Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Haven't seen a post on this as yet and wondered if everyone in ED has had a Southwark Council "consultation" questionnaire dropped in their letter box recently re increasing the number of pitches on North Cross Road from 20 to 30 and adding Sunday's to the market trading days?


Does anyone have any views on this?

I think closing the road is being considered although it's not one of the questions asked on the questionnaire. I think it should be left at 20. There's a good range of produce on offer and the small market size has a nice friendly feel about it.

Closure of the road would be a pain as it's a good cycle through route but in principle sounds like a nice idea.


The existing traders might have a view on increased stalls though ;) esp if it doesn't automatically translate into increased customers.


And also why are the council proposing it? Thinking of the extra revenue from ten extra stalls perhaps? Cynical I know (and probably reflecting a waiting list for stalls) but a bigger market isn't always about improvement to the existing one.

Great idea. I'm all for increasing the size in the hope of a bit more variety, as after 7 years of visiting the market nearly every Saturday there hasn't been much change. I love the existing stalls (especially the fudge lady!), but it will be great to see some new things on offer.

edited - can't attach 200Kb pdf questionairre.


Earlier this week after many many weeks of debate and discussion a survey form was agreed.

The administration is proposing to increase the market from officially operating Mon-Sat to be open every day including Sundays. They're also proposing that it increases from 20 to 30 stalls.


The East Dulwich Lib Dem councillors views after talking to residents, stall holders and local businesses is that increasing the number of stalls on Saturdays from 20 to 30 or even 40 is something we'd welcome and have been asking about for some time. Opening the market on Sundays we're not keen on as it would mean residents will never get a day of peace. We're also not keen on increasing the numbers of stalls Mon-Fri as the current stall numbers are rarely used and if a higer were they might make the area feel taken over by the market.


What do you think?

Whether you're a residents, visitor, run a business in ther area we'd like you to either print and complete the quesitonairres or respond online:


Northcross Road market survey

I think that increasing the number of stalls substantially on a Saturday is a great idea as it would draw more people to the area to shop generally. However, surely this would only work if the road were pedestrianised that day, as presumably with 30-40 stalls, you would have to use both sides of the road? It's bad enough with stalls just on the one side to get a car through there (tried it on a driving lesson once - nightmare!), as it crossing the road as a pedestrian.


I agree about giving the local residents peace on a Sunday as well.


However, if there is an increase of people coming to the area, and potentially a road closed, how will that impact on traffic and parking in the area? Luckily for me I live far enough away but close enough to walk, but I can imagine people coming from neighbouring areas (or further afield) though might be inclined to drive, and clutter up the local streets even more when parking.


Also, how is it decided what sort of stalls will be trading? What direction will the market take in terms of style?

Wasn't aware of any previous discussions on this and only received survey this week. Agree with DJKillaQueen, a bigger market isn't necessarily going to improve the existing one. Maybe the extension has more to do with the 40 traders on the waiting list! The survey is available to complete online at www.surveymonkey.com/s/northcrossroadmarket

Sunday is definately a winner and making it more pedestrian friendly would work well. I went to London Fields last week which is the best food market I've been to (better than Borough) with great stalls but easy to walk around... we need an equivilant in ED.


We must also protect local businesses on North Cross Rd too, many suffer as parking is limited on Saturdays as is the case for the pet shop.

I think it quite dreary as it is. I like Cooper, the hot dog guy. The lady selling shea butter and other soaps is useful but I don't want that every week. The Blackbird Bakery stall to my mind has a monopoly as they already have a shop on Grove Vale. Wish they would be given some competition in the form of another bakery stall.

I would be keen on extra stalls on Saturday, with a road closure on that day, but I don't think it's fair to the local residents to extend to Sunday. Everyone should have one day of their weekend that is peaceful.


I also think that extending to Sunday may dilute the Saturday trade and all year round it may be hard to maintain. I would be very interested to know if the requests for additional stalls have been made over the summer when it seems such a nice thing to do. Last Autumn there was a noticeable reduction in stall holders turning up the moment the rain started. A wet Sunday may cause a lot of disappointment to visitors who then don't bother to come again on either day.

