Jump to content

Recommended Posts

P68, I don't think the majority of objectors were against change, it has always been about degree. Those closest will inevitably note the downsides, those further away are more likely to see the benefits and dismiss the former as a sort of collateral damage, and the latter will almost always be the majority view.


Yes, for most people having a convenient liquor and fast food store, open 7am 'till 12pm every day of the week, will certainly be seen as handy. There will always be customers for that. For those close by increased deliveries/ opening hours may impact on sleep etc.. presumably the rationale for earlier conditions. But hey,as you suggest, for the greater good.

Penguin, your assessment is a beautiful sweeping generalisation that conveniently glazes over so many issues and seems, if I've understood it right, to suggest we should all put our faith and trust in the hands of southwark and developers and businesses to develop the borough in the right way. I wonder, how do you think the Heygate residents feel about that????


What about abuse of processes by developers? eg getting round their obligation to affordable housing in underhand ways?

What about the malaise/incompetence of the local council/planning department?


Should we all just accept that in the vain hope that any development that happens is probably good, because it is change, as you seem to suggest above?


Surely we should aspire for better. Decent planning policies, well managed by a competent planning authority. your comment about centre point is not fair either - it is an exaggeration and misrepresents what has happened. A handful of very local residents have some entirely reasonable reservations about the extent of what is proposed and the conduct of the developer and southwark, and are trying to counter-act some of those excesses before they are set in stone. People should stand up and object to things they don't feel are right - isn't that what our democracy is about? this is not, as you and others have suggested so many times, because people are simply 'wedded to the past'.


In your assessment you suggest that southwark have a better vision for the future of the borough, implying therefore that their approval of this application is a deliberate part of a grander design. Again, this shows a profound misunderstanding of the history of this case, with its mismanagement (southwark's own admission), the council missing its own deadlines, and being fearful of the applicant taking it to appeal and the council having to fork out for costs. Your vision sounds lovely, but I fear bears absolutely no resemblance to reality.


Letting developers/companies do what they want in the knowledge that 'there are remedies to be had' is so na?ve. there is no guarantee any such remedies will be available, and may have to be extremely hardly fought for. An example is the agreement fought for by local residents and eventually put in place with Iceland on deliveries with the help of Tessa Jowell. So much time and effort. When actually with a dose of sense and balance such things could be easily decided at the planning stage with the needs of developers, businesses and local residents all considered. So much time, energy, anguish etc etc could be avoided.

James did you or anyone else raise the issue of this application clearly trying to circumvent the affordable housing requirement? I asked up thread but you seemed to have missed my query.




James Barber Wrote:

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

> If people object to the licensing application it

> would help stem this tide.

>

> I suspect they're seeking longer licensing hours

> than the planning conditions currently allow and

> will them go back to planning to have that

> condition amended to increase hours to the

> licensed hours. Otherwise why do it. Assuming such

> a planning application is refused the

> developer/M&S will appeal. These guys have deep

> pockets to keep wearing us down.

I attended this planning meeting last night along with Councillor Barber. We had 90 seconds each to make representations. This does not give very much time but I think between the two of us we were able to get over most of the important issues surrounding this application. As you all probably know this application was regarding the two additional flats for the new third floor. Permission has already been granted for 8 offices on the 1st and 2nd floors. I imagine that it won't be long before these 8 offices suddenly change into 8 flats. This will of course mean that as there will now be 10 flats on the development and a Section 106 payment would be payable by the developer. The senior officer at the meeting recognised this might happen and stated the developer would still be liable even at a later stage.We will have to wait and see.

We also argued about extra pressure on car parking in surrounding streets, the extra deliveries that M&S will undoubtedly generate and the increased risks to pedestrians using Chesterfield Grove.

East Dulwich has been designated as 'Suburban' and therefore is subject to certain conditions regarding height of buildings and density of buildings. We would not be doing our jobs as Councillors if we completely ignored these rules. We will keep objecting where a development appears to ignore the guidelines. If we don't our constituents will soon let us know.


