Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Since the introduction of the DKH CPZ parking has become a real issue at the Grove Vale end of Oglander and Copleston. Whilst I would have preferred no CPZ anywhere in the area, once it starts the problems increase as adjacent roads fill up with displaced commuters (and people who rarely use their cars and so are happy to park them several streets away in non-CPZ spaces). I find parking near my home very stressful as I often have to drive around the block a couple of times to find somewhere, and I fear that if the Lordship Lane CPZ comes in, the West Peckham area will become even less tolerable. What is more, if the closest streets to you are in a CPZ which you are not part of, you are really stuck, which I fear will happen here. Unlike some who say the parking issue is evenings, our street empties out between 6pm and 7pm and is full of spaces at the weekend, so this is a commuter problem. And I don't mind helping out a cash-strapped council which has been unable to increase council tax to fund essential services gaining a few extra pounds in the coffers through CPZs.

Soylent Green Wrote:

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

> Since the introduction of the DKH CPZ parking has

> become a real issue at the Grove Vale end of

> Oglander and Copleston. Whilst I would have

> preferred no CPZ anywhere in the area, once it

> starts the problems increase as adjacent roads

> fill up with displaced commuters (and people who

> rarely use their cars and so are happy to park

> them several streets away in non-CPZ spaces). I

> find parking near my home very stressful as I

> often have to drive around the block a couple of

> times to find somewhere, and I fear that if the

> Lordship Lane CPZ comes in, the West Peckham area

> will become even less tolerable. What is more, if

> the closest streets to you are in a CPZ which you

> are not part of, you are really stuck, which I

> fear will happen here. Unlike some who say the

> parking issue is evenings, our street empties out

> between 6pm and 7pm and is full of spaces at the

> weekend, so this is a commuter problem. And I

> don't mind helping out a cash-strapped council

> which has been unable to increase council tax to

> fund essential services gaining a few extra pounds

> in the coffers through CPZs.


Hi Soylent Green - I live in Nutbrook St which has the street filled with cars day and evenings and night. There is a slight easing on Sats/Suns but not much. It seems (from driving round looking for a parking place) the same in the streets closest to here which are Waghorn and Maxted. I have heard through posts on this forum that Amott and Gowlett are similarly afflicted. Can you say which street you are so we can see if that throws light on the distribution of these parking issues?

Hi Soylent Green,

Southwark Council can and has increased Council Tax.

FY 18/19 up by 4.99% for example and also 4.99% in FY17/18, 2% FY16/17, o% from FY06/07 Under Lib Dems to FY15/16 under Labour.

Equally anyone can pay more than their Council Tax or donate to local causes which have seen a reduction in income. Potentially more tax efficient if a charity than paying via Southwark Council.


Parking

Any CPZ tends to see non resident vehicles parked up for days, weeks, months removed. On some roads this can make a material difference.

Did anyone go to the drop-in at Goose Green this evening about the proposed CPZ in 'Peckham West' (otherwise known to many as 'Bellenden')? It would be good to hear what issues and info came up at the drop-in.


One matter at the time I was there (near the end) was that everyone there wanted to have the deadline for comments extended to the same date as the extended deadline for the East Dulwich consultation (date to be publicised but towards end February). This was because some were just finding out about it and needed time to contact their neighbours and have conversations and discussions to swap info and ideas.


Does anyone share that view? If so it would be good to email that in to the councillors with ward and policy responsibilities:

Car Parking Cabinet member - [email protected],

Rye Lane ward - [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

Dulwich Community Council- [email protected]

Goose Green ward - [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

  • 2 weeks later...

The deadline for comments on this CPZ in the Bellenden area (called by the Council for this consultation ?West Peckham?) is this week Thursday 7th February. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/peckhamwestparking/ It?s important to get your views in on the principle and the details.


Some issues which have been coming up:

* Should there be a CPZ at all here in the Bellenden area?

* If so, just for a couple of hours to prevent all day parking?

* Allocation of paid and permit bays ? look at the maps for your streets.

* Will a CPZ free up parking in the evenings for the streets that are full then?

* What will be effect on parking for your visitors?

