Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I received the following email today and thought I'd share it with the Forum. It relates to the Councils proposals for the "Southwark Spine" cycling route from Peckham High Street to Lordship Lane (near the Library). The document that details the proposed road changes is too large to attach but if you follow the link it's at the bottom of the page under related documents.


Closing date to reply to consultation 4th December



(As an aside - I've still to hear the outcome of the previous consultation about Bellenden http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1616398,page=1)



Dear Stakeholder


We have launched a consultation on proposed changes Southwark Spine walking and cycling route between East Dulwich and Peckham.

The route is not just for experienced cyclists but for anyone who wants to use quieter, lower-traffic routes, providing an environment for those cyclists who want to ride at a more leisurely speed.


Details of the consultation can be found here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/


The consultation closes on Monday 4 December 2017.


We are also holding a drop-in session on Thursday 16 November, 6:30pm to 8:30pm, at All Saints Peckham Church, Blenheim Grove, London SE15 4QS.


If you have any further questions regarding the consultation please email us at [email protected]


Please feel free to forward this email to other interested parties.


We look forward to receiving your views.


Regards

Albert Ang | Consultant Project Manager

Consultation (a specialist noun when used by Southwark Council) also includes these streets:


"Other areas for improvement include measures to calm speeds and improve visibility for pedestrians and cyclists on Lyndhurst Way, Melon Road, Bellenden Road, Holly Grove, Chadwick Road, Choumert Road, Maxted Road, Oglander Road, Adys Road, Nutbrook Street, Amott Road, Underhill Road, Whateley Road, Silvester Road, Pellatt Road, Rodwell Road, Heber Road, Jennings Road, Goodrich Road, Crystal Palace Road, and Landells Road."


The yellow paint manufacturers will need to ramp up production for all these extra double yellow lines.

That's almost a hundred car parking spaces lost, not counting the upgrading of single yellow lines to double yellow lines all along bellenden road up to the junction with Maxted Road.


The works around chadwick / bellenden road only really make sense if they are going to reopen Camberwell Grove. If not ten it will be carnage down there.

It is already carnage.


Since the new CPZ around the "Toastrack" parking on Chadwick Road and Grove Park does not exist for residence.


If a resident moves their car they do not get back in again.


Ask Southwark if they factored this into their plans you never get an answer.


Consultation like most things with Southwark lately token effort all already decided.


The only good thing is the One Way system, put in 1989 has proved that it the right system. With all the weight of traffic due to Camberwell Grove being closed there have been no accidents to either pedestrians, cyclists, motor vehicle or any other moving body nor any negative comments on this forum.


Will Southwark take notice, I doubt it.

"Consultation (a specialist noun when used by Southwark Council)"


Consultation is a specialist noun when used by any public body - there is a whole load of case law about when the duty to consult arises and what public bodies have to do to defeat a subsequent legal challenge to a decision. This is absolutely not an issue unique to Southwark.

If you look at the results of the "consultation" on the Denmark Hill CPZ it states that 49% of respondees were in favour but that only 15% replied. That is actually then less that 8% in favour but the council, like the London Mayor in his surveys, will state that a majority were in approval. I know that some people will say that if you were worried then you should have replied but I think this is simply a cynical hijacking of the democratic system to just get the results that they want.

The problem with every CPZ consultation is that, as with all local democracy issues, it often attracts low turnouts. In the case of the Toastrack, we'd had several consultations over several years where the result was a resounding NO, and this was respected by the Council. Not once did you hear a peep out of people suggesting that the low turn outs involved represented a hijacking of the democratic system.


Strangely its only once a YES result emerges, often on a much higher turnout that previous NO votes, that people imply its a stitch up and affront to democracy.


You can't have it both ways.

Unfortunately the Council does not seem to realise what the damage is to other areas.


They want all of Southwark to be CPZ under their control and look no further than the red line on their map.


Ask for a computer model of the possible problems from a CPZ Southwark will not reply. Ask Cllr Wingfield for an explanation all he will do is say he has asked the people concerned to supply the answer. It never comes.


I am glad you are happy and I am glad a small % got what you wanted. Your happiness is for others on a lot larger scale misery.


As Bargee99 wrote the % results will be used for the Councils overall plan even if they do not reflect the overall truth.


If 51% of the people canvassed do not vote for a yes or no it cannot be taken as a valid result.


It only takes a very small % of a vocal group to get the vote the council wants.


The closure or open result for the bridge will be interesting.

I live in one of the affected roads and had heard nothing about this. The planned reduction in parking will make it impossible for local residents to park, it's already bad enough with the stupid double yellows at every corner.


It also appears to do nothing about the use of this "spine" as a rat-run, which is what many of us residents actually care about. Many of the "improved sightlines" will likely increase speeds and make things worse.


My take is this is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Consultation (a specialist noun when used by

> Southwark Council) also includes these streets:

>

> "Other areas for improvement include measures to

> calm speeds and improve visibility for pedestrians

> and cyclists on Lyndhurst Way, Melon Road,

> Bellenden Road, Holly Grove, Chadwick Road,

> Choumert Road, Maxted Road, Oglander Road, Adys

> Road, Nutbrook Street, Amott Road, Underhill Road,

> Whateley Road, Silvester Road, Pellatt Road,

> Rodwell Road, Heber Road, Jennings Road, Goodrich

> Road, Crystal Palace Road, and Landells Road."