Kind Regards


Councillor Charlie Smith

Labour Member for the East Dulwich Ward

Charlie,


It sounds like you objected. If so, thank you. If all the local Councillors of whatever party objected it feels worrying that those considered views could so easily be overridden by the opinions of those who do not know the area as well. As requested earlier, can we have the names of those attending and who voted for what?

It's really reassuring to see councillors uniting cross-party to represent the best interests of the community.


In the meantime, it will be interesting to see if the Appeal hearing now gets cancelled, as I suspect that this was a significant reason why the application was passed by the sub-committee.


Unfortunately, Licensing is different legislation and a different committee to Planning, so we'll all have to go through the objecting saga again, hopefully with cllrs uniting against extending the trading hours.


Bear in mind that the opening hours of the M&S on Walworth Road, which has far greater footfall than Lordship, are 8am-8pm Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm Saturday, and 8am-4pm on Sunday... so that should give us adequate ammunition to fight later opening hours selling alcohol on Lordship.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Fazer, which other laws, policy and "political

> claptrap" do you think our council or politicians

> should ignore for the sake of expediency and

> commercial profit?


Every single one that restricts more homes being built and complicated the existing planning!


I am not saying that profits should be excessive I'd guess if these bonkers restrictions were removed and more homes were built within a stable system then profits might even be lower as more builders built more homes.

These restrictions simply add massively to the cost and the length of time it takes to build new homes.


BUT If there is no Commercial PROFIT you get NO homes !


What is it with this insane thought process that profit is a bad thing ... without profit there would be no work no jobs and no new anything !!!!! The logic of many people is totally Bonkers !

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Show some analysis that affordable housing

> restricts development.

>

> Everything else you are saying is just noise. The

> planning system needs to remove the loophole to

> avoid this circus but that is not the same thing

> as affordable housing per se restricting

> development.


Really do you honestly believe the "affordable" housing requirement equals more homes ?


Laughable ~!

Haven't we been here before with the licensing hours vs opening hours question for another development? Co-Op? Sainsburys Local?? It was quite a while ago (and my brain's getting old) but I recall an application went in for very long licensing hours, but the opening hours were unchanged, so the licensing hours permitted were effectively redundant.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Iceland should of stayed and M&S replace the

> Co-Op.. Best of both worlds..

>

> DulwichFox


Yep, or better still, M&S Food by the station (where the Morisson's is going to be [is it still?]).

Frazer you aren't putting forward any arguments. Affordable housing requirements neither increases nor decreases the amount of homes built. When implemented without exception, the only impact section 106 has besides the creation of affordable housing is reducing land prices- period.


Explain why you believe that isn't the case using an actual argument versus a declarative statement please?


You'll note that land price varies significantly to reflect what can be done /must be done with it so this is an established fact not a theory.



fazer71 Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Show some analysis that affordable housing

> > restricts development.

> >

> > Everything else you are saying is just noise.

> The

> > planning system needs to remove the loophole to

> > avoid this circus but that is not the same

> thing

> > as affordable housing per se restricting

> > development.

>

> Really do you honestly believe the "affordable"

> housing requirement equals more homes ?

>

> Laughable ~!

Robbin,

Objections were not against M&S but overdevelopment of the site by the developers in breach of Southwark Planning policy, attendant health and safety issues, and apparent attempts by developers to circumvent affordable housing quotas. The brand is a red herring.

Exactly First mate--


Robbin if you actually read the thread you'd know that people have concerns about the application that have nothing to do with M&S as a tenant but the residential development the freeholder (separate person) is doing in conjunction with the other works.


Take some time before throwing around baseless criticisms please. The objections being made in no way prevent M&S from moving into the retail component as intended.

What you say makes no sense.

How does it affect land prices?


It's an added cost as with all added costs it increases price and sale time.

It's exactly this type of policy which forces prices up !


My arguments are clear every hurdle and every delay makes for fewer more expensive homes.

That's basic maths.

As is fewer homes means more expensive homes.


"affordable" is a nonsense affordable for who and subsidised why ?


My argument is simple if the site can accommodate X number of homes within the planning rules then X is what should be build on day 1 1st planning granted.


