Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Southwark Council has just issued a public consultation to install Controlled Parking Zone bounded by Grove Vale, East Dulwich Road, Fenwick Road, Chadwick Road, railway line.


To respond to the consultation, deadline 31 January, please go here - https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/peckhamwestparking/


Streets included are:

Adys Road

Amott Road

Avondale Road

Bellenden Road

Besant Place

Chadwick Road

Choumert Road

Copleston Road

Danby Street

East Dulwich Road

Everthorpe Road

Fenwick Grove

Fenwick Road

Gowlett Road

Grove Vale

Hayes Grove

Howden Street

Keston Road

Maxted Road

Marseden Road

Muschamp Road

Nutbrook Street

Oglander Road

Ondine Road

Oxenford Sreet

Soames Street

Waghorn Street

Wingfield Street

The map clearly shows Chadwick Road houses on the south side, from the railway line east, included in this new proposed CPZ. So it may be they will be able to obtain CPZ permit for this proposed new zone but be barred from using it outside their home. Clearly worth responding to the consultation to ensure this potential problem is fully addressed.
Reluctantly, I have to consent to this CPZ. Since the DKH CPZ was introduced, this area has become so congested with displaced vehicles. The opening of the new Charter ED school will mean more cars parked around here during the day (teachers and other school staff who commute by car). We need to force the question, how much do I need this car/car journey? and encourage people to use alternative forms of transport. I know the low emissions zone will do this, but CPZs can help stagger this impact. Moreover the 75% discount on hybrids' permits, will quicken the conversion to low emission vehicles in the area. Finally, I know most of the income from CPZs will be spent managing them, but this will create jobs which is a good thing, and any residual income can be used in other cash strapped areas of council expenditure, which are suffering from never ending Tory cuts.
It looks like the quietway plans that everyone objected to are baked in. I?m sure this ?consultation? will equally take residents? views into account. The ?parklet? on Adys Rd is particularly moronic given the volume of HGV traffic using the road as a rat run.
I know. I was chatting to a friend about the Adys Road 'parklets'. She put it very well - I don't want to eat Tacos in a parking bay I want to be able to park in it!. A nice idea in theory put community run and in busy areas? I can't see that being popular or practical

Worth remembering there are multiple reasons for parklets.


For those with walking difficulties, it's really reassuring to have a place to stop and rest. I only really appreciated this when I couldn't walk far recovering from an injury last year. Recent equality and public health laws mean the council now needs to put more seats into streets.


Breaking up the wall of metal (parked cars) calms traffic and makes streets easier to cross on foot. Okay that particular reason isn't relevant on Adys Road, maybe there it's something to do with the school and changing travel behaviour around it or providing a nicer place for parents to wait for their kids.


Also the CPZ area has lost many trees recently and new rules mean that trees of similar size can only be replanted in bigger tree pits, i.e. taking up some carriageway. Maximising 'tree canopy' area reduces summer heat and can help tackle air pollution. There's already a lack of green space in much of this area, see attached map from Southwark's Open Space Strategy. Yes the parklets would be a small start but better to test them small scale while seeing how much space the CPZ frees up.


While they are new in Southwark, parklets have already popped up in other boroughs, maybe the council could gather info about what has and hasn't worked elsewhere?

Hi Soylent Green,

The cost of running Controlled Parking Zones is clearly significantly less than the ?125/year permit charge. I say this because for council housing estates with controlled parking the first vehicle permit is charged at ?0, replacing a lost or stolen permit ?10 - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/estate-permits/resident-permits.

As Housing Revenue Account are not allowed to trade at a profit these costs more accurately reflect the real cost of providing parking permits.

The public highway permit charge at ?125 is a political decision. The profits are used to subsidise the Transport Budget.

My lot when running the council charged ?99.

May I add there's a further consultation for Grove Vale / Lordship Lane / East Dulwich Road being undertaken. Image of area attached.


Link to the consultation here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/


We've had nothing through the post yet and the deadline is 31st January. If you live on the roads affected please take the time to respond.


James, would you mind amending the title of this thread to encompass this further consultation.


I'm probably a bit cynical but there seems to be some divide and conquer tactics going on with Southwark.