>

> The yellow paint manufacturers will need to ramp

> up production for all these extra double yellow

> lines.


Oh FFS. Does this mean yet more speedbumps, more noise and more pollution (and more sport for van drivers).

taper Wrote:

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

> The requirement to have a consultation doesn't

> imply having a vote though. We elect councillors

> to make decisions, albeit in consultation where

> the law requires it or it's considered desirable.


If any of our Councillors in the Lane ward ever engaged with their constituents I'd be more persuaded by this argument.

I think it's a great idea. The roads between Peckham Road and East Dulwich Road are total rat runs full of non-local cars taking short cuts. Most of these roads are residential streets which often are not wide enough for two cars to pass. The car traffic should not be on those roads, it should be mainly on the major arteries i.e. Grove Lane, Dog Kennel Hill, Rye Lane, Peackham Rye etc


For example, if you live on Adys Road it is a constant battle of cars racing to squeeze past each other, racing between speed bumps and junctions with side streets. The diesel fumes outside both St Johns and St Clements Primary and Belham Primary are really bad for the children.


Why not encourage bicycles on these residential streets? Bicycles are quiet, they are non-polluting. They don't take up a lot of road space.


And, let's not forget that many cyclists are also car drivers (me included) so a journey by bicycle is actually having a positive effect for other road users (yes, even car drivers!) as it substitutes car use.

The 'mini Holland' scheme introduced in Walthamstow is an ideal model Southwark should be looking at. The 'village' area especially was a rat run similar to Bellenden, Adys etc and the scheme has pushed all traffic to the major roads with traffic being cut by half in the streets where the scheme was introduced.
Sunglasses- I agree with you that this is what should happen. However I don?t see anything in the scheme that will actually achieve this (eg road closures, width limits etc) all that is happening is we?re losing a lot of parking and getting more speed humps. For residents of Adys I fear this makes things worse not better.

Southwark already has a policy of installing yellow lines on junctions and is gradually doing so. See here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1650717,page=1

That seems outside the scope of this consultation. It really should make clear what is Business as Usual and what are extra parking changes proposed as part of the spine. A CPZ is likely in these streets before 2020 anyway.


Agree 100% that we should be copying Walthamstow, where conditions for walking and cycling were radically improved by cutting out residential rat-running, reducing motor traffic overall. The proposal here to put some extra humps and cycle logos on rat-runs will at best be ineffective. The cycle lanes for the Bellenden gyratory, which a majority of those expressing a view called for removal of a year ago, would disappear when needed most and would be downright dangerous though.


While the spine proposals may encourage a few more adults will cycle by signing a new route, they simply won't offer stress free conditions that would encourage more vulnerable people to cycle. This would widen inequality further: already Southwark's children are the 4th most overweight in the UK but adults in London have the lowest rates of obesity.

https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/lack-of-exercise-is-a-weighty-problem/


The current proposals for the spine will just widen the gap between 20/30 somethings cycling more and children being unable to incorporate exercise into their daily lives. Councillors seem happy to accept awards for their cycling strategy but then too spineless actually implement it.

The proposed new double yellows are not just at the junction (these are already in place) but also opposite t-junctions presumably to allow better traffic flow and let bigger vehicles navigate the tight corners on these rat runs. This is why I think it?s worse than useless, it will actually encourage rat running.

plus 1


paint has few protective qualities and occasional speed bumps don't stop people racing from one to the next. Speed cushions make life a lot worse by pushing fast oncoming traffic into the middle of the road.


Sinusoidal humps do slow traffic because they are unavoidable but, as you say, the accelerate, brake, accelerate, brake effect is not very wonderful. They work when put in at very high densities. Southwark doesn't put them in at high densities.


This report discusses pollution and speed humps: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38156778

alex_b Wrote:

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

> ...it's already bad enough with

> the stupid double yellows at every corner.


Surely this is sensible, otherwise parked cars would create dangerous blind spots for cars turning in and out of a road...

red devil Wrote:

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

> alex_b Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ...it's already bad enough with

> > the stupid double yellows at every corner.

>

> Surely this is sensible, otherwise parked cars

> would create dangerous blind spots for cars

> turning in and out of a road...



It is a nightmare trying to turn out of my road when something has parked at the corner.


I thought this was illegal, anyway? Decades ago I was fined for parking too near a corner.

the Highway Code says drivers should not park less than 10m from the corner. As we know this is completely ignored both by drivers and PCSOs. The HC is taken into account by courts when deciding on negligence and compensation but this is of course after an accident.


So the council is introducing 7.5m double yellows on corners in order to control this behaviour without waiting for someone to get hurt. I think it should be 10m myself.


its HC rule 243 and it is discussed here: https://www.drivingtesttips.biz/nearest-you-can-park-to-a-junction.html

The residential roads around here have precious little parking already and losing dozens of spaces is a real problem. Also my anecdotal experience is that cars seems to drive faster now they have "better visibility" and we have more large vehicles trying to negotiate tight residential roads than we did before. This is a token action aimed at forcing residents into a CPZ rather than any attempt to improve road safety or reduce the traffic problem from rat running.

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...