Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...

Looks like Southwark will be pulling off the miracle of a white (wash) Christmas


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50021413&Opt=0


Decision not before 23rd December but you can bet it happens over Christmas and the resident and business objections have been disregarded


As said before by others, the council see it as a way of supplementing their coffers as whilst the revenue raised from it is ring fenced, it doesn't stop them from reducing how much other funding is placed in the road improvement pot by the same amount as the cpz generates and moving that funding elsewhere


Some call it creative accounting...

It is interesting that the council is now open to reducing double yellows on some streets within the proposed CPZ to create more permit spaces. Yet, not so long ago, extending double yellows, thereby artificially creating parking pressure, was pushed through by the council as a vital safety measure.

What a stitch up! Much reduced parking on MG as a result. Double yellows over all the dropped curbs and beyond, you couldn't park a mini on most of these 'driveways' so anyone that used to park over their frontage will now compete for residents bays. At the northern end over 30 properties are eligible for permits for about 5 spaces up to the middle of MG. And 125 quid charge for the privilege.


I find it disgraceful that southwark have fudged this through with the support of a small vocal minority.


Anyone else feel like not buying a permit or paying the fines? I don't see that any objections were given due consideration. Expect the zone to creep within a year.

34 objections, 33 rejected. This borough is like North Korea. I hope we all remember this when the next local elections come around. No support from our local councillors (again)


Can I perhaps refer you back to a thread I started in March this (just!) year.


https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2015611,2027910#msg-2027910

parking (excuse the pun) the merits and problems of a CPZ for the moment, does anybody know what happens next and when ?

i.e. when will be see new lines being painted and permits issued/enforced ?

I read somewhere about a formal consultation period - is that whats currently happening ?

I would support wide spread traffic exclusion in an attempt to increase active travel and to improve the environment. I strongly disapprove of privatising public space for car storage in this way. It's go nothing to do with 'health streets' and I wish the council would be straight forward about it.

The approach seems to constantly knee jerk to a shouty minority, rather than take a considered strategic approach to managing traffic in the area.

I have not read all the posts but in case this is being monitored by local Councillors to keep abreast of local views.

1. I agree with rahrahrah- we need to discourage car ownership and use in the local area.

2. Roads are owned by all-including those without a car, so reasonable that car owners pay more to use the space.

3. Current Borough wide permit system for CPZ is too liberal, up to three permits per address and no increase in charges for second and third permits. I suggest limit of two and increase in fee for second car to discourage multiple car ownership.

Number and size of cars (SUV!!)does seem to be increasing. All the fuss about single use plastic etc. and carbon emissions from vehicles which is 18% (I think) must be increasing!!

The increase in SUVs is ridiculous. If we really want to get people our of their cars then there needs to be a great deal more pedestrianisation in the area and segregated / traffic free cycle and pedestrian routes between local schools, public transport hubs and town centres. I would also like to see electric bike hire schemes encouraged in the south of the borough. Currently they do not operate in East Dulwich.

Update: Cabinet approves CPZ as proposed.


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50021413&Opt=0


Received this email today:


Good morning,




I am writing in response to your representation, or request for project updates, to the East Dulwich Controlled Parking Zone.




In accordance with Regulation 13 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 the council has considered your representation and a decision has been taken by the relevant decision maker as set out in the Southwark Council?s constitution.




Consideration of the representation




Your representation was considered by The Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and the Climate Emergency on 23 December 2019.




Summary of decision




In consideration of any objections received, the council has:




Determined each of the objections included in the correspondence, in line with the reasoning in Appendix 1 of the report

Decided to make the traffic management order as originally proposed.



Reasons for decision




The reasons for the decision can be found here.




Traffic Orders:




In view of the above, the council will make the following orders and a notice of making will be published:




The London Borough of Southwark (Parking places) (Parking zone 'ED') (No. *) Order 202*


The London Borough of Southwark (Free parking places) (No. *) Order 202*


The London Borough of Southwark (Free parking places) (Solo motor cycles) (No. *) Order 202*


The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. *) Order 202*




Further information




For further details on the project including the latest programme information, please see the project webpage here. Should you require any further information, please contact us via email at [email protected].




Kind regards,




Rebecca Barkham




Project Manager


Highways | Department Environment & Leisure


London Borough of Southwark


PO Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX




Visitors: 160 Tooley Street, SE1 2QH

No, a serious question. I'm aware this seems to be important for some, but it's not for me and not for my circle of friends and colleagues. I view the problem of emissions as serious, but otherwise I view cars as valuable and I have no plans to live a carless life anytime soon.

Huggers Wrote:

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

> CPZ will make no difference to amount of cars

> used, but might stop peoples non local relatives

> parking their campervans in the streets. Its a

> cynical financial thing for the council. We voted

> against it but they are pushing it through anyway.


Don't quite understand the obsession with how much this costs. It's a tiny fraction of the cost of running a car.


I am considering getting rid of my car as a result of this (and the ULEZ), given that living in London it is rarely required (going to the tip and B+Q are my only uses for it really).

Agree with your previous posts about reducing car use and I believe that the CPZ will reduce commuters traveling to and parking in the CPZ area. I think it's a step in the right direction and certainly doesn't encourage people to keep a car due to the additional cost and less availability of parking due to parking controls.



rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The CPZ is not about reducing car use. If anything

> it encourages people to keep a car. It certainly

> increases the already high sense of entitlement

> that most car users have with regards domination

> over public space.

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...