What this thread proves is X is eventually built after years of nonsense and any "affordable" home ends up costing what every other "non affordable" home costs by the time the development is finished.


It is absolute insanity.


How much clearer can I make my argument /././?





LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Frazer you aren't putting forward any arguments.

> Affordable housing requirements neither increases

> nor decreases the amount of homes built. When

> implemented without exception, the only impact

> section 106 has besides the creation of affordable

> housing is reducing land prices- period.

>

> Explain why you believe that isn't the case using

> an actual argument versus a declarative statement

> please?

>

> You'll note that land price varies significantly

> to reflect what can be done /must be done with it

> so this is an established fact not a theory.

>

>

> fazer71 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > LondonMix Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Show some analysis that affordable housing

> > > restricts development.

> > >

> > > Everything else you are saying is just noise.

>

> > The

> > > planning system needs to remove the loophole

> to

> > > avoid this circus but that is not the same

> > thing

> > > as affordable housing per se restricting

> > > development.

> >

> > Really do you honestly believe the "affordable"

> > housing requirement equals more homes ?

> >

> > Laughable ~!

The way all requirements (including section 106) impact land prices is like this:


House prices are determined by supply and demand (not by how much they cost to construct).

In a competitive market, developers will value land by looking at their total costs and calculate their minimum acceptable profit. What's left over is the land value.


Land doesn't have an intrinsic value but rather a residual value based on what it can be used for.


For instance, an acre of land that gains residential planning permission's value goes up exponentially in the green belt. Its the same land but with a more valuable use. This change in value is well documented.


An acre of land that is granted permission for double the FAR (density) of commercial development than a equal sized plot beside it will trade for double the price.


If builder costs go up or down, all else being equal, land prices move correspondingly (with certain caveats like land can't be worth less than zero etc). There is plenty of academic research on this which if you still don't understand what I'm saying I will link for you.


Its fairly basic though-- houses are expensive in London because lots of people want to live here. The high price of housing makes land prices much higher in London than the rest of the country as building costs throughout the country are largely the same. Land values are residual values. When house prices drop, land values also drop. Its a well established relationship.

If the rules state on a plot of land 100 houses can be built of which 30 must be affordable, then that is exactly what will happen if the rules are applied without exception. It has no impact on how many homes are built as the land will be priced accordingly.


The reason this process can be slow is because developers (not planners) are intent to make multiple applications to abuse the rules as there are loopholes through which they can circumvent certain conditions to increase their profit. All of the complexity and delay is generated by the developers trying to circumvent the rules (including by deceit).


Removing the loopholes is the only means by which you can prevent developers trying to circumvent the rules, delaying their own developments by making multiple applications and asking for variations.


There is nothing about having planning requirements like section 106 that reduces the amount of housing and the slowness is the fault of the developers trying to break the rules. Your suggestion would be akin to abolishing taxes because some people invest a lot of time and effort in their attempts to evade paying taxes.

LondonMix


Yes that?s a long way of saying ? X Land value is based on what Y development would be worth once built on X land? so working backwards from Y you get the value of X including all factors costs etc etc.


So in your example of 100 homes 30 must be affordable X price of land value is the difference between 100 non ?affordable? homes and 70 non ?affordable? and 30

?affordable? which you believe will results in the value of X being lower (read below for why that never happens) what happens is either developer does not buys X land because it would be unprofitable = no homes or the developer sits on X land until 100 non ?affordable? homes can be build or an alternative makes a profit.

This thread shows the results = fewer more expensive homes due to a slower process.





WHY is this almost always the case ?

Answer Because of human nature the optimism with the developer ALWAYS results in developers paying X for Y100 non ?affordale? homes and NEVER paying X-30 for Y70 non affordable and Y30 the ?affordable? outcome.

Anyone who?s followed this thread will see that is exactly what happened here.


You conveniently discount this reality.

Send me all links to as many academic expert calculations and papers as you like the reality is once human nature is added into the mix house prices and land values take on a life of their own the result as we see in developments like this and others all over the UK always play out like this one.


If your academic studies worked we would live in a perfect world but we don?t we live in the reality of human nature and that human nature is to expect the best possible outcome so the developers out bid others and pay too much and that results in a need to get the most from the system hence the playing and long slow process.


