Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The council is seeking the views of residents, businesses and stakeholders on traffic volumes, road safety, air quality and walking and cycling issues affecting the East Dulwich and wider Dulwich area.


They have gathered data on air quality hot spots, traffic volumes, through traffic routes, traffic speeds, collision hotspots and feedback from previous engagements.


Have your say on possible solutions to explore with residents, agree/ disagree on comments made by others, pin your comments at a specific location on their engagement app.


This approach seems different from previous consultations by the council and aims to be open to potential approaches in relation to the issues that people identify.


The first phase of finding out more about issues that people face lasts until 7th June and can be found at:


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/street-improvements/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/224998-our-healthy-streets-dulwich/
Share on other sites

You do all understand, I hope, that the objective of this exercise is to flood the area with 'concerns' about e.g. road safety to help justify ('public demand') whatever draconian and probably inappropriate 'traffic management' schemes they plan - more CPZs; more extended double yellows, less parking etc. etc. There will be no more buses, with no additional frequency (of course, as that's TfL not Southwark) let alone any improvements in the rail services. Every time you add a concern you add another nail in the coffin of cars in Southwark, the stated aim of the council.

Penguin, I've taken a leaf out of the book of that southwark cyclists special interest group page on the other thread and am flooding this consultation with comments that reflect my personal preferences and self interest.


So far I have expressed my grave concerns that removing all cars parked on the kerbside 1) increases the speed of traffic making the roads physically more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, and 2) encourages people to pave over their front gardens to use as car parks, thus increasing pollution a de-greening the area, which are causing yet more lung and brain damage to cyclists

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> You do all understand, I hope, that the objective

> of this exercise is to flood the area with

> 'concerns' about e.g. road safety to help justify

> ('public demand') whatever draconian and probably

> inappropriate 'traffic management' schemes they

> plan - more CPZs; more extended double yellows,

> less parking etc. etc. There will be no more

> buses, with no additional frequency (of course, as

> that's TfL not Southwark) let alone any

> improvements in the rail services. Every time you

> add a concern you add another nail in the coffin

> of cars in Southwark, the stated aim of the

> council.


Precisely what they are up to. It is right out of their standard playbook. They probably already know what draconian scheme they are planning, but will be sequencing the consultation to get the result they want.

I had problems with the site as well but I emailed Southwark about it and I eventually sorted the problem. It seems to have a problem with really old phones/browsers.


Email them on [email protected]


I just gave them a description of my problem, sent across a screengrab, what phone/PC I was using and the email address I registered with.

This is so tedious. If they really wanted to improve the health of the area then they would close some streets off to traffic in order to create cycle routes into town, invest in secure cycle parking at all tube stations, invest in local public transport. But they won't. They'll bring in CPZs, continue to approve drop kerbs and the concreting over of gardens and put in more and more speed bumps (adding to pollution). None of these things decrease local car ownership, or improve the environment.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> This is so tedious. If they really wanted to

> improve the health of the area then they would

> close some streets off to traffic in order to

> create cycle routes into town, invest in secure

> cycle parking at all tube stations, invest in

> local public transport. But they won't. They'll

> bring in CPZs, continue to approve drop kerbs and

> the concreting over of gardens and put in more and

> more speed bumps (adding to pollution). None of

> these things decrease local car ownership, or

> improve the environment.


... oh, and completely fail to police commonplace, dangerous driving.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> You do all understand, I hope, that the objective

> of this exercise is to flood the area with

> 'concerns' about e.g. road safety to help justify

> ('public demand') whatever draconian and probably

> inappropriate 'traffic management' schemes they

> plan - more CPZs; more extended double yellows,

> less parking etc. etc. There will be no more

> buses, with no additional frequency (of course, as

> that's TfL not Southwark) let alone any

> improvements in the rail services. Every time you

> add a concern you add another nail in the coffin

> of cars in Southwark, the stated aim of the

> council.


exactly...

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Penguin, I've taken a leaf out of the book of that

> southwark cyclists special interest group page on

> the other thread and am flooding this consultation

> with comments that reflect my personal preferences

> and self interest.

>

> So far I have expressed my grave concerns that

> removing all cars parked on the kerbside 1)

> increases the speed of traffic making the roads

> physically more dangerous for cyclists and

> pedestrians, and 2) encourages people to pave over

> their front gardens to use as car parks, thus

> increasing pollution a de-greening the area, which

> are causing yet more lung and brain damage to

> cyclists


Do follow the example set and try to call friends, even friends living out of the area and get them to participate in future plans for ED streets.

"If they really wanted to improve the health of the area then they would close some streets off to traffic in order to create cycle routes into town, invest in secure cycle parking at all tube stations, invest in local public transport. But they won't."


Given that Healthy Streets seems to be a brainchild of Will Norman (the Mayor's Walking & Cycling Commissioner), you would at least hope..


Investing in local public transport is challenging since (without wishing to make this political) Central Government removed all of TfL's grant. With Crossrail delayed, TfL are strapped for cash. Ideally you'd want two other routes to complement the P4 - one running roughly SE-NW (i.e. Sydenham/Herne Hill) and another SW-NE i.e. West Norwood to Peckham. Failing that you just need a LOT more P4s to connect up with existing routes running north and south of the Village.

