Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes it is free. A public consultation that will include the part of Melbourne Grove between Grove Vale and East Dulwich Grove will take place late Autumn about whether residents want Controlled Parking.


A parking stress survey has taken place and I'm trying to obtain the results.

It seems like we have this sort of consultation every year and every year the residents say no. This leads me to conclude that it is the council that desperately want controlled parking....why, I wonder?


A major source of parking congestion round Melbourne way is the car wash at the end of Chesterfield, where parking attendants seem to turn a blind eye to the cars backed up waiting to get washed, parked on yellow lines and clogging the street.


A further source of parking congestion is the builders vans and skips, courtesy of myriad loft conversions in the area. Sort these issues and parking would improve immeasurably.


I mean the above only partly tongue in cheek.

first mate Wrote:

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

>

>

>

> A further source of parking congestion is the

> builders vans and skips, courtesy of myriad loft

> conversions in the area. Sort these issues and

> parking would improve immeasurably.

>

> I mean the above only partly tongue in cheek.



Argh the skips drive me insane, we have 3 down our (short) road currently, none of them with covers on so the rubbish gets blown all across the street. lovely!

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Yes it is free. A public consultation that will

> include the part of Melbourne Grove between Grove

> Vale and East Dulwich Grove will take place late

> Autumn about whether residents want Controlled

> Parking.

>

> A parking stress survey has taken place and I'm

> trying to obtain the results.


Hi James, any chance that we might be able to get the public consultation to include discussions about parking on East Dulwich Grove? Parking for residents is a nightmare along here due to people using it for the hospital...


Thanks

Hi first mate,

What an appalling memory you have. The council last formally consulted about this some time before 2006.

Last year many residents raised this on the doorstep so local Councillors ran a questionaire about this and small majority from meory wanted controlled parking.


Really don't see the car wash at the Lordship Lane end of Chesterfield causing Parkin stress on Melbourne Grove?

The parking stress survey that was gently undertaken will make it clear if commuter parking is the issue or not.

James,


You may have a point about my memory, however, it does not take a genius to work out that those residents and others unable to park in Chesterfield because parking is already gobbled up by the numerous car wash clients and abundant skips and builders vehicles, will go to the next street- Melbourne Grove.

We used to live on the corner of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove - unfortunately I have to say car parking was a bit of a nightmare. Obviously at weekends lots of shoppers park along Ashbourne Grove but we tended to find that weekdays were worse with commuters parking for the station. It wasn't helped by more and more people turning their front gardens into driveways along Ashbourne Grove so spaces along the road became quite limited (not that I blamed them). I regularly had to park a long way down Melbourne Grove which was a pain with a bootful of Sainsbury's shopping!


But we found the advantages of being so near the station as well as the main drag of LL far outweighed the annoying parking so don't let it put you off too much! Good luck with your move!

I'd agree the problem is mainly commuters (so incredibly annoying!) and people parking for the hospital - it's not really the LL shops as wekend parking is never, ever a problem.


But it is a real problem in the week. I've regularly had to park over 10 minutes' walk from my house, and with shopping that really is a pain.

Perhaps commuters are a problem but I would plead with you not to go the way of controlled parking. We've always managed without it, and once tied up into paying those fees there is no way back. Aside from the car wash and builder vehicles another bugbear of mine is two car families.

Agreed with first mate re. parking. I live exactly where Poppy used to live, i.e. corner of Ashbourne and Melbourne, and have really not had a parking problem in 7 years. Yes, like Poppy, I sometimes have to park a bit further up the road (occasionally with shopping!), but personally I don't see that as an issue. Living close to the station has other benefits, and frankly one would expect some extra cars by virtue of doing so - like much in life, it's a trade-off.


But controlled parking zones are a nightmare! Avoid at all costs. Free parking is one of Dulwich's many attractions as a "liveable" area, making it an oasis of civilisation in the over-regulated, bureaucratic, stressful quagmire a lot of London's streets have become. Basically, yay for ED!

