Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Elms Care Home in Barry Road are having problems with motorists parking too close to, and slightly over their dropped kerb making it difficult for ambulances to access the building. They put a friendly note a offending car a little while ago asking for a little consideration, the note was removed but the vehicle remained.

The formal Traffic Management Order - the last stage in the process - for the new Dog Kennel Hill Controlled Parking Zone 'Q' has been issued. Please see follow its link - http://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6792/v4%20Dog%20Kennel%20Hill%20CPZ%20Q%20(notice%20dated%2017%20May).pdf


The deadline for responses is early June so expect it to be implemented July/August.

Fidgetsmum Wrote:

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

> Absolutely NOT. This is precisely why we moved

> here was to get away from the ridiculousness of

> CPZs.


Seriously, you moved house just to get away from paying a few quid a week for parking?

I totally support CPZ sceme around Ondine, Oglander, Adys, etc. The whole area is solid with cars, skips and vans and consequently there is nowhere for residents to leave their cars. I'd happily pay #125 pa. However, we must have residents only and 8.30 to 18.00 not just 12.00 - 14.00. Payment by telephone means that any commuter can park all day and then call in and pay by phone - what is a couple of pounds to our city boys who drive to East Dulwich then train into London Bridge?

Seriously, you moved house just to get away from paying a few quid a week for parking?


It is possible that they moved house not to avoid a few quid to park in their 'own' road, but to know (1) if their own road was parked up they could try to park in an adjacent road without being fined and (2) that they could park across the area where they lived, including adjacent to shops and other amenities without having to worry about parking restrictions. Because, you must remember, the council will sell more 'rights' to park than there are necessarily places to park.


The whole area is solid with cars, skips and vans


Because you sure as hell (for skips and vans) don't want to live in a road where tradesman can easily park-up to repair anything that has gone wrong, or householders have alterations and work done on their houses.


We live in a city (in an inner suburb of a city) where lots of people live and where public transport is a joke. Expect there to be people who need to have and use cars. That's why it's parked up. The number of commuters not commuting to ED (i.e. to work for us living in ED) is far less than you would like to think. But let's look forward to having no teachers or dentists or nurses in the area, so long as you can park outside your house (not that you'll be able to, probably, as there will have been more permits than spaces sold anyway).

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

But let's look

> forward to having no teachers or dentists or

> nurses in the area, so long as you can park

> outside your house (not that you'll be able to,

> probably, as there will have been more permits

> than spaces sold anyway).


Oh come on, there are pros and cons to CPZs but there's no evidence for that statement, is there? Are the numerous CPZs in Southwark and elsewhere in London notable for their lack of teachers. nurses and dentists?

I know of no known pro's to a CPZ apart from Southwark Council's bank account. Those of you under the impression that it will make the area a more pleasant one to live in are very much either under a very false illusion or have never lived in a cpz.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> The 'commuter' parking is nearly

> all local, as the council discovered when it

> proposed the Grove Vale CPZ.


Please can you reference where this is what the council discovered?


I can?t find any mention of it in the report but have seen the cabinet member signing off the decision on 15th March 2012 wrote the following -


?I do not think that it?s right that people from far and wide outside the area of consultation should seek to deny the residents within a coherent area a CPZ if that?s what they want to solve their parking problems? and ?some involved in that campaign resorted dubious tactics, including implying that residents who wanted a CPZ do not ?love? Dulwich, misleading shops across the SE22 area that the council were keen to introduce a CPZ even up as far as Lordship Lane, even going as far as denying there is not a commuter parking problem around East Dulwich Train Station. There clearly is a commuter parking problem in the streets surrounding East Dulwich Train station but in the final analysis sufficient numbers of residents have rejected the CPZ to make me confident that my rejection of its introduction is the right one.


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s27502/Signed%20Record%20of%20Decision%20Grove%20Vale%20controlled%20parking%20zone%201%20and%202%20stage%20report.pdf

Mscrawthew Wrote:

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

> I know of no known pro's to a CPZ apart from

> Southwark Council's bank account.


More fake news - they are not allowed to profit from a CPZ by law - any surplus must be invested back into transport related improvements such as highway improvements and scchool crossing patrols.

Mscrawthew Wrote:

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

> Those of you under the impression that it will make the area a

> more pleasant one to live in are very much either

> under a very false illusion or have never lived in

> a cpz.


https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/2111/Parking_zones_-_before_and_after_photos.pdf


These before & after photos from nearby CPZs show otherwise - Southwark typically expect a 40% reduction in parked cars.


As well as a few other benefits below - cleaner air, less congestion and encouraging sustainable travel are my personal favourites. More free spaces would also result in less of the daily horn beeping and aggression when cars can't squeeze past each other at what is about to become the entrance to the new secondary school.


