Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I understand that there's going to be some coverage of the proposed East Dulwich CPZ and it's impact on the local economy on the 6.30pm Regional News on BBC 1.


Several of local traders from Lordship Lane are expected to be interviewed.


I wonder if there will be anyone from Southwark Council there to explain how committed they are to supporting local businesses!


Interestingly, earlier today, the House of Commons Housing Communities & Local Government Committee published a report about the future of high streets. One of their Recommendations is;



"We recommend that action is taken at local level to create visionary strategies for high streets and town centres which have the backing of the local community, to support local traders,to facilitate parking and to develop the role of place partnerships"


Is Southwark listening?

Lynne Wrote:

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

> What, in simple English, are "Visionary

> strategies"?


Visionary: "thinking about or planning the future with imagination or wisdom."


Strategy: "a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim."


You're welcome.

CLEAN AIR!! This council must be joking,how can they let M&S get rid of the (old Iceland)carpark so they can extend their store! Then convert the offices into flats and then allow them to build another floor with more flats with no parking spaces for the residents , let them open another M&S by the train station Allowing their lorries to go up and down lordship Lane polluting our air , and then try and blame all the car users !! And as for all the coaches picking up all the schoolchildren in Townley Road , i?m sure they don?t help with keeping the air clean

The CPZ will not help lordship Lane and using the fresh air excuse is unfair

I don't expect the Labour council to be moved by that report at all. They just love taxing people til they squeak. they are not going give up high business rates and the opportunity to make a fortune from a CPZ even if it means some people's businesses go bust.


They just don't care.


The complete lack of transparency on the cost of the CPZ against the projected income betrays how much profit they actually anticipate making out of their residents.

Much as I dislike the Mayor's ULEZ - this will do far more to achieving clean air than the CPZ - you can quickly show this by asking how much of a contribution to clean air will not allowing 'foreign' electric or hydrogen powered vehicles to park in ED make? Clearly none. Yet these are covered by the CPZ as are all other vehicles. When this is forced on us (the CPZ) I would bet a pound to a fly-button that any ensuing improvements in air quality will be credited to the CPZ by Southwark, and not the ULEZ.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I don't expect the Labour council to be moved by

> that report at all. They just love taxing people

> til they squeak. they are not going give up high

> business rates and the opportunity to make a

> fortune from a CPZ even if it means some people's

> businesses go bust.

>

> They just don't care.

>



I don't think that's fair.


To the best of my knowledge, councils are being forced to find money from somewhere to fund vital services, because of the actions of the Tory government. They have already had to stop funding many things which are important to sections of the community.


Having to find money because of Tory cuts is not the same as "taking the opportunity to make a fortune."


Is my perception of the situation wrong?

The Guy from Roullier White said himself that 50% of his trade came from outside the area and most of his customers drive.

That would suggest to me that shops like his are the cause of the problem and creating the need for CPZ.

Yes, if in fact that figure is accurate which I don?t think it is, it?s exaggerated. Like his statement that 30% of shops in Lordship Lane were boarded up after Sainsbury?s opened - not so. And where did this phrase ?Deadship Lane? come from which it is claimed was what LL was called then? I never heard it called that!


ETA He also claimed that it?s difficult for a family to visit the shops on a Saturday is difficult without the use of a car: as it?s most unlikely any CPZ would be in affect at the weekend, it?s just more scaremongering.

Hi Nxjen


As I understand it, the 50% figure is based on the petition that the businesses have been collecting, with a roughly equally split of local and outside ED postcodes gleamed from the over 8,000 signatures. Fairly good evidence to support the claim, which is more than the council have done to understand the demographics of shoppers and what effects a CPZ could have on local businesses.


I still remember when sainsburys on dog kennel hill opened all those years ago, a large number of food business and others shut up shop due to the supermarkets competition, which has taken over 20 years to reverse. I heard Deadship Lane and other phrases used at that time, I guess different people heard different things.


One of the options being consulted on at the moment by the council includes the CPZ being in operation on Saturday as well as during the week.


In my opinion, what was presented was hardly scaremongering by the businesses but their genuine fear about the introduction of a CPZ and it's potential negative effect on our thriving and independent high street.


