Jump to content

Residents Melbourne Grove, Adys Road, Bromar Road - Traffic increases due to Champion Hill


Recommended Posts

I do believe Champion Hill to be a much wider street (road to house frontage)than most other streets now bearing the brunt of the re-routed traffic. It was always free flowing and did shorten our journey by around 50%, I can still use it coming home, but outbound it is shut to us. It does feel like people are reporting a growing number of traffic problems - to some degree this is the inevitable consequence of the additional volumes of traffic re-routed via these streets either exacerbating or causing some of these issues. After all, it's clear that the impact of this change will be exactly the sum of those journeys, less the people shifted to walking / cycling / foregoing their journey. In my case, we still drive and and have to drive twice as far, at two thirds of the speed to get to the same end goal.

As an observation, reading this thread, this does feel like CH versus the rest of the world. That I suppose is inevitable if public roads are allowed to be treated as private roads - with locally advertised consultations with wide-reaching consequences. If I were in Lordship Lane, Melbourne Grove or Adys Road, I would feel a strong motivation to have my street closed to traffic too. I wonder where that would leave us.

"this does feel like CH versus the rest of the world"


Certainly not from my point of view, as someone who lives on CH. As I've said before, I'd support such schemes just as vigorously if they were directed at other roads, eg Melbourne Grove. And the *only* way you'll get more such schemes is to not try and kill them off in the first place. Also, if you did have more and more residential streets shut to motor traffic, you'd gradually start to see the modal shift to other forms of transport (assuming other measures are taken to, for example, make walking and cycling more pleasant).


Out of interest, Talfourdite, what is the journey you make by car, and would there be a way to make it by other measns? Don't tell me if you don't want to, and it's not so I can judge - some trips are tricky by other methods. But the evidence is that a fairly decent percentage of London car trips could be made in other ways. For example, when I was walking down Champion Grove at 7.40ish on Friday, about 90% of the traffic queuing for the lights was single people in cars. I'm guessing at least some could use other methods but prefer not to. Sure, that's their choice, but it will cause congestion, and there's no reason why the majority of locals who don't own cars should have to indulge their choice at the penalty of more smog, danger, noise etc etc. Ultimately, the cause of the gridlock isn't one, minor traffic scheme ? it's too many cars.

Th? problem is that the roads such schemes displace traffic onto, such as Dog Kennel Hill and Grove Lane, are also residential. Furthermore, these roads, together with Champion Park, take significantly more pedestrians than Champion Hill does. Far from being made more pleasant for walking, the trial closure of Champion Hill has made them unpleasant, unhealthy and unsafe. We are talking about a major pedestrian route to three local primary schools (Lyndhurst, Dog Kennel Hill and Goose Green). Closing single streets to make the roads we all use to get to school and work dangerously congested and polluted is neither equitable nor rational.

talfourdite Wrote:

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

In my case, we

> still drive and and have to drive twice as far, at

> two thirds of the speed to get to the same end

> goal.


OK, you may find this question offensive, and I sincerely apologise if you have issues which make any other form of transport unviable, but is it strictly necessary to use your car to go two miles from Talfourd Road to Dulwich Village? That's a distance that can be cycled in ten minutes by the most unfit of riders. If you have a disability that mandates your using a car, then fair enough, I would never want to have that proscribed. If you're just using a car for the school run or because you find it a convenient option, I can't offer you too much sympathy about congestion, because you're part of it.

I don?t really want to get into the specifics of my own life, I don?t think that?s what this is here for. I can tell you that I cycle, own an electric hybrid, have a pollution monitor at home, assess every journey I make and consider the pollution levels to be the single biggest issue facing Londoners today. However, despite all of this, I think this scheme is regressive and poorly thought out for the reasons I have raised. I totally get schemes to up car clubs, electric car ownership and cycle lanes. They are a good use of my tax payers money, shutting one street at a timers just idiotic. We need to encourage better transport choices and drive off highly polluting vehicles, this just isn?t the right solution to ny mind.

Hi talfourdite,

I get the feeling we should all be able to driving our children to school if we so wish.


On a practical note...

Local primary schools maximum admissions distance home to school typically 300-1100m.

Secondary schools typically circa 1,250m.

These distance are easily walkable for 99% of children.


Thankfully the majority do not drive their children to school else we'd have even higher traffic and pollution levels.