The Blackbird Bakery stall to my mind has a monopol♠ as they already have a shop on Grove Vale. Wish they would be given some competition in the form of another bakery stall.


You raise an interesting point here. I was reliably informed that, when MooTown moved its excellent cheese stall from the Indoor Market to NCR, it was told it had to discontinue selling its (really excellent!) baguettes because of the clash with Blackbird.


I think NCR works well as a Saturday market only. Fridays are dead and, as far as Sundays go, it's hardly East Street is it?! I'd welcome Saturday pedestrianisation of the LL end of NCR though.



SimonM

Wonder who made the rule about MooTown not being able to sell baguettes? At Peckham Sunday Market there is only one bread seller now, Flour Power, but Blackbird used to be there also. They also used to be at the Dulwich College once a month market alongside the Celtic Bakery. Blackheath Sunday Market has about 4 different bakeries selling bread and cakes. Lovely choice.


Edited to say = Mootown sells welsh cakes - presumbly that's ok then even though they have flour in them!

I don't mind and my road could be affected by extra parking and traffic. As long, as Cllr Barber says, the market doesn't eventually take over the area. And as long as it doesn't usher in parking restrictions, like that no-go area Northcote Road, Clapham.

kford Wrote:

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

> I don't mind and my road could be affected by

> extra parking and traffic. As long, as Cllr Barber

> says, the market doesn't eventually take over the

> area. And as long as it doesn't usher in parking

> restrictions, like that no-go area Northcote Road,

> Clapham.


Or Choumert Road, Peckham!!!

I live in one of the 5 Rd side roads off of Northcross Rd.


On Saturday I take my disabled mother shopping.

When I return early afternoon it is imposible to park.


Full of white market vans and 4x4's


I have to park in another street and recover my car early evening.


As it is impossible to turn around in the road, closing North Cross rd would mean

cars could not enter or leave:-

NutField Rd. Archdale Rd. Lacon Rd. Fellbrigg Rd. Ulverscroft Rd.


There would be serious traffic increase on Crystal Palace rd.


Like to see the market and have considered applying for a stall myself.


BUT !!! To have this on a daily basis would not be of any benifit to local residents.

I'm inclined to agree with you DulwichFox! Closing North Cross Road could potentially be a traffic nightmare. Another point on this is, who decides on what stalls to include in this extended market? Do we get a say on what we would like to see there?

I went to London Fields last week which is the best food market I've been to (better than Borough) with great stalls but easy to walk around... we need an equivilant in ED.


Do we really need it? The area is very well served for shops both in ED and neighbouring local areas. The question surely is whether local people want it. And there are some very good points being made above that show that it may not be the gerat idea it seems at first glance. But that is why it has been put out to consultation.

cate Wrote:

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

> No one said anything about a daily basis.


Cate


See post from James Barber.


Earlier this week after many many weeks of debate and discussion a survey form was agreed.

The administration is proposing to increase the market from officially operating Mon-Sat to be open every day including Sundays. They're also proposing that it increases from 20 to 30 stalls.


That is the proposal..

Yes, DulwichFox, but I suspect that the market won't function Monday to Friday as it does on a Saturday. In theory, it could operate like that now, as it is approved Monday to Saturday, but there simply isn't the demand midweek so stall holders don't bother (at least that's what I'm assuming).

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> I live in one of the 5 Rd side roads off of

> Northcross Rd.

>

> > I have to park in another street and recover my

> car early evening.

>

> As it is impossible to turn around in the road,

> closing North Cross rd would mean

> cars could not enter or leave:-

> NutField Rd.

> Archdale Rd. Lacon Rd. Fellbrigg Rd. Ulverscroft

> Rd.

>

> There would be serious traffic increase on

> Crystal Palace rd.

>

> Like to see the market and have considered

> applying for a stall myself.

>

> BUT !!! To have this on a daily basis would not

> be of any benifit to local residents.


xxxxxxxx


I have mixed feelings about this.


I live in Ulverscroft Road and yes there would be problems with parking and traffic flow.


On the other hand I love the market and would like to see more stalls, provided the stuff being sold is of a reasonable standard .... even if I can't afford it, I like to know it's there :)


I'd also be happy to see stalls there all week.

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...