- more parking spaces for local residents and businesses (by preventing commuter and long stay parking)

prioritised parking for different types of motorists (eg. residents, disabled visitors, delivery companies, motorcycles, businesses)

- less congestion

- more convenient parking options for residents' visitors or trades persons

- improved journey times for buses

- greater reliability with your delivery slots

- improved road safety (by designating where it's safe to park and where it's not)

- cleaner air (by deterring non essential car journeys)

- reduced noise levels

- new developments (by reducing the impact on existing communities)

- new businesses and assistance to existing businesses (by making available parking permits)

- sustainable travel (by encouraging motorists to walk or cycle)

Mscrawthew Wrote:

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

> I know of no known pro's to a CPZ apart from

> Southwark Council's bank account. Those of you

> under the impression that it will make the area a

> more pleasant one to live in are very much either

> under a very false illusion or have never lived in

> a cpz.


I have, in Herne Hill. It made parking slightly easier. But pretty much the area was exactly the same; it's not armageddon whether you have one or not, as many seem to believe.

It's not fake news. Councils are not for profit companies that distribute dividends. But reinvesting the proceeds of a CPZ into other services means the council has more money without raising other taxes. Quite self-evident, really...

You may not be aware of the impending Southwark Spine changes that will increase parking pressure along its route. The council are pushing this through in spite of the majority of the Consultation respondents being against it.

Total loss of on-street parking spaces across Adys, Oglander, Crystal Palace, Goodrich and Landells Roads = 55


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=6454

When I posted in November about the Southwark spine I calculated 43 just between The Great exhibition and the Castle. Depends on whether you count only the ones on the road itself or those on all the corners affected. "I looked at the Southwark spine maps for the cycle route from Peckham to the Plough. The yellow lines at the junctions on Crystal Palace Road and the side roads just between the Great Exhibition and the Castle will result in the loss of 43 (yes 43) parking spaces. Now that will really upset the parking balance!"

Mscrawthew Wrote:

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

> I know of no known pro's to a CPZ apart from

> Southwark Council's bank account. Those of you

> under the impression that it will make the area a

> more pleasant one to live in are very much either

> under a very false illusion or have never lived in

> a cpz.


I think it would put an end to the semi-permanent dumping of commercial and recreational vehicles in Adys Rd and the surrounding streets.

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> You may not be aware of the impending Southwark

> Spine changes that will increase parking pressure

> along its route. The council are pushing this

> through in spite of the majority of the

> Consultation respondents being against it.

> Total loss of on-street parking spaces across

> Adys, Oglander, Crystal Palace, Goodrich and

> Landells Roads = 55

>

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail

> s.aspx?ID=6454


Ironically the loss of parking opposite the Adys/Nutbrook junction will encourage larger vehicles to use it as a rat run. At the moment coaches and lorries get stuck at the corner because of the parked cars.

  • 4 weeks later...

Again, as I say there will be fewer spaces not more if the cpz is brought in. Everthing you have quoted is fine in an ideal world but it just doesbt happen like that unfortunately. You almost sound like an advert for cpz, Do you work for the council by any chance?


bels123 Wrote:

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

> Mscrawthew Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Those of you under the impression that it will

> make the area a

> > more pleasant one to live in are very much

> either

> > under a very false illusion or have never lived

> in

> > a cpz.

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/2111/Pa

> rking_zones_-_before_and_after_photos.pdf

>

> These before & after photos from nearby CPZs show

> otherwise - Southwark typically expect a 40%

> reduction in parked cars.

>

> As well as a few other benefits below - cleaner

> air, less congestion and encouraging sustainable

> travel are my personal favourites. More free

> spaces would also result in less of the daily horn

> beeping and aggression when cars can't squeeze

> past each other at what is about to become the

> entrance to the new secondary school.

>

> - more parking spaces for local residents and

> businesses (by preventing commuter and long stay

> parking)

> prioritised parking for different types of

> motorists (eg. residents, disabled visitors,

> delivery companies, motorcycles, businesses)

> - less congestion

> - more convenient parking options for residents'

> visitors or trades persons

> - improved journey times for buses

> - greater reliability with your delivery slots

> - improved road safety (by designating where it's

> safe to park and where it's not)

> - cleaner air (by deterring non essential car

> journeys)

> - reduced noise levels

> - new developments (by reducing the impact on

> existing communities)

> - new businesses and assistance to existing

> businesses (by making available parking permits)

> - sustainable travel (by encouraging motorists to

> walk or cycle)

If everyone in ED stopped getting loft conversions done at the same time i'm sure we'd see some improvement.

Constant skips and sand bags.

Also, not everybody has the money to pay for a parking permit just to have the luxury to park in front of their own houses.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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