* What will be the effect on the shops and cafes on East Dulwich Road between Gowlett Rd and Goose Green of more than half reduction in parking spaces on both north and south sides of the road?


Thanks admin for unblocking this thread.

I am glad this thread has been reopened since yesterday/today have demonstrated the stark differences that have arisen between weekends and weekdays on Copleston/Danby/Avondale sinch th eDog Kennel Hill zone came in. Parking dead easy yesterday (apart from just around lunchtime with both churches full so that's to be expected). Today I had a terminal bike failure on the way to work so my wife came to pick me up in the car, 10 mins later she went round the avondale/copleston/danby block 3 times until she could find a spot.


This is clearly either commuters, or DKH CPZ residents who don't wish to pay for their own zone. Either way it is a bit silly. It's not the lack of parking per se (We cycle every day and could prob manage without the car really) but rather the fact that non-residents are using the facilities (and importing the pollution) whereas we cannot.


My wife and I have both filled inthe consultation and said that unfortunately we will have to say Yes to the CPZ to address the above issues.


In addition we have both said No to the 'parklets'. I work in Hammersmith where they have some setup in a business/high street area and they get so little use even in that context that I can't see that they will offer anything in our area.

Hi micromacromonkey


Thanks for contributing. A problem is that the situation varies between streets. I am in Nutbrook several streets from yours and we aren't affected by commuter parking from the East Dulwich or DKH areas. We do have our issues but I don't think they are commuter parking, especially as it is often as bad throughout the evening and overnight.


Did you go for the two hour slot CPZ? i am wondering if that is the best solution as it reduces I assume the problem for visitors of all sorts especially care giving visitors. And streets without commuter parking issues don't lose the free parking at other times. If we do have it imposed on us in my street it will be interesting to see if affects the evening and night parking. I'd really like to have your views on the timing of the CPZ in the Bellenden area.


micromacromonkey Wrote:

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

> I am glad this thread has been reopened since

> yesterday/today have demonstrated the stark

> differences that have arisen between weekends and

> weekdays on Copleston/Danby/Avondale sinch th eDog

> Kennel Hill zone came in. Parking dead easy

> yesterday (apart from just around lunchtime with

> both churches full so that's to be expected).

> Today I had a terminal bike failure on the way to

> work so my wife came to pick me up in the car, 10

> mins later she went round the

> avondale/copleston/danby block 3 times until she

> could find a spot.

>

> This is clearly either commuters, or DKH CPZ

> residents who don't wish to pay for their own

> zone. Either way it is a bit silly. It's not the

> lack of parking per se (We cycle every day and

> could prob manage without the car really) but

> rather the fact that non-residents are using the

> facilities (and importing the pollution) whereas

> we cannot.

>

> My wife and I have both filled inthe consultation

> and said that unfortunately we will have to say

> Yes to the CPZ to address the above issues.

>

> In addition we have both said No to the

> 'parklets'. I work in Hammersmith where they have

> some setup in a business/high street area and they

> get so little use even in that context that I

> can't see that they will offer anything in our

> area.

Hi Eileen, yes I put the 2 hour option. I think that is the option that minimises all the bad things about the CPZ.


We moved from Amott about 6 month ago, rarely had trouble parking there. We were there for 8 years and it did get worse over that time though, but it was rarely more than just a short walk up amott or gowlett; never any further.


I think you will find that if your street was not included in the CPZ and most others were then you would have so much displacement that you'd never be able to park. As previously stated I don't like the idea of it in general, and if you'd asked me before the implementation of zone Q (DKH) I would have said no to our own one. However even if we somehow got Copleston added to zone Q, then the next street along would want adding, then the one next to that etc due to displacement.




Eileen Wrote:

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

> Hi micromacromonkey

>

> Thanks for contributing. A problem is that the

> situation varies between streets. I am in Nutbrook

> several streets from yours and we aren't affected

> by commuter parking from the East Dulwich or DKH

> areas. We do have our issues but I don't think

> they are commuter parking, especially as it is

> often as bad throughout the evening and

> overnight.