Given the choice most children prefer walking, cycling, scootering to school. And in Southwark we have a child obesity epidemic.

Unless parents are ensuring lots of exercise, outside of driving their kids to school, they may well be doing their children physical harm by restricting their activity levels. And also harming other peoples children from increased air pollution.

Given the choice most children prefer walking, cycling, scootering to school.


In my experience, rather depends on the weather.


Also - the assumption is being made that parents face the task of getting a child to school. But many face getting two or more children to different schools, often in different directions (from their house), one child at least probably needing to be accompanied, however travelling, and then, very possibly, additionally getting to work themselves (getting to a station etc.). Once those logistics are in place, the simplicity of 'walking your child to school' somewhat evaporates. For many children 'getting to school' if on their own (secondary school) can mean running the gauntlet of other children on foot or on buses - many years ago teachers (in a school my children went to) used to travel on some buses to try to protect their pupils from those of a rival school. As gangs and mugging proliferate, travel by car seems a safer option to some. And I can't blame them. My cosy 1950s schooldays of cycling, walking or busing to school in relative safety are long gone.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> And also harming other peoples children from increased air

> pollution.


As well as your own children - if you're sat in traffic you're breathing in the exhaust fumes of the car infront. Air pollution is 9-12 times higher in a car, a fact many people still aren't aware of, or choose to ignore.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health


public health england "PHE medical director Paul Cosford told the BBC: "We should stop idling outside schools and we should make sure that children can walk or cycle to school."


PHE said 28,000 to 36,000 deaths a year in the UK could be attributed to long-term exposure to air pollution."

Every trip and situation has its own context and demands, from the age and number of of the kids and schools in question, the amount of things they are taking to school, family support network, distance, public transport options, weather to name a few. Every parent has to struggle with their own schedule and resources. All parents i am sure try to do their best, it?s often hard and sub-ideal, but that?s life. We do have a pollution problem and talking about that is to help build that into transport choices is vital, but assuming many of the trips in question aren?t done out of laziness and will carry on, via slower elongated routes, leads me to the conclusion this scheme is nett worse and makes the situational generally worse in every way for the entirety of local residents. I find the idea that parents shouldn?t be able to exercise their judgement on their children?s lives pretty bizarre. Rendel, I definitely don?t want to make this personal (as you seem to keep doing with your little barbed comments) but you seem very judgemental on every one else?s life and what they should/shouldn?t be able to do with no real knowledge about their circumstances. I personally find it quite rude, ill informed and offensive.

talfourdite Wrote:

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

Rendel, I

> definitely don?t want to make this personal (as

> you seem to keep doing with your little barbed

> comments) but you seem very judgemental on every

> one else?s life and what they should/shouldn?t be

> able to do with no real knowledge about their

> circumstances. I personally find it quite rude,

> ill informed and offensive.


AKA I don't like anyone disagreeing with me and so will make unfounded accusations against them. Kindly point out a single instance in this thread in which I have been rude to you - not just disagreed with you but been "rude and offensive". Just one.


I personally find it rude and offensive that some people believe their "right" to drive when and where they please trumps other people's children's rights to live in clean and safe environments.

everything in life is a trade off. I?m not sure where you passing absolute judgments from afar on other people?s lives without understanding their circumstances seems ok. I presume you have been in a car, used a bus, have central heating? All the choices we make have environmental consequences.

Indeed, life is all about choices. And when people make choices about their lifestyles - where they want to live, work, send their kids to school etc - that necessitate polluting and congesting other people's neighbourhoods, they shouldn't be surprised if other people exercise their right to make choices in terms of asking them not to and asking for environmental protections.


Still waiting for you to justify calling me rude - again, one single instance from this thread where I've been rude to (rather than disagreed with) you please.

That would be smashing if you could, thanks (Champion Hill is not my road, by the way). Yes it would be wonderful if all traffic bar access was kept to A roads, good idea, well done. Can I just ask you to think about this: Champion Hill was, before this closure, experiencing rush hour traffic levels equal to those on the adjoining A roads of Grove Lane and Champion Park. Living on Taulford Road, you're adjoining an A road too, (A202 Peckham Road). If 50% of the Peckham Road traffic suddenly started ratrunning up Taulford, I presume you'd just accept that without demur?

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...