Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Please could Southwark clear the grids of leaves/soil, etc. When it rain heavily there are huge puddles in parts of the area - especially near Goose Green. If it is not a Southwark responsibility please could it be passed on to Thames Water or whichever party it is. Thanks
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi James, I wonder if you can help:


Every Autumn I sweep up the leaves & berries that fall off the tree on the pavement outside my house, they fall pretty regularly, so around this time of year I need to do it every week - previously I used to put them into the brown paper bags, but since they are no longer free, I don't have any and my garden isn't big enough to warrant a brown bin. What should I do with these leaves?


Thanks

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi James


You may have seen the other thread re Amigos trees on Goose Green. This is a massive infringement on the green - taking over almost half of the open green space. Given the scarcity of open green spaces in the Goose Green area, how has it been decided that this is appropriate, especially the fact that its been let to a commercial operation and meaning that half the available space is pretty much out of bounds for the next month. Its also an eyesore when looking from ED Road towards goose green.


Would appreciate some feedback on how this was deemed appropriate and whether this is the start of commercially letting our public green space?


Thanks

As a resident living next to the green I totally agree re Tree Amigos. Not only has this taken up a huge area of public space and is an absolute eyesore, but the generator used to power the lights can be heard clearly from inside our flat. Were any residents consulted on this? I cannot see any benefit for the green to be used for this purpose, especially when so many local businesses provide trees already.

From my experience, this is as I understand the situation:-

The council have adopted policies which commit them to making money from any suitable space, including parks and green spaces - anyone can apply to use anywhere. Council officers decide what's suitable for each space without any consultation with the public. If there was a Friends' group for Goose Green, they would probably inform you of their intentions, but you still probably wouldn't have much influence. There is no commitment to use the money they make to benefit the space they've rented out. Councillors will have been informed of any planned event, but you'll undoubtedly find that they are obliged to defend the policy.

I think it's totally wrong that council officers have the power to decide what's suitable, without consultation with residents. I think you are right to raise this with councillors.

I am concerned about the Free Amigos tree sellers on Goose Green. I have contacted the Parks Department about the unsightly fencing, lack of toilet facilities, Also will any damage to the grass and ground be made good by Tree amigos when they finish. Also there is the potential problem of increased traffic and parking on East Dulwich Road especially now the number 12 and the 197 busses are being rerouted due to the works being carried out in Barry Road. I will also have a look at the generator problem.


Regards


Councillor Charlie Smith

Goose Green Ward Member

Hi charlie, good to see a councillor on this thread again after a couple of months in limbo.


Do you know how we can get the council to remove all the taxis that have been abandoned in the area? I am aware of over 20 of these vehicles that have not been moved for at least three months

Thanks Charlie. I think though that the bigger problem is the appropriation of public open space for commercial letting by Southwark council. Who made this decision? Does this mean that Goose Green is now 'fair game' to be sectioned off and rented out to private companies throughout the year without any notice or consultation? Its one thing to use the Green for fairs such as the Dulwich festival fair, but another to 'privatise it' in this way!


In addition - as a council who has declared a 'climate emergency' - allowing an enterprise to run a diesel generator next to people's homes for a month seems beyond irresponsible.


It would be good if in addition to the logistical issues you raise, you could also respond on these points.


Many thanks

Charlie's response also raises the question of how informed or involved are the local councillors made about decisions in their area.


Were our local representatives aware that Free Amigos tree sellers would be taking a chunk of Goose Green in advance along with the paraphernalia that would go along with the operation?

Perhaps Councillors can find out the how, when and who of the decision to let out a large section of Goose Green to a private company, seemingly circumventing its own climate change commitments in the process? In addition, how much money will Southwark get from the letting and where does that money get used?


It would be great if Councillors McAsh or Smith could post here on their findings.

Hi all


For some reason I have not been receiving emails telling me when someone posts on this thread. Sorry about that.


Regarding the Tree Amigos issue I have just sent out the message below to residents who contacted me.


Best wishes

James




----


Dear all


I am writing to you because you contacted me regarding the 'Tree Amigos' event on Goose Green Park. I only became aware of it when local residents contacted me. There was consultation about it back in July, where no issues were raised, but it is fair to say that it was not as well promoted as it should have been.


The Tree Amigos event is in many ways the kind that the council should support:

- the trees are sustainably grown

- they offer craft workshops for children

- it will accommodate Goose Green primary school?s Christmas Carol event on the 12th December

- it helps to raise revenue for the council's important services, after almost a decade of brutal cuts


However, I do not believe that it is well-suited for Goose Green Park. Above all, residents and traders have raised concerns that there are already local businesses who sell Christmas trees in the area and they risk losing business from this event appearing well after their business plans were set.


As a result, we have agreed with the council that Tree Amigos will not be invited back to Goose Green Park in future years.


In the meantime, I want to reassure everyone of the following:

- The council will reimburse the licensing fees for the local tree sellers who may lose out from this decision

- If there is any damage to the park's ground, Tree Amigos will be will be to cover the costs of any reinstatement that?s required.

- The noisy generator has been replaced with a quieter more efficient model.


I have cc?ed in council officers Aileen Cahill [[email protected]] and Charlie Simm [[email protected]] who have offered to answer any further questions you may have.


I hope that this allays some of your concerns. Many apologies for the problems caused by this issue.


Best wishes

James

Thanks for this James. While we?re talking about Christmas trees, can you advise about the arrangements for the disposal of Christmas trees? Previously, these were left out and collected free of charge. What are the arrangements now an annual fee has been introduced as many wishing to dispose of their Christmas trees may not have taken out a subscription.

So James, as you didn't know about this event on Goose Green, are you saying that the council carried out a consultation in July but didn't include local councillors? What a strange "consultation" - it seems it didn't include local residents or businesses either - a typical Events Team consultation.

Are you going to challenge the council/cabinet member to change the events policy to include consultation with local people?

Thank you James

Sounds like a good result all round. I suspect that in the anticipation of gaining much needed revenue

It has not been realised how people would feel about the loss of public space and the impact on local businesses.

Kind regards

Local Councillors were informed there would be a consultation for a company to sell Christmas trees on Goose Green. Nothing controversial about this until I saw the partitions the Treeamigos erected which I think are an eyesore. Also there was a diesel generator going full blast all day and into the early evening. Potentially there could be a problem with extra traffic from customers buying a tree. I contacted Council officers who have now replied. James McAsh has now passed on that reply to the Forum. It is a shame no other power source could be used to illuminate the site. We will not be welcoming Treeamigas back next year.
I too am very concerned about the Tree Amigos invasion of Goose Green, it's a small enough space as it is without cluttering up half of it. Also I believe they may be sleeping on the site in a mobile home. My main concern, however, is for the local traders, George, the guy from the flower shop at Goose Green, also sells from outside the EDT, pays ?500 for the extra pitch as does the lady outside the Cherry Tree, both of whom have been severely hit by the Tree Amigos, they weren't informed or consulted and apparently neither were the residents. It seems the "events team" at southwark approved it, but to call their site a "Grotto" is a gross overstatement. Very poor
It has already been reported that (1) this experiment will not be repeated in future years and that (2) those who paid for licences unaware of their new rival will have their fees reimbursed. Regular readers will know that I am not a fan of Southwark or their apparat, but in this case a timely and fair decision seems to have been made. Tree Amigos have a contract, which legitimately cannot be broken, but they, or others, won't appear next, or future, years, and the 'old' traders are not having to pay for a devalued licence to trade this Christmas. I'm not sure what more (legally) could be done.
  • 1 month later...

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...