Jump to content

Recommended Posts

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I don?t think people are going to disagree on this

> thread - they just don?t think the particular

> configuration of closures in this area are an

> acceptable tool to encourage people to drive less,

> because of the collateral damage.

>

> I?m not going to drive less, though, as I don?t

> have a licence and don?t drive :)

>

>

>

> SE22_2020er Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I've had a brilliant idea to solve the problem.

>

> > DRIVE LESS!!!!

> >

> > I think the one thing that everyone agrees on

> this

> > thread is that there is too much pollution

> caused

> > by people driving. No-one has said that they

> > want to see more cars on the road. Or have I

> > missed those posts?

> >

> > So, what you should be doing fellow posters is

> > focussing on the root cause of the problem

> which

> > is too many people driving and not enough

> people

> > using public transport and active transport

> > (walking and cycling).

> >

> > Am I the only one who is keeping their fingers

> > crossed that we will get the congestion charge

> > implemented soon so that people who pollute are

> > financially penalised for their pollution?


Spot on legal. The LTNs don't take enough cars off the road to prevent increased congestion and pollution on tbe roads not closed. LTNs are a very blunt instrument that do nothing more than to create a reduced car nirvana within them and pollution hell around and outside them. Even if you remove the unnecessary local journeys made by Dulwich residents you probably only get a low single figure % of reduced car use which is not nearly enough to not cause displacement problems elsewhere. Remember the best claimed reduction in car use from an LTN was 11% and I suspect that was not in an area with as complex traffic challenges as Dulwich.


Schools go back tomorrow so we are likely to see the first phase of the return of the increased congestion from the LTNs and it will increase again with each phase of lifting.


Just saw this....it's as if each council is following the same playbook word for word...


https://youtu.be/RMPmPi1aayE

I think it is nice to see the kids back, but not the parents who fling their arms around each other as if they were not in a pandemic! (Agree with the pavement cyclists, especially those ones who think that guiding their children on their bikes gives them the right to barrel along a narrow footpath!)

Hi Heartblock - when I cycled my children to school this morning we went from Lordship Lane up to the lights by Townley road. It was at 8am and the traffic was absolutely fine. At the lights by Townley road there was a queue of 3 cars when the light turned green.


At what time did the the traffic get bad?

Thank you for the link Concerned.


This is a petition asking for a control over what councils are doing regarding the road closures.



Concerned2021 Wrote:

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

> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/550887

I noticed this morning that monitoring strips are in on Lordship Lane near the Melford Road junction (they have been there for a while) but previously (during the last lockdown lift in November/December) they had been situated near the junction with Mount Adon.


Ex- is there a reason why the strips get moved and are not monitoring in the same place as previously?

James McAsh is not my councillor but he says a lot on behalf of the council, and says things our councillors in Village Ward should expect to say to us their ward constituents, discuss with us and for us to see them acted upon.


October 14th 2020. I'm copying in almost all of it as it appertains to any area with LTNs and traffic building up on the roads that have to take the overflow. Councillor McCash writes:


" .......They cover the intentions behind the scheme, the process by which they have been implemented and what I think should be the next steps. It is also an attempt to honestly acknowledge the mistakes and shortcomings on the part of the council, and indeed on the part of us Goose Green councillors.



It's useful to hear the wide range of perspectives.


-----------

WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE?

In my view, we need to look at the effects across the whole area but also on individual streets.


The two key criteria are?air pollution?and?traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall.


But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a?social justice?approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them.


We have a new Leader of the Council, Cllr Kieron Williams, and this approach is already reflected in his leadership team. Instead of creating a post for ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?, he appointed Cllr Radha Burgess as Deputy Cabinet Member for ?Low Traffic Southwark?. The shift in emphasis is important: we want to reduce traffic across all of Southwark, not segregate ?low traffic? and ?high traffic? neighbourhoods. (To be clear, this is not the intention of LTN measures, but if they do not work properly this can be the outcome).


WHAT NEXT?

I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors:


- Overall levels of pollution

- Overall levels of traffic

- The ?social justice? implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?).


We will learn more from this evaluation process but here are my initial thoughts:


- Local businesses on Melbourne Grove, Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and elsewhere need support from the council: there should be a joined-up approach between councillors, the highways team and the local economy team.

- Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street are clearly experiencing problems which can and should be remedied, probably fairly cheaply.

- The junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane has long been a problem, and this has only got worse.

- Nurseries, schools and hospitals should be considered ?vulnerable hubs? which we prioritise for protection from pollution."


So now I'm asking, in all humility, what has happened? This is damning for Councillor McCash and all his fellow councillors, because we in the south of the Borough know what has happened: NOTHING.

Update on today?s cabinet meeting,

Cabinet received 24 questions from members of the public and has provided written responses to all questions, no supplementary questions were allowed at the meeting due to number involved and not wanting to unfairly prioritise some questions over others. Questions largely related to review of street space measures in Dulwich - those involved can be involved in the review process as it launches in coming days and weeks.


The two deputation requests on the review of low traffic measures were refused, on the basis that those concerned will have a chance to participate in the review process in a number of ways, eg meetings with cabinet members, formal consultations.


ETA clearly some discussion in the chat function by those unhappy not to be allowed to speak, subsequent commentary from Cllr Williams re point of deputations being to make Cabinet aware issues exist - and that everyone able to have their voice heard in the review process.







