Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Drxyster Wrote:

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

> I understand from a very good friend who lives in

> Lewisham, that Lewisham Council are also proposing

> the implementation of a CPZ.

> I am told that Lewisham Council is being taken to

> court, by a resident or residents, claiming this

> action is illegal.

> Lewisham Council have suspended the implementation

> of the CPZ until they have a definitive ruling

> from the court.


Very interesting. Anyone up for some crowd funding to challenge the outcome in Dulwich?

> I am told that Lewisham Council is being taken to

> court, by a resident or residents, claiming this

> action is illegal.


Any idea of which specific aspect?


I see btw that, in pursuance of the reduction of pollution, Lewisham propose a banding of charges, based on vahicle CO2 emission bands. https://lewisham.gov.uk/articles/news/we-are-proposing-to-consult-on-our-parking-policy

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> I have recently bought a car again. In the greater

> scheme of things, barely ?10 to ensire I can park

> is a bargain. Dont see what all the fuss is about

> to be honest.


The fuss is that it's ten pounds where as currently it's not charged for, and even then it doesn't guarantee you can park in your own road so you are being charged for less spaces and status quo in terms of guaranteeing a space.

What I don't understand is why residents who live just outside the zone are not permitted to buy a permit. Commuters were the clear and intended target of the whole exercise so the fact that residents like us will inevitably suffer huge inconvenience is intolerable and utterly unfair.
If you live outside the zone and are worried that the CPZ will result in increased parking in your street buying a permit is unlikely to help as it won't guarantee a space . And the hope of parking in the zone will increasingly fade if the permits were sold to a wider public .

Given London councils are still in breach of 2010 air quality limits, they have to take action so this suggested legal case sounds doomed. Needless to say the climate emergency also has some relevance.


After road/congestion charging, parking controls and charges are the most effective means to cut motor traffic, and with it air pollution and CO2 emissions. Over 3/4 of those surveyed in Southwark's biggest consultation exercises supported cutting traffic and concern about climate change is at record levels. So the borough has compelling grounds to take action. The mayor's policy requires Southwark to ensure "London?s streets will be used more efficiently and have less traffic on them", so Southwark has adopted policies to "Introduce a borough wide CPZ & Review parking charges to charge most polluting vehicles more." The time limit for challenging that is over and any CPZ decision taken on the basis of that policy will be robust.


The suggestion that parking policies are about favouring driving residents over driving commuters is not true and not reflected in any borough policy.


That's not of course to say everyone will or should agree with parking controls, at least those who don't could suggest alternatives to cut emissions to respect the desires of the majority for a healthier, greener borough.

Rofflick writes:

"After road/congestion charging, parking controls and charges are the most effective means to cut motor traffic, and with it air pollution and CO2 emissions."


The Council's Transport Plan Annual Monitoring Report 17-18 seems to indicate otherwise. It states:

"While the aim of increasing parking controls is to dissuade private car ownership, other forms of transport that are replacing this must be acknowledged. This includes on-demand services, such as Uber, and car rent options such as car clubs. Zipcar is one such club and the data presented shows a rapid increase in use over the last five years. This shows that there are alternatives in Southwark to traditional forms of transport and that they are growing ? and will continue to grow ? at a fast rate."


It reports 135% increase in individual zip car registrations in 5 years, 47% of that in the last year. while "car ownership fluctuating between 56.500 and 59,000 over the last 7 years"


"The greatest decrease (in car ownership) has been observed in the light goods category".


The last point, of course, means locally resident tradespeople are being driven out of business. Local work still needs to be done, but presumably by tradespeople driving in from out of town.


MarkT

rollflick Wrote:

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

> [...]

>

> After road/congestion charging, parking controls

> and charges are the most effective means to cut

> motor traffic, and with it air pollution and CO2

> emissions. Over 3/4 of those surveyed in

> Southwark's biggest consultation exercises

> supported cutting traffic and concern about

> climate change is at record levels. So the borough

> has compelling grounds to take action. The mayor's

> policy requires Southwark to ensure "London?s

> streets will be used more efficiently and have

> less traffic on them", so Southwark has adopted

> policies to "Introduce a borough wide CPZ & Review

> parking charges to charge most polluting vehicles

> more." The time limit for challenging that is

> over and any CPZ decision taken on the basis of

> that policy will be robust.


None of this has any relevance to a small CPZ covering a few streets around East Dulwich station. If the residents of that area are happy then good for them. However the CPZ will do precisely nothing to cut the volume of through traffic on any of the routes through this area. It really is absurd to suggest that it will when we have virtually stationary queues of traffic which we can all see every morning and evening on these routes. Southwark council cannot dictate the number of cars allowed to drive along the South Circular, the Old Kent Road or anywhere else in the borough. So instead of solving the problem, they try and use the problem to charge residents who own cars a poll tax. How can any rational person think that just giving Southwark council an extra ?125 will solve anything, much less climate change? In the 80s Southwark was declared a nuclear free zone. That did not end the Cold War. Now Southwark has declared a climate emergency. Perhaps this will have more impact, but I doubt it.


>

> The suggestion that parking policies are about

> favouring driving residents over driving commuters

> is not true and not reflected in any borough

> policy.


This statement is totally ridiculous. The whole argument made in the council's CPZ consultation proposal was that residents were asking for a CPZ because they wanted to be able to park their cars. This was restated by local councillors at a meeting I attended in April. Now if you are saying that what the council says is a lie and that they have a hidden agenda, then many would agree with you.


>

> That's not of course to say everyone will or

> should agree with parking controls, at least those

> who don't could suggest alternatives to cut

> emissions to respect the desires of the majority

> for a healthier, greener borough.


