Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I live near P.R. so rather dreading impact on my road (though amount of parking in Strakers Road should mitigate).

However I do support charging for parking in parks in principle. Re recent bad traffic, it does not seem like previous traffic, I suspect a lot is school run. Has the council done any surveys recently? Road closures are getting blamed but I am not sure this is correct?

  • 4 weeks later...

Perhaps if you had read the thread on this you will see that it mostly the old that need to use to their cars to get to the park and many like me find it difficult to pay all Southwark's Charges to use what I pay for in my council tax.


If Southwark can waste ?254,000.00 on their brown bin fiasco they can afford to keep the parks free.


But then again residents of Dulwich just want to keep Dulwich Park for Dulwich residents within the car free area.


Maybe those that cannot use the park should use their spare time now clearing leaves up from the pavements.

"it mostly the old that need to use to their cars to get to the park"


It may well be predominantly the old that need to use cars (if they have them) to get to Dulwich Park. Yet the people who park in the park are predominantly not old. And as long as parking is free, demand will remain high - reducing the likelihood that old people will actually find a space. In the absence of a "grey badge" like the blue badges perhaps suspending charges at off peak times is the way to go. Quite the knotty problem.

Many people including myself asked that the parking charges be suspended during the week. Southwark refused.


During the week it was used as a much needed social club for the old which was great and meeting friends taking their dogs and them for much needed exercise. I would never consider going at the weekend to the park. The result no one goes any more.


You are right it is the entitled that feel they must drive.


There were always parking spaces during the week much like now as nobody goes. The park officers can confirm that.


What with the closures and new proposed closure the reason to try and get there is pointless.


Below is an email I sent to Southwark when this first started


I have circulation problem with my feet whereby I need to walk a lot. My dog and I use Dulwich Park once a day and sometimes twice as it is flat and pleasant and does not put to much pressure on my metatarsal bones due to fat loss.

It gives us both the exercise that Doctors recommend.


Prior to Champion Hill closing it took me 10/12 minutes by car to reach the park. Now I am looking at 25minutes sometimes more to get there.


Now that this charge is being brought in I will have to consider if I can afford to go for 2/3 hours a day.


Before the normal comments are made if I have to take public transport, which involves 2 buses and walking the journey will take a min of 40 minutes or longer each way. That time depends if the bus/s turns up on time or at all. My house is situated in the middle of a hill away from public transport. So it is already difficult to reach a starting point.


Combine that with having a dog and the prospect does not really appeal after testing it. Getting a bus with a dog presents problems as mothers with prams that look like tanks take up most of the limited space parking space and space between the seats is very limited.


So looking to use my local park which I have done for almost 73 years a return journey will now take me around 90 minutes without the time spent in the park.


Factor into that being tired after walking, and it rains having a wet dog on a bus which will not please some the park is really getting out of reach.


6 days a week for me will cost ?36 a week extra for something that I already pay towards with my Council tax, which if the talk is correct will be over ?2000+ for this year. I cannot afford to pay to use my local park


Some families will also have to make this decision.


Locals in the Dulwich Park area can walk with no problem but other that are not and have have to travel with children, toddler bikes, scooters, toys and the family dog will have to consider if they can afford the park which is crazy. Getting on a bus is most of the time not an option.


It might appear to some that the park and it surrounds is turning into a middle class ghetto which might just be used by only close residents. This is wrong.


It is strange that Southwark keep pushing fitness but continue to make it difficult for many.


Again another decision whilst looking at in a meeting has just not been thought through before putting it into operation.


I am against any charge being made to use my local park.


Regards

This is another complicated discussion, but the short version is that I managed to get the Dulwich Park car parking charges put on hold when I was a councillor (lobbying the cabinet member in tandem with the Dulwich Park Friends) although I was told that the issue would definitely resurface (as it has).


I then went to one of the open public consultation meetings a year or two ago, whereupon I suggested that residents who found it too difficult to walk or take public transport to the park would rather pay a fixed annual fee for a parking permit and the councillor said that they might consider this option in the future.


By coincidence, I spoke to the park managers just before the new charges came in and they told me that they have a permit system in place for people with health problems to be granted a free parking permit if a doctor?s letter could confirm the relevant health issues.


The criteria states that the person has to be over 64 years old and have mobility issues, but the managers told me that they could override the age criteria and even the mobility issues if the case was convincing enough.