CPZ..


Good for drivers, who will almost certainly find it easier to park.

Bad for non-drivers, who will have extra hassle and cost whenever visitors and tradesmen need to park.

Very very bad for anyone having building work, who will have to pay Southwark's extortionate cost for suspending a parking bay if they need a skip.


Overall I'm in favour, but can understand the reservations.

OTOH the air will be cleaner, the environment will be quieter and the streets will be safer with fewer cars driving round in circles looking for parking spots.

The roads on the way to free parking also benefit because they are not clogged up with traffic heading for a free parking spot.

rollflick Wrote:

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


> Breaking up the wall of metal (parked cars) calms

> traffic and makes streets easier to cross on foot.


Is there any evidence for this? Anecdotally, the addition of the double yellows at the corner of Nutbrook and Adys has led to drivers trying to turn at higher speeds and increased the number of bollard collisions. I really worry that the additional double yellows proposed in this scheme will encourage higher speeds and larger vehicles.

Alex_b,

Your concern of higher speeds is confirmed by Southwark Council's Streetscape Design Manual, which states that research shows that increased sightlines lead to increased speed. Also the Council's reports on previous CPZ's state that a benefit of a CPZ is improved traffic flow through the area. That implies more speed and an invitation to rat running.

This is an obvious result of the extended double yellow lines at junctions and dropped kerbs. I have particular concerns about the extended lines across dropped kerbs as it encourages greater speed crossing pavements, with a particular risk to small children.

MarkT

MarkT Wrote:

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


> Your concern of higher speeds is confirmed by

> Southwark Council's Streetscape Design Manual,

> which states that research shows that increased

> sightlines lead to increased speed.


On what page does it say that please Mark? I can't see it.

Rendelharris

I think it occurs in the opening paragraphs of several sections eg

DS 114 1.2.b. "Stopping distances vary with vehicle type and speed. However, research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at."


I noted this some while ago, so I was citing it from memory, my apologies if I have overstated the concern.

MarkT

MarkT Wrote:

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

> Rendelharris

> I think it occurs in the opening paragraphs of

> several sections eg

> DS 114 1.2.b. "Stopping distances vary with

> vehicle type and speed. However, research now

> suggests that providing excessive visibility can

> also introduce dangers as it may increase the

> speed that people drive or ride at."

>

> I noted this some while ago, so I was citing it

> from memory, my apologies if I have overstated the

> concern.

> MarkT



Thanks - can't actually find any phrases like that in the current Streetscape Design Manual, searches for any of the keywords in your phrase show nothing.

MarkT Wrote:

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

> Rendelharris

> I think it occurs in the opening paragraphs of

> several sections eg

> DS 114 1.2.b. "Stopping distances vary with

> vehicle type and speed. However, research now

> suggests that providing excessive visibility can

> also introduce dangers as it may increase the

> speed that people drive or ride at."

>

> I noted this some while ago, so I was citing it

> from memory, my apologies if I have overstated the

> concern.

> MarkT


I don't think this is demonstrating the point you are trying to make. The phrase used is "excessive visibility" which is said to cause increased speed. This would make sense as part of a debate on whether the double yellow lines should be 10m (the distance advised in the Highway Code) or 7.5m. The council is proposing 7.5m. There is no reason to believe that it considers 7.5m to be "excessive". The SSDM does not say that 7.5m will increase speeding.


The bollards are there to protect pedestrians against drivers who are unable to control their vehicles on junctions. I agree that this must be a concern. A point-closure would seem a better way of dealing with drivers who are unable to adapt their driving to the road conditions. Plainly making it harder to see where they are going is unlikely to improve their skills.

This message is for people who live in Nutbrook Street - what do you think of the proposals for our street?

I frequently can't find a place to park in the evenings long after a CPZ would have ended. Could this CPZ solve that?


To anyone else - do you have any experience of CPZ's solving car parking scarcity after 6.30pm?

Look, it's pretty clear that the council want controlled parking across the borough. It's been pretty clear for a number of years now and one way or another, they are going to push it through eventually. It's easier to make private transport more difficult than it is to increase and improve the alternatives.

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...