Sent from my iPhone

An article in a transport magazine about the school run and changes to behaviour. Some have grasped the opportunity to use the car less, although many haven't and some have shifted to driving. Survey size is a bit piddly.


https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/news.php/Has-Covid-19-changed-the-school-run-617/?utm_source=Transport+Times&utm_campaign=b00d95f2ab-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_30_11_03_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c0cafa3f39-b00d95f2ab-250793593


Short quote from the blog: Our survey showed that the majority of respondents (80%) hadn't changed the way they travel to school since the start of the pandemic. Of the participants who hadn't changed the way they travelled, more than 60% walk for at least part of their journey, and just over one-fifth cycled or scooted for at least part of their journey. Almost 40% used the car for some or all of their journey.


Interestingly, of those participants who had changed the way they travel to school, over half were now walking for at least part of their journey, and over one-third cycling. Alarmingly, some respondents had shifted to using the car, with over half of those who had changed their travel behaviour, using the car for at least some of their journey.

I suspect we?re not going to get a really accurate picture until everyone is allowed to return to workplaces. There will be some who feel they can do the school run with active travel while working from home but can?t / don?t feel they can once a commute to work is factored in.

Watching last night?s Environment Scrutiny Commission on catch up. So far


- sounds like quite a few members of the public dialled in , the chair did a good job of explaining the point of Commission meetings. Big fan of Cllr Ochere in the chair.

- there is a firm plan to exempt blue badge holders, just subject to ward councillors receiving advance note of the public comms. (Presumably this can only apply to camera controlled closures - that wasn?t expressly stated. As I understand it each blue badge holder will be able to nominate a vehicle - doesn?t have to be their own)

- discussion with ambulance guy. Comms with council now fortnightly and going well. Wasn?t great at start when all schemes went in at once (not just a Southwark related problem). Discussions need to be more linked up with TfL and neighbouring boroughs going forward. He comes on again to express a clear preference for cameras rather than planters and points out the emergency responders are broader than what people might think eg network of people who jump in their car and bring a defibrillator, and that the impact of schemes on nurses, social carers, people travelling by car to cancer appointments etc also need to be considered

- good question from one of the councillors about the need for robust data and the fact that talking in percentages is unhelpful eg a small reduction in traffic on a quiet road gives a big percentage, a much larger increase in traffic on a busy road can give a small percentage. Requested that council make relevant data available to public as ?open data?


- Cllr Morris suggests that too much was done too soon and that council officers have basically been swamped as a result. May need to bring in more resource to deal with monitoring and engagement (aim for ?calmer streets and calmer residents?). Some acknowledgement about workload. Unrelated, mentioned that there?s a new director of environment appointed 8 days ago

Cllr Newens asked for an update on timetable for review/ consultation and didn?t get one (but there is significant comms work being done

- lots of talk about equality and SST policy. Cllr Burgess mentions that pollution on main roads should be a Labour concern, mentions PSED and the need to include colleagues from public health in the assessment/ make sure there is robust data around health impact

- some mention of data collection. If I heard it correctly it sounded like the air pollution measurement would rely on the existing air monitoring infrastructure in conjunction with modelling.

-Cllr Hamvas makes the point that channeling traffic onto main roads has a negative impact on those attending / travelling to schools on main roads. Cllr Rose makes a brief mention about green screening (later described by Cllr Burgess as a ?sticking plaster?, while describing one of her main road schools as having high levels of FSM and ESL - Cllr Rose makes some mention of the ?next generation of school streets? (this didn?t sound like something already in the planning stage)


Cllr Neale still asking for the parking info (should I send him a copy?), and Cllr Burgess mentions the need to start talking about alternative kerbside uses (I think she gave removing on street parking from one side of roads as an example)


Cllr Burgess mentions Climate Emergency strategy and acknowledges the schemes will be counterproductive if increased journey miles etc result in a net increase in pollution/ emissions - need to do some sort of ?climate change calculation?


I would make a rubbish stenographer. Best to watch online if interested enough! But hopefully gives people a flavour.

Legal - I have not watched the video but did you sense that there might be a swing in the sentiment towards the closures amongst some councillors or at least more scrutiny?


Did I read it correctly somewhere that the review that was promised in February is now delayed until late summer? It was days away from being published (according to Cllr Williams a month or so ago) yet has now disappeared - I would love to know why - maybe the clues are in some of the questions being asked during that meeting?

@legalalien

A good set of notes and I completely agree with your view that councillors are showing much more concern about the impact of road closures on surrounding streets.


A couple of points on the comments by Darren from London Ambulance Service.

- I think he said average response times (across London?) had increased from 14 to 16 minutes since traffic measures put in, though this may be down to more cars on road as fewer people are using public transport.


- He also said they have recorded 170 incidents across all London boroughs where traffic measures had caused delays that had adversely impacted the patient. Of those 51 were in Southwark, if so that is very worrying. He said Islington, where they have camera controlled closures, had only 1(one) such incident.


Edit for typo ("more cars on road" not "fewer") - thanks DC

Slarti b - wow those stats from LAS are really concerning. It's obviously been part of the tug of war between those that support and those that oppose the closures but those numbers are compelling.


I have been amazed that removable barriers have not been put in at the Calton Ave/Court Lane/DV junction - does anyone know why the council have refused to do that when others in areas like Melbourne Grove have been updated?

@slarti is this a typo?


" I think he said average response times (across London?) had increased from 14 to 16 minutes since traffic measures put in, though this may be down to fewer cars on road as fewer people are using public transport."


Fewer cars on the road as fewer people using public transport?

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...