It?s frustrating that this information isn?t being made more openly available, and I would encourage anyone with health problems to pursue the ?mobility? permit option, so here?s more information on the Dulwich Park Friends website, including a phone number to call (but be aware that this may take some time due to Covid):-


https://dulwichparkfriends.org.uk/the-park/location-travel/


I would also suggest that residents could lobby the new cabinet members to consider for an annual parking permit to be made available to Southwark residents, rather than having to pay ?2 for every visit.

For your information Southwark advised me by email that you had to pay ?2.00 per hour no mention of any other schemes even from Richard Livingstone or Cllr Lury.


If you did not have a modern phone with apps you had to walk to the shop in Lordship lane and buy a ticket which meanat you were open to get a parking ticket.


As for a "mobility ticket" if its the same criteria as trying for a blue badge forget about it. I know many people who had Doctors letters for mobility issues that Southwark would not accept. Many cases have appeared in The Southwark News.


They have a rule book that is it.

I would be keen to know the correlation between parking charges being introduced and attendance top the park? Also, I really question some of the schemes introduced - ?30.00 brown bin charge, Low Traffic Networks (flower pots), ?125.00 introduction of charges to park outside my home. I am not really a fan of the council right now

I hear what you?re saying, spider... but, having spoken to park managers in person, I think that applying for a parking permit for Dulwich Park on ?health matters? is a genuinely viable way forward. There even used to be some leaflets about this option in the entrance of the Francis Peek Centre, but I haven?t been to Dulwich Park since Covid started, which is why I posted the Dulwich Park Friends link.


And, it seems to be a regular political manoeuvre not to direct residents to other solutions, which is why this forum is so useful.

Can you say if an option of introducing parking fees for, say, working hours of 8pm - 6pm as is normal for CPZ/restricted streets, was ever discussed? This would give those who want to use the park potential cheaper options outside main daytime hours.


As far as i can recall not even Hyde Park charges drivers 24 hours a day to park.




rch Wrote:

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

> This is another complicated discussion, but the

> short version is that I managed to get the Dulwich

> Park car parking charges put on hold when I was a

> councillor (lobbying the cabinet member in tandem

> with the Dulwich Park Friends) although I was told

> that the issue would definitely resurface (as it

> has).

>

> I then went to one of the open public consultation

> meetings a year or two ago, whereupon I suggested

> that residents who found it too difficult to walk

> or take public transport to the park would rather

> pay a fixed annual fee for a parking permit and

> the councillor said that they might consider this

> option in the future.

>

> By coincidence, I spoke to the park managers just

> before the new charges came in and they told me

> that they have a permit system in place for people

> with health problems to be granted a free parking

> permit if a doctor?s letter could confirm the

> relevant health issues.

>

> The criteria states that the person has to be over

> 64 years old and have mobility issues, but the

> managers told me that they could override the age

> criteria and even the mobility issues if the case

> was convincing enough.

>

> It?s frustrating that this information isn?t being

> made more openly available, and I would encourage

> anyone with health problems to pursue the

> ?mobility? permit option, so here?s more

> information on the Dulwich Park Friends website,

> including a phone number to call (but be aware

> that this may take some time due to Covid):-

>

> https://dulwichparkfriends.org.uk/the-park/locatio

> n-travel/

>

> I would also suggest that residents could lobby

> the new cabinet members to consider for an annual

> parking permit to be made available to Southwark

> residents, rather than having to pay ?2 for every

> visit.

As most people would use the park during the hours you mentioned they would still end up paying, unless of course you arrived very early and left before 8 and arrived after 6 pm.


It is a park that is paid for out of Council tax for all to use.


Southwark wants to close off streets for the benefit of Dulwich residents now it appears they want to price out non dulwich residents from using the park.


As someone mentioned on another thread if they can piss up the wall ?254,000.00 on the brown bin fiasco they can make parks free.


Perhaps all Cllrs should start to worry as people look more deeply into how they perform.

I think it is very telling that during weekends during this latest lockdown that the roads surrounding the park are crowded with parked cars and the park itself much more crowded. It's a very popular park and the catchment area is much broader than us residents who are able to walk to it.

yes, I know, but for people like Spider69 above who want to use the park but can't afford the charges it would potentially offer them early morning options and - particularly in the summer ? plenty of free access in the evenings.



Sally Eva Wrote:

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

> Dulwich Park is locked at night (5pm at the

> moment). Similarly Peckham Rye has an access road

> which is closed with a metal gate at night.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...