No. The people who are in favour of new policies should be the ones explaining how their proposals will actually achieve their desired outcomes. How exactly does a CPZ cut through traffic? How exactly does charging residents a fee for parking their cars outside their houses cut air pollution? Why would a charge of ?125 change the behaviour of someone who can afford to keep a car on the road in any case?


To cut traffic effectively we would need to introduce a national road pricing scheme, but the people running this country would regard that as too difficult.


To cut CO2 emissions we need to build all the nuclear power stations we should have built in the 70s and 80s, but didn't because of superstitious idiots. All the people who were against nuclear power then should take their share of responsibility for the carbon emissions they opted for instead. With a nuclear reactor you can even make jet fuel out of sea water https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-whats-catch-180953623/#YLDSdRRsTxzzwUFH.99

In the 80s Southwark was declared a nuclear free zone. As indeed was Greenwich - both declarations seemed entirely 'safe' (nice bit of virtue signalling, nothing needing to be done) - but of course Greenwich had, (a State Secret at the time) a working nuclear generator - in The Royal Naval College - as it was then - to train submariner engineers - it was sited in the Queen Mary Building. Not that powerful, of course, but still Greenwich was anything but a nuclear free zone. And Southwark did of course benefit from electricity generated by nuclear power throughout its 'nuclear free' status.
It's all good and well making driving more difficult, but this needs to be met with equal efforts to make alternatives easier / more attractive. Public transport in this part of town is terrible (at least compared to the rest of Inner London). Cycling infrastructure is improving massively, especially in the centre of town, but is still pretty weak locally. If Southwark are serious about creating 'healthy streets', they would have a massive programme of pedestrianisation, build segregated cycle lanes and lobby hard for improvements to the suburban train services in SE London and to extend high frequency urban transport / the tube.

This doesn't even make driving more difficult! The whole point of it is to make driving easier. The people that wanted this CPZ the most were those who get in their car every morning, pop out for a little drive and then find a commuter in 'their' parking spot when they get home.


These people want to be able to drive to wherever they are going (presumably parking somewhere?) and still have their parking space once they've driven home. And the CPZ enables and makes those journeys a lot esaier...

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> This doesn't even make driving more difficult! The

> whole point of it is to make driving easier. The

> people that wanted this CPZ the most were those

> who get in their car every morning, pop out for a

> little drive and then find a commuter in 'their'

> parking spot when they get home.

>

> These people want to be able to drive to wherever

> they are going (presumably parking somewhere?) and

> still have their parking space once they've driven

> home. And the CPZ enables and makes those journeys

> a lot esaier...


This is very true. It does likely encourage short local car journeys.

I am on the Lewisham side of Sydenham Hill at Crystal Palace Parade end. In March 2018 Southwark Council secretly in the middle of the night under the pretence of re-tarmacing the road extended the bus lane and double yellow lines resulting in the lost of 20 street car parking spaces on both the Lewisham and Southwark sides. This was done without a public consultation and instead using TFL's initiative as an excuse. We contacted TFL and they came back to say Sydenham Hill is not under their control. The parking restrictions were supposed to be 24/7 despite Sydenham Hill being a relatively quiet road.Obviously, residents and properties affected raised their objections.


Southwark, knowing this was illegal, undertook a residents consultation in June 2018 and the objections to the bus lane and double yellow lines were overwhelming. Not accepting the June 2018 results, Southwark conducted another residents consultation in June this year and the result was the same. We knew this by talking to residents affected. Southwark did not want to furnish the results of both consultations to us. So to date the bus lane and double yellow extension is left as it was and residents continue to park on it knowing the restrictions cannot be implemented.

pretty tricky....if a resident that lives in the CPZ doesn't want to spend money on the permit or against it, or with no money for that. it Will for sure park few roads away in some parking free zone street. Basically the area where is free zone will be assaulted by many extra vehicles looking for the free parking. As consequence the residents will complain...Hence soon the Council has white paper to declare all East Dulwich CPZ, as such imposing charges to everybody. Simple as that ...cleverly masterminded...

It's not that clever pagan, it's been pretty obvious for a number of years as they slowly creep bit by bit through the borough with their stealth tax scheme.


Presumably the change to all day is to catch out people who are waiting to pick someone up from the train station. Otherwise there would be no PCN revenues at all. We will see if the traffic wardens hang around waiting to ticket people at rush hour.

The Sydenham Hill Bus Lane Improvement Notice is dated 28 March 2019 - one year after Southwark secretly extended the bus lane and double yellow lines without prior consultation. As Southwark did not follow proper protocol, following the June 2018 and March 2019 (I mentioned June 2019 in error) residents consultations overwhelming objections the extended bus lane restriction has to date not been enforced.

What annoys me about the whole thing is the pretence that it's about encouraging 'healthy streets' and 'active travel' It is not. It's about appeasing residents who want to keep a car outside their house.

How about closing some streets to traffic, giving space over to bikes and put real effort into lobbying for public transport improvements in the borough.

Having read the reasons for the decision this makes sense. The proposal was for one two hour zone but there was a suggestion that the zone was split in two and the East Dulwich one operated all day due issues that will arise from parking related to the school / health centre. The full day zone was also suggested, according to the reasons for decision, as the option to go with the shorter time was possible without going back to committee. I can see the health centre will cause parking need all day so a two hour zone isn?t going to have the same impact it did in zone Q where commuter parking was the main issue, but will work for the West Peckham Zone which has the same issues. Its not a fix all but it will address the problem raised.


You can see the committee papers here

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=6916


If you want to respond then you can do that online or by email. The reference is ?TMO1920-025 E Dulwich parking zone?. Responses are to be submitted by 17 October 2019.


The TMO is at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/10536/E-Dulwich-area-parking-zone-ED-notice-dated-19-Sept-2019-.pdf


The response form can be found at https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1081 or emails can be sent to [email protected]

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 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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