>

> Did you go for the two hour slot CPZ? i am

> wondering if that is the best solution as it

> reduces I assume the problem for visitors of all

> sorts especially care giving visitors. And streets

> without commuter parking issues don't lose the

> free parking at other times. If we do have it

> imposed on us in my street it will be interesting

> to see if affects the evening and night parking.

> I'd really like to have your views on the timing

> of the CPZ in the Bellenden area.

Micromacromonkey and others who have filled in more than one questionnaire for a household you might want to check you are happy for either to be counted / discounted. Makes no sense to me but the various threads prompted me to look at the report for the DKH zone and it reads as if they only considered one response from each household

I think you will find that if your street was not included in the CPZ and most others were then you would have so much displacement that you'd never be able to park.


This is saying - 'pass on distress to others - you've had your house broken into, now vote for someone elses to be broken into as well.' Somebody has to stop this rot - if we keep passing it on then the bullies win. All they want is our money, and if we can help them to get others to vote to get others robbed, then all to the better. No. The domino effect is what 'they' are banking on. If we are complicit in this, then we should be ashamed.

If this was actual criminality then I would agree with you. It's hardly larceny on the part of the council though, they don't make much if any money out of these by all accounts. I'm not a fan of CPZ but, extending your analogy, since the end of Dec my house is getting broken into every day and that is surely not fair or reasonable. If your stand against the council extends to revoking all current CPZs then I'd be behind it, but don't wish to be a martyr for the cause.


Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I think you will find that if your street was not

> included in the CPZ and most others were then you

> would have so much displacement that you'd never

> be able to park.

>

> This is saying - 'pass on distress to others -

> you've had your house broken into, now vote for

> someone elses to be broken into as well.' Somebody

> has to stop this rot - if we keep passing it on

> then the bullies win. All they want is our money,

> and if we can help them to get others to vote to

> get others robbed, then all to the better. No. The

> domino effect is what 'they' are banking on. If we

> are complicit in this, then we should be ashamed.

Yes I did wonder what would happen. We filled it in independently but turns out we both chose the same options! I don't suppose it matters in that case.


AylwardS Wrote:

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

> Micromacromonkey and others who have filled in

> more than one questionnaire for a household you

> might want to check you are happy for either to be

> counted / discounted. Makes no sense to me but the

> various threads prompted me to look at the report

> for the DKH zone and it reads as if they only

> considered one response from each household

I live on Danby Street and am reluctantly supporting the new CPZ.


For the last 6 months or so it?s been almost impossible to get a car parking space on weekdays. Some residents now leave their bins and cones to ?claim? spaces, which drives other residents crazy. I had a nasty experience a few weeks back where I needed to load my car up and was waiting for a car parking spot near my house for 30 mins. When one didn?t emerge, I had to double park for 5 mins to load it up. I left enough space for cars to get past but sadly a lorry came up the road. I explained that I?d be as quick as I could, but it ended with him and his colleague threatening me and my son with violence, and recording us with one their mobile phones while the other one swore at us. It was horrible.


It?s just a shame that it?s come to this. We have a good community feel on our street. But the stress of parking is eroding that, and I want it to end now.

My neighbour?s have buildresin at the moment and they are ?reserving? a large parking space using bins 24/7. The builders? van onlyturns up for about 10 minutes in the morning, briefly at lunchtime and for about 15 minutes at home time. Today, the van didn?t park in the ?reserved? space and occupied the only available space. That did make me cross.

We just put a few hours in the middle of the day, to try and stem the worst of it.


I wrote an email to the council a while ago, before the consultation started, about our street?s parking problems. Today someone called me to discuss. They were very friendly, and it was a very informative call.


One thing was clear from the call: the Council have had a lot of heated objections from both sides of the argument; both pro and against the new CPZ.


When they make their final decision there are going to be a lot of unhappy people - whatever the result.

It seems to be the norm these days, Best thing to do is move them if and when you need to park They have no legal right to do this.


Singalto Wrote:

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

> My neighbour?s have buildresin at the moment and

> they are ?reserving? a large parking space using

> bins 24/7. The builders? van onlyturns up for

> about 10 minutes in the morning, briefly at

> lunchtime and for about 15 minutes at home time.

> Today, the van didn?t park in the ?reserved? space

> and occupied the only available space. That did

> make me cross.

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...