Just out of interest Seenbeen - how many people do you think have been injured by cyclists locally? Compare this to how many people you think have been injured by cars? Move on to consider the severity of injury in each scenario!


Yes there are stupid cyclists and yes, very occasionally, the results of this are tragic. Mostly though the 'fear' of being hit by cyclists seems to be just that - a fear or percieved risk. I suspect it has got worse in recent years as people either texting / playing games or listening to music step off the kerb and don't hear cyclists, but overall the number of pedestrians hit by cyclists is extremely low and when they are hit the comparative harm compared to being hit by cars is much lower.


What happened to your sister is obviously unacceptable but I think that you need to consider healthy streets in a much wider context. What would help us across the board is a construct like the Netherlands where the assumption of fault lies with the transport that can do most harm - ie in cars vs bikes this would be the cars and in pedestrians vs bikes, it would be bikes.



seenbeen Wrote:

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

> I'm sick of speeding cyclists- they are silent,

> they speed around bends, I have had a couple of

> close calls and my sister has a permanent injury

> to her foot because of a cyclist who did not even

> stop after he mowed her down....

seenbeen Wrote:

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

> I'm sick of speeding cyclists- they are silent,

> they speed around bends, I have had a couple of

> close calls and my sister has a permanent injury

> to her foot because of a cyclist who did not even

> stop after he mowed her down....


I've see some inconsiderate cycling and some extremely dangerous driving. The latter clearly causes significantly more harm and represents a much more serious problem generally, though both are unacceptable. It is often the same individuals who behave badly whether they're travelling by bike or in a car of course.

If we want to make roads healthier/safer (especially for cyclists and pedestrians) then I'd suggest making Cycling Proficiency Tests (now called "Bikeability" I believe) compulsory and bring back The Green Cross Man (a Superhero that really did save lives.)


https://bikeability.org.uk/


If you're a driver or motorcycle rider that wants to improve their skills, perhaps consider undertaking some RoSPA training.


https://www.rospa.com/safety-training/on-road/advanced/drivers/


Now, how about some street signs advertising these worthwhile schemes? You know, signs that actually provide some useful information rather than just whatever suits the Council's political agenda at the time.


I infer that the 20mph speed limit is too slow. A simple deduction reached by observing that almost everyone exceeds it. This can't all be attributed to oft-repeated "bad driving". So, put the speed limit back to 30mph and take out all the speed bumps and similarly ridiculous obstacles (it's a road after all!) that force many vehicles to slow down to 10mph or less only to have to speed up again to prevent a queue forming behind them. That will allow vehicles to proceed at a steady and efficient pace thereby reducing what little pollution modern vehicles create.


Of course, more traffic policing (by which I mean proper, real Police) would help to reduce the few incidents of genuinely bad driving as well as catch the, even fewer, idiots. And of course an improvement in public transport wouldn't go amiss either.


And there you go, problem solved. Don't mention it!


...of course, it'll never happen :))

I suspect RoSPA and the Bikeability folk would disagree with you. Of course I can't be sure about the Green Cross Man. Teaching people to drive, ride and cross the road more safely is hardly stupid and doesn't work only for people of very low intelligence.


Roads worked perfectly well without obstacles in them for a couple of thousand years. Mind you, those Romans were a pretty daft lot too ;)

  • 5 months later...

There's a new consultation out for Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich, be quick though as it's open for less than a fortnight, closing on 24th - surely we'll see yet again the council realising that's too short and extending?

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/ohsdulwichphase2/


Public asks from the last exercise were to cut air pollution and deliver area wide traffic reduction. While there's lots of trendy graphics, I'm left feeling the consultation exercise is becoming like trying to pin the tail on multiple donkeys.


Key problems with the consultation process are:

- nothing being learned from the past: e.g. a focus is making junctions safe for walking and cycling, but two of the three junctions the public have just highlighted as the worst are the ones Southwark has just spent ??? on supposedly improving! Or all the traffic calming that hasn't made our streets safer in the last 6 years.

- no info about existing or proposed cycling & walking routes: as we've learned tackling junctions does not encourage people out of cars if the streets in between are rat-runs.

- nothing about how effective different options would be in delivering the clean air people so clearly want (plus is a legal requirement), or delivering the big reduction in emissions needed to address the climate emergency the council is claiming to take seriously. e.g. traffic calming often makes air pollution worse and in the age of satnavs simply doesn't discourage through traffic


48 different options is a lot but the results may be contradictory if people chose a combination that mean some streets are cut off. There are various half a dozen of one, six of the other options, like school streets, permeable closures and camera access filter. Meanwhile it's hard to see how the objectives would be delivered without better parking management, junction overhauls (not simply banning turns), new pedestrian crossings and protected cycle lanes.


Surely would be much better to have say three different packages proposed taking different approaches, e.g. with indications how much each would improve air quality by? That would help gauge relative support and possibly end up with some combination or variation. Then try things out then get feedback from people.


I'm left feeling the biggest problem is the way Southwark plans these schemes compared to the better boroughs north of the river.

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...