephant has over

> 650 car parking spaces.


Hilarious


2,500 new homes and 650 parking spaces


A joke there should be one space per new home.


The planning system is run by incompetent morons.


Also Heygate is yet another Southwark incompetence they sold it for less than 25% of its true value disgusting.

KikiMac Wrote:

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

> Hate to interrupt the rant-fest but my

> understanding is that the existing car park is

> going to be a (proper) kids play area so they're

> just replacing it with the new one, which looks

> about the same size to me.


The internet is not the place for reasoned discussion you know :)


https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-regeneration/peckham-rye/supporting_documents/25%20July_Event%20Boards_FINAL_Revised_30.07.2015.pdf

Yes it's currently too small and the new one isn't any bigger should be twice the size of the existing car park.


The size Peckham Rye should be going for would be along the lines of Dulwich Park possibly even bigger.


If they're going to do it WyTF not do it properly!


There's plenty of space ... only not sufficient space in the brains of these incompetent Southwark employees if the community were given a voice we'd all be asking for a much bigger car park it's not as though the Rye can't fit one in.

In all seriousness, there is adequate public transport and walking and cycling are also options for people wanting to go to Peckham Rye. If we carry on in our current car dependent ways, an area the size of Richmond Park will need to be given over to new car parking spaces in the coming decades. That's from Boris Johnson's analysis. And we will all get ill as the air gets increasingly polluted. It might irk some people, but the direction of travel is towards road pricing in London.


Sorry Dulwich Fox, my comments were a bit rude and I retract them.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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