You see it as developers playing for more.

I see it as a bad system at fault because it isn?t clear it creates confusion loopholes so allows developers to play the ?system? the system is a joke it?s open to manipulation blame the system along with the political BS that is ?affordable homes? pure political garbage. Its only purpose is to allow politicians another sound bite and deceive voters by masking reality.


Yes there?s an argument to say if it was freed up the developers would still want more and more. I disagree if the rules are clear more opportunity and more land would become available the confusion causes price increases and price spikes.


Yes ?houses are expensive in London because lots of people want to live here? also because there?s insufficient supply densities are low / land is inefficiently used.


Our Victorian terraced houses are inefficiently dense when compared to Parisian courtyards but they could be efficiently developed with allowances for extra floors and large extensions on flats and houses. What we have are restrictions and so less sq footage resulting in smaller and fewer homes on existing land. WTF is that about ?


I'm happy to agree to disagree as we see the issues in different ways but we can?t both be correct on this.

Every year that passes with this ?affordable? homes BS and restrictive planning system house prices rise and rise and the new homes targets are missed time and time again it looks like this system isn?t working.


Did they have an ?affordable? house requirement in Victorian times NO

Yet they were able to build hundreds of thousands of homes many we still enjoy today, maybe remove all this BS and get on with some simple rules and we?d have tens of thousands more homes and sensible prices?


We?ll never know if my alternative simple system would work because there are now so many vested interests in keeping the current system as it is.

Planners Architects developers and all the hangers on would earn less under my system though I?m confident we would build a lot more homes and the result would be home prices realigning with reality.


Don?t get me started on government / taxpayer supported over inflated rental system another mess of vested interests mismanagement sky high costs and wasted opportunity.

No Frazer, affordable homes do not cost more to build than they are worth-- there is not a negative cost to building them, they simply don't sell for as much as market rate homes, which is what reduces the land value like for like to be clear. There is no chance of zero profit in London for that scenario.


Developers build the maximum they are permitted to build including affordable housing. I'm not optimistic. When there are no loopholes, developers do not sit on land, they buy it aware of the rules and proceed accordingly. Affordable housing gets built (or contributions towards it paid to the state) without incident all of the world. Other major cities with similar housing problems like NY have clear cut rules that allow this to happen efficiently.


You are simply wrong on this. Some things are a matter of opinion and others are not. Empirically what you are saying is incorrect. I doubt you can admit that but that is a different issue.


You can suggest planning should allow for denser developments and that would potentially lead to more homes being built but that has nothing to do with allowing for section 106 to persist. More market housing would limit price increases and if done to a great enough degree would even lower prices but section 106 doesn't prevent housing being built so your argument against it is nonsensical which is why you constantly go off on tangents about other issues.