Personally, after living here through the period after Sainsburys came along, I for one don't want to see local businesses being forced out of the area by yet another barrier for them, do you?

After Sainsbury?s opened, it was the butchers, greengrocers and perhaps a couple of bakers that sadly had to close. This didn?t constitute anything like the 30% that has been claimed. I would also dispute that it took 20 years for the high street to recover, I would say it was most definitely on the up again at the time of the Millenium though not with the same mix of shops that there are now.


No, I don?t want to see businesses forced out of the area, I don?t like to see anybody lose their jobs or their livelihood. But as someone remarked on another thread, if the shops? business model relies on free parking that makes resident parking difficult (though this too has been a matter of exaggeration in some parts of the proposed zone) there is something amiss.


FWIW, I think the outcome will be a CPZ will be introduced around the station with say the area south of Goose Green continuing as it is now.

I forgot to say on my previous post that the basis for arriving at the figure of 50% of visitors to Lordship Lane coming from outside the area does not stand up to scrutiny as the data used does not represent an unbiassed cross section. The figure is based on those who are opposed to the CPZ and have signed the petition. Those who support the CPZ will not have signed the petition but still count as visitors to Lordship Lane. It is most likely that those who are for the CPZ and so have not signed the petition will have come from within the area whereas it is unlikely that those from outside the area would support the CPZ as it would inhibit their ability to park and so have signed the petition.

nxjen,

fair point about bias. This whole process is riddled with bias. You argue the petition is biased in favour of visitors voting against.


On the other hand, the Council is claiming, at the start of the consultation 98 residents for and 0 against. We have been told that is totally unprompted, but does anyone write to the council out of the blue to demand the status quo?


The on-line consultation questionnaire segregates residents from "visitors"; the latter includes everybody on the immediate border of the proposed CPZ. Is that a fair bias?


By the way all those outsiders who have come in their cars have successfully done so to be be able to sign the petition, so they must have been able to find a parking space.


We are constantly told that through-commuters, going on by train, are filling every available parking space, but I would think it a high risk venture to drive this far into town to park, and get to work on time, unless you had a good chance of finding a parking space.

People from other areas of ED park around the Goose Green area to catch the train. I've seen residents of the Upland/Overhill Rd areas park . Whether they'd be still entitled to after a CPZ, I don't know. So it's not just people driving in from outlying places to park here.
If people drive from the other end of East Dulwich to catch a train, they must be confident of finding a space to park near the station. Whether they are coming from Underhill Road or Canterbury surely it demonstrates there is not a critical shortage of parking space near the station.

MarkT Wrote:

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

> If people drive from the other end of East Dulwich

> to catch a train, they must be confident of

> finding a space to park near the station. Whether

> they are coming from Underhill Road or Canterbury

> surely it demonstrates there is not a critical

> shortage of parking space near the station.


...until the commuters have got there and taken all the available spaces, and then there are none left during the day for carers, tradesmen, visitors or any person unfortunate enough to have needed to use their vehicle around the time of the commuter influx. This is what happens on our road (near the station) - there might be a few spaces available early in the morning, but from 7.30 onwards those spaces are quickly seized by commuters (who literally circle the streets waiting for a space to come up) and then for the rest of the day until the commuters leave spaces are of the hen's teeth variety. There wouldn't be a critical shortage of parking space without the commuter, but they are there and there is.

If you live at the other end of ED, aren't you more likely to use Forest Hill or Honor Oak Park? To be fair, even West Dulwich, Herne Hill or Tulse Hill are also options. Denmark Hill is busier than East Dulwich and relatively close to Goose Green as well.

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> If you live at the other end of ED, aren't you

> more likely to use Forest Hill or Honor Oak Park?

> To be fair, even West Dulwich, Herne Hill or Tulse

> Hill are also options. Denmark Hill is busier

> than East Dulwich and relatively close to Goose

> Green as well.


Forest Hill & Honor Oak Park are Zone 3 so a saving of over ?300. I think you?ll find East Dulwich is one of the few zone 2 stations that doesn?t have parking restrictions on surrounding streets. I know that was the case a few years ago wen I worked at London Bridge & several coworkers drove to E Dulwich so they could have a cheaper season ticket.

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...