Bels123 has got it spot on. I live on Derwent Grove and all our neighbours want controlled parking. With so many houses being converted in flats the number of cars just keeps rising. You are more likely to find a unicorn walking down LL than a parking space during the day.


It would also be better for the shops on Grove Vale - with customers actually being able to park somewhere. I don't see a downside (except for a few commuters)

There is no controlled parking zone on Melbourne Grove (thank goodness) but parking there is not entirely without cost as I discovered last week when I got home and saw someone had scraped along the side of my car and dented the wheel arch.


Fairly predictable I suppose given that the last bit of Melbourne Grove corner with East Dulwich Grove (used as a cut through to Grove Vale) is incredibly congested almost all of the time.


If only the Council had implemented a one way scheme rather than mucking about with random pavement widening on Grove Vale...

Agreed, jimmyjay. A 1 hour restriction soon also causes endless hassles to casual visitors (aged parents etc.) as well as the usual "has the bay been suspended while I'm away / have I gone out to check that I haven't been clamped/towed even though I'm a resident" problems. Wrong ticketing/car removal happened endlessly where I last lived under a parking zone, even if on appeal they had to refund (after months of argument). Anyone who seriously wants one of these clearly hasn't lived under one before. It doesn't help with parking spaces for residents either, as they always restrict (by bay markings) the actual amount of road available to park on when they bring one in.

JimmyJay,


I agree too. That is why the council keep pushing for it- it's a lovely revenue source and who knows how far they'll hike the prices once they get the controlled parking in. I would fight this every inch of the way and, interestingly, I know of no resident that supports it.

Councils do not introduce controlled parking to benefit residents, in the main, but as a valuable revenue source (fees and fines). Curb space is an asset they can sell/ rent. As soon as controlled parking is introduced into a neighbourhood, even if initially in a limited fashion, it races out, as visiting cars are pushed further and further away from the initial site of controlled parking, therebye creating a further argument for its extension. Introduce it now on Melbourne Grove and all the roads leading off Lordship Lane - probably through to the police station, will be controlled parking within 5 years.


Even where, initially, resident parking is 'free' it is often rationed and soon is charged for - 'just an administrative cost you understand' .... And visitor parking permits will certainly come at a cost. Cars will be fined for overlapping bays or encroaching white lines - it will be a parking control company bonanza as wardens are targeted on revenue generation.


Within a lustrum the quality of life across ED will be diminished as car owning residents find themselves in a constant car war of attrition with 'the management'. And the value of my house will soar as I have off street parking for several cars!

bels123 Wrote:

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

> As a Melbourne Grove resident I find it hard to

> understand why people are so against controlled

> parking.

> I'm not an expert on controlled parking, but I

> don't see why true residents should have to pay

> for, surely the enthusiastic parking wardens would

> generate enough income to cover administration

> costs?


I'll eat my hat (and any other accessories you care to suggest) if Southwark introduced controlled parking without a charge to the residents.

As a resident of Melbourne Grove i'd warn anyone thinking of moving to the street that parking is a total and utter nightmare. Don't buy a house unless you are willing to spend 20 minutes everyday driving round to try and find a space... oh and be happy that your car wing mirrors will be smashed off by drivers trying to squeese their way up the road.

Bring on the controlled parking and i for one will have no issue in paying for a permit if it results in me being able to park within eye sight of my own house.

No to permits! It will spread and I have lived in a permitted area before and visitor permits were a nightmare. I don't understand people saying they sometimes have to walk for 10 mins there's always a space on blackwater street which is definitely less than 10 mins and I'm sure other roads have space too. Why do you need to be in sight of your car?
Oh come on, garnwba, that's just nonsense. Even at its worst (and I don't much care for it at its worst), I've NEVER had to look for 20 minutes to find a space. Nor had to park more than about 200 yards away. Even during the day, on a weekday, which is the busiest time. And usually we can get to within a few cars of home. It's not great, and can be frustrating, but it's really not as bad as all that. But I'd be happy with residents' parking. Keep the vehicle dumpers away, and the occasional people who park for two weeks while they go on holiday.

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...