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

    • I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂
    • Log in See all News The fightback against Britain’s corporate vets has begun With costs continuing to spiral, angry pet owners and independent practices have had enough of the big companies dominating the industry     481   Gift this article free   Sally Williams 24 August 2025 12:00pm BST Caroline* and Julian* had been married for 10 years before the arrival of Amy, a miniature dachshund. They had different views about pets. She had grown up surrounded by dogs and really missed having one around the house. He was not a dog person.   They had a happy marriage, a lovely house in south London, good jobs (he worked in finance, she for charities). “But we couldn’t have children and so decided having a dog would make our life more complete,” Caroline explains.   Just before the first lockdown of March 2020, they went to a miniature dachshund breeder in Colchester. A tiny bundle of fur with brown eyes looked up at her husband, says Caroline, and in that instant something clicked. “He just fell in love with her. We knew we had to have her.”   From that moment on, Amy was a member of the family. But she didn’t come cheap. There were routine health checks, a monthly parasite treatment, and also cream for mildly flaky skin around her neck and body. Costs really spiralled when Amy started to hop during a holiday in Cornwall when she was six months old. The local vet said she had a “wobbly knee” and suspected a luxating patella (a kneecap that slips out of place; common in small dogs). Back in London, Caroline’s vet thought it could be hip dysplasia where the hip joint doesn’t develop properly.   Over the next six months, Amy had two X-rays under sedation, blood tests, painkilling medication, and multiple trips to a specialist clinic in Guildford, where she had physiotherapy and hydrotherapy at a cost of £75 a session. Eventually, Amy was seen by a leading small-animal specialist at a referral clinic in Kent. He was not able to identify a clear reason for her hopping. Amy, the expert concluded, “should return to a normal life”.   Caroline was lucky she had insurance. But it still fell short of covering the total bill of £5,000. “I don’t know anything about veterinary care, so I just did whatever the vets told us to do,” says Caroline. “We feel they did too much. Amy had treatment she didn’t really need. But of course we agreed to the treatment because we love her and we wanted her to be better.”   Helplessness, panic, a sinking feeling in the stomach – the worry that comes when a pet is in pain can be awful. But so is the cost of treatment. Nationally, pet owners spend around £4bn a year on veterinary services. And yet there is little consensus on prices.   A low risk, high reward opportunity This is one of the concerns being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK competition watchdog, which, after a national outcry about spiralling vet costs, is next month set to announce the provisional decisions from its market investigation into veterinary services for household pets.   This was set up in response to the takeover of veterinary practices by large corporate groups. “Pet owners may not be getting a good deal or receiving the information they need to make good choices,” it stated at the launch of the market review in September 2023.   The CMA has addressed many unfair, monopolistic practices in its 10-year history, such as funeral companies and airport services. It currently has 63 “live cases/ investigations”, including Ticketmaster (triggered by the dynamic pricing for tickets for the Oasis Live ’25 Tour) and Google, the US technology giant, for its dominance in the online search market.   But the investigation into vets and pets was exceptionally wide-ranging. It included hands-on site visits, teach-ins and round-table discussions with professionals, businesses and the public at large. This is not unusual. The idea is to share knowledge. What has been extraordinary is the unprecedented response.     More than 56,000 people (45,000 pet owners and 11,000 veterinary professionals) replied to the CMA’s online questionnaire. To get 56,000 people to do anything is impressive. To get 56,000 people to respond to a consultation by the CMA is unheard of.   Our devotion to pets is big business. Several factors have come into play. More people are living alone – 8.4 million people, or 30 per cent of all households, in 2023, according to the Office for National Statistics – and fewer people are having babies. Both have combined to deepen our relationship with pets.   There were, it transpires, more Google searches for “is my dog happy” than “is my kid happy” according to a report called Pets are the New Kids from Google in 2022. Of course, it’s not entirely clear if that’s because human children can talk, whereas barks can be confusing. But the sentiment is revealing. Owners are concerned about their dogs’ wellbeing.   What’s more, they are willing to go into debt to cover their pets’ medical bills.   Big money investors noticed the “humanisation” of pets, advances in veterinary care and the scale of ownership – there was a spike during lockdown when 3.2 million households acquired a pet with more than half of UK households now owning an animal – and saw an enticing formula. The field was viewed as low-risk/high-reward, according to a report issued by Capstone Partners in 2022.     The structure of UK veterinary services created an opportunity. In 1999, the law was changed to allow non-vets to own veterinary practices. What’s more, the UK has a relaxed regulatory environment. Veterinary surgeons are regulated by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. But veterinary practices are not. The market was wide open.   In 2013, only about 10 per cent of vet practices belonged to large groups. Today, almost 60 per cent are owned by the “Big Six”: IVC Evidensia, CVS, Medivet, Pets at Home, Linnaeus and VetPartners. Of these, IVC, Medivet and VetPartners are owned or backed by private equity firms – investment funds that purchase companies with the aim of delivering profits to their shareholders.   Nestlé (of Cheerios and Shredded Wheat fame) is one of the groups behind the largest owner of veterinary services in the UK, IVC Evidensia, which operates more than 1,000 veterinary practices (out of a total of 5,331 in the UK). It also owns 60-plus emergency out-of-hours hospitals, through Vets Now. Not to mention PawSquad, an online telehealth service, pet funeral and cremation businesses and Pet Drugs Online – an online pharmacy selling pet medication.   EQT, the world’s third-largest private equity firm, controls IVC Evidensia which has an estimated annual revenue of over £221m. Nestlé acquired a stake in IVC in 2021.   Medivet owns more than 400 veterinary centres across the UK, including the Skeldale Veterinary Centre in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, the practice made famous by the semi-biographical books of James Herriot (real name Alf Wight) in the 1970s. It is controlled by the private equity firm CVC Capital Partners.   As big businesses bought up veterinary clinics, prices began to rise – a lot. Vet bills soared by more 60 per cent between 2015 and 2023, higher than the rate of inflation, which was around 35 per cent.     The stakes are high in veterinary medicine. More pets are being put down due to rising vet bills, according to a BBC report. “The sad thing is people are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost,” says Melanie Weatherall, owner and director of Oxford Cat Clinic, a cat-only clinic in Oxford. “We had a cat yesterday that had died on the way to the clinic. The lady was hysterical. She was beating herself up because she felt she should have got the cat to us sooner. There are things we could have done, but it was too late.”   Lack of transparency is another complaint. Six years ago, Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine, went to an emergency out-of-hours vet to have Oscar, her beloved bearded collie, put down. He was 16, had a growing list of things wrong and had been hit by a particularly bad bout of pancreatitis. “I could tell he was in terrible pain,” she says. “I wanted the nearest vet who could put him out of his misery in the most gentle way possible.”   She arrived at the vets with her family who had come to say goodbye. But to Cuddy, the clinic felt transactional. “They wouldn’t even look at the dog until they’d swiped a credit card. Then they started upselling me to a crematorium. I wasn’t ready for that. But they wanted to put it on the credit card. I thought, whatever. And they gave me a leaflet that looked like a beautiful family-run place.”   She and Oscar went into a room while her family waited outside. “I was on a cold floor with Oscar. There was no blanket. It was cold in every way.” She cradled him in her arms. “He was blind and I wanted him to hear my voice, smell my scent, know he was safe, even though the place was alien.   “Afterwards I just wanted to go home to cry. I left him on the floor and was given an itemised bill. It was massive. About £1,000 including the cremation. A lot of money to pay for a very miserable experience. I went home and after I stopped crying I googled the crematorium. Turns out it was part of the same corporate chain as the out-of-hours surgery.”   Today, two of the Big Six veterinary groups own pet crematoria. “The ownership of pet crematoria by the large veterinary corporate groups clearly has an impact on our independent businesses,” states the Association of Private Pet Cemeteries and Crematoria in its submission to the CMA. “The ownership of these crematoriums is often not declared, even on their websites and they appear to be independent.”   “It’s quite hard for normal pet owners to spot how all these things are linked,” says Cuddy. “It’s not like we can see the McDonald’s golden arches everywhere.”   ‘All of us are buyable’ It turns out, furthermore, that there is another consequence of the “corporatisation” of veterinary clinics. Sarah’s cat was 12 when the vet diagnosed suspected cancer, around six years ago. Her local, independent vet in London had just been taken over by Medivet. “The vet said, ‘We’ll do a biopsy’, which involved cutting her open and removing all the tumours and sewing her up again.” The price: £1,000. “I was going to do it,” Sarah says, “and then I thought, I can’t put her through that. In the old days animals got sick and died. The vet wasn’t pushing it, he just assumed this is what you do: I’ve got an elderly cat with suspected cancer, we’ll immediately do a massive operation. I just thought, this is a bit insane.”   Sarah decided against the treatment. Her cat died from cancer “very peacefully at home” six months later. “She just stopped eating and slept all day and then she died, which to me is how it should be.”   Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean it should be done, says Bruce Fogle, vet for 55 years and the owner of London Vets, an independent practice in London (and father of Ben Fogle). “A diagnostically aggressive and expensive American approach to vet medicine has become standard in the UK,” he told Instagram followers during a recent discussion on the rise of “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” in corporately owned clinics.   Bruce Fogle has been approached many times to sell his practice, but has always said no Bruce Fogle has been approached many times to sell his practice, but has always said no Credit: Jeff Gilbert What is best for the animal is not necessarily best for maximising profits. “A corporation doesn’t have a moral core to it,” Fogle tells me. “The aim of any corporation is to increase the financial return.”   For their part, IVC Evidensia, CVS and Medivet point out that corporate veterinary practices benefit from extensive clinical expertise and significant financial investment not available to independent practice. All treatment decisions are based on clinical considerations and in clear consultation with the owner. Furthermore, each has co-operated with the CMA and is fully supportive of all efforts to deliver overall sector improvements including better pricing transparency.   In 2022, Medivet was buying veterinary practices at great speed – 86 that year alone – so by April, it operated 390 clinics across the UK, arranged in a “hub-and-spoke” model, where smaller first-opinion practices encircled larger specialist hospitals that were open all day, every day.   Corporates were “aggressive in their acquisition strategy”, says David Reader, who teaches competition law at Glasgow University. “Rolling up of local independent practices under a single ownership umbrella for the purpose of boosting the value of the collective fleet.” Reader and his frequent collaborator Scott Summers, an expert in business law at UEA Norwich Business School, are in the middle of a project looking at the consequences of private equity and corporate control of the veterinary market. “Pet owners in rural areas, in particular, lose out when the local vet is bought and shut down,” says Summers.   But then, corporate chains were in a powerful position. They could offer to buy practices for “eight, nine, 10 times the profit of the business and it would still be profitable to them because they knew they could improve the efficiency”, says Fogle. “There are great efficiencies in running a number of businesses through a head office. If I own 20 practices and I need 20 X-ray machines, I’m going to get a far better price than if I was just buying one.”   Fogle has been approached many times to sell, but has always said no. “But if I were younger and had to pay for my children’s education, say, or university fees, I’d have been an idiot to turn it down. All of us are buyable.”     As it turned out, in January 2023, eight or so months before the current inquiry, the CMA turned its attention to Medivet’s purchase of 17 independent veterinary clinics bought between September 2021 and September 2022. The CMA was concerned that the new purchases squeezed out any competition in the local market.   But before an in-depth review could get under way, Medivet offered to dispose of the practices that were the subject of the merger investigation. (The same thing happened when the CMA launched a review into specific purchases by CVS, VetPartners and IVC; each offered to sell off the practices.) In October 2023, Medivet sold the 17 practices at a loss of £21.9m.   Will Chandler, 38, qualified as a vet 13 years ago. In his view, the dichotomy of corporate (bad) vs independent (good) is too simplistic. “There are some very well managed corporate clinics,” he says. They can provide better, more sophisticated equipment and more opportunities for advancement. But as lead vet for a Medivet clinic in London, where he worked for six years, it sometimes felt like “all the responsibility and none of the power”.   He describes an environment of unrelenting pressure and a culture of price inflation. He had little influence over hiring staff. “I wasn’t given any CVs, any choice about which candidates to interview.” And with a large corporate structure, “I was always on my phone at weekends, in case someone had a question. And it wasn’t even my business.”   Chandler wanted to go it alone. But he was constrained by a “non-compete” clause which prevented any veterinary business within a very tight radius around a Medivet clinic from opening. “Considering Medivet has 70-odd clinics in London, it’s almost impossible to find an area where you could set up a clinic without triggering a non-compete issue.”   ‘We’re not owned by somebody in an office in a different country’ When he heard that Medivet were selling off clinics at knockdown prices, he jumped at the opportunity. He is now the co-owner of Brockwell Vets in Herne Hill, south London. His business partner is Jenny Kalogera, a veterinary surgeon and original owner of Brockwell Vets, who’d sold it to Medivet in 2021.   “She didn’t like how it was run. Clients went elsewhere, and that was sad for her to see. When it was up for sale, I approached her. She said: ‘Why don’t we go into partnership together?’”   “People love that we are independent,” says Chandler. He is now proud to set his own prices. “We charge £49.50 for a consultation and our dental fee is around £400 – significantly cheaper than the local corporate vet.”   The Oxford Cat Clinic is another practice that was bought back from Medivet as a consequence of the CMA’s merger investigation. Weatherall, 58, had worked as the practice manager at the clinic for nine or so years when it was bought by Medivet in June 2022. She stayed on, along with the vets who’d founded the clinic 16 years before.   Barely six months later, in January 2023, the CMA started to investigate and the clinic’s relationship with Medivet was paused. “We didn’t have a lot of time to be absorbed into the great Medivet machine,” says Weatherall. But it was long enough to get an insight into how things worked.   “In a big corporate environment, you haven’t got the people who make decisions on the ground with you. It’s all centralised which is obviously more cost-effective. Which meant, for example, that we had to wait an interminable amount of time to get permission to buy anything, or if anything breaks – if a door handle comes off, you’ve got to wait for someone to come out and fix it, even though it could be driving the team mad.”   When Medivet put the Oxford Cat Clinic up for sale, Weatherall decided to buy it. “I wanted to keep it out of the hands of the corporate. It’s really good for our clients to know we’re locally run. We’re not owned by somebody who’s in an office, sometimes in a different country, even, who has no idea what’s going on.”   Melanie Weatherall: 'People are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost' Melanie Weatherall: ‘People are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost’ Credit: Harry Lawlor She talks about “pragmatic” care. “I adopted a cat recently. He was a stray. He had a damaged leg. We could have had about £3,000-plus of surgery to repair the leg, but did an amputation in the surgery because that’s a cheaper option and a reasonable option.”   There should be budget vet options, says Paul Mankelow, chief vet at the Blue Cross animal charity. “I can walk into an Aldi and know it’s a different proposition to Waitrose. Similarly, do I want to fly easyJet or Emirates? It’s very clear. But it’s not clear in the veterinary market.”   But running an independent practice is not easy. “I don’t draw any money from the business,” says Weatherall. “I earn no profit whatsoever. I want to change that.”   Sadly, it looks as if the CMA market investigation is not going to be quite as effective as everyone hoped. One of its purposes was to address alleged monopolistic pricing and ownership in the veterinary industry. But there are signs the investigation has pivoted away from the more profound problems of the corporate sector.   This January, Marcus Bokkerink stepped down as chair of the CMA, just three years into his role, as the watchdog moves to better align itself with the Government’s “push for growth”. “The Government’s strategic steer to the CMA is that it shouldn’t be doing anything which gives any outward impression that the UK is not business- or investment-friendly,” says Reader. Doug Gurr, a former head of Amazon UK, is now the interim chair.   “That doesn’t mean no regulation – we all want to see safe, high-quality care. But the system has to be fair and proportionate for both large national groups and small local practices,” says Martin Coleman, chair of the CMA’s inquiry group.   “We’re very supportive of the investigation, we’re glad it’s happening. However, one of our concerns is that the remedies won’t go far enough to put any real constraints on business, but they will go far enough to create extra work and additional paperwork for people working on the front line of veterinary medicine,” says Suzanna Hudson-Cooke, branch chairman of the British Veterinary Union in Unite.   “Initially, I thought it would be great. Now I think I was naive,” says Chandler. “As a small business, we’re looking potentially at an increase in administrative burden and we’re meant to be a clinic that the CMA looks after.”   *Names have been changed     Join the conversation   Show 481 comments The Telegraph values your comments but kindly requests all posts are on topic, constructive and respectful. Please review our commenting policy. Related Topics Telegraph long reads, Dogs, Cats, Animals                         © Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited 2025  
    • @malumbu your original post is a bit confising with multiple, possibly unrelated,  concepts thrown together. Let's address the title of the thread. What are you looking for here, objecting to people flying their national flag? Tying to draw extreme comments out or associating flag flying with the far right ?  The real qquestion possibly is should we feel ashamed to fly the flag? Possibly not, however the reasons for flying it should not be hijacked by political or extremism motivations.  We shouldn't be ashamed of our flag, but a minority seem to be using ir to incite hatred against others.  Therefore the real debate should be around how to remove the extremist views from ability to put a flag up?  I don't have an answer and we won't get one on here but good to have a discussion that may stir a few thoughts. 
    • The mission is clear: lift the Union Jack higher than ever
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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