Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Latest update from One Dulwich.


Dear all,


Dulwich Review survey ? deadline 11 July


Since our last update, we have joined with other groups in the Dulwich Alliance to make a formal complaint to Southwark Council about the many and serious failings of the Dulwich Review survey. You can read our complaint here.


We are also sending out a leaflet from this weekend recommending that you choose ?Return to the original state? on the questions in the survey asking about the road measures themselves. You may find this surprising, given that we have throughout been pushing for ANPR timed restrictions as a reasonable alternative to 24/7 closures. But this survey ? despite reassurances from Southwark in February ? doesn?t offer this as an option for Dulwich Village junction (even though the 24/7 closure here is the cause of area-wide traffic displacement). No alternative measures (not even dedicated cycle lanes or school streets) are offered for any of the locations. Overall, the survey is so flawed, and so biased, that we believe choosing complete removal of all the measures is the only way to get the Council to listen to the local community and understand the valid reasons behind our objections. You can read our reasons for supporting this position by going to www.dulwichalliance.org/SurveyFAQs.


Majority of Court Lane doesn?t want 24/7 closure of Dulwich Village junction


One of the roads most directly affected by the closure of Dulwich Village junction is Court Lane. The residents? association has recently carried out a survey of the 189 households in Court Lane and Court Lane Gardens. In total, 155 households (81%) took part, with 34 households (19%) choosing not to respond. Of the 155 households that responded, 25 made no clear choices; but of the 130 households that did make clear choices 73% want to see the junction open (64% with timed restrictions and 9% with no restrictions at all), and 27% want the junction permanently closed.

So their alternative is effectively a return to the past, unsurprising. If anyone needs a reminder of how that was see



Re ANPR timed restrictions not being listed as an option in the review, suspect it's because it isn't a practical or safe option - as was discussed during OHS consultation.


Interesting that only 9% of Court Lane residents want to see the junction re-opened to cars. Suspect if the survey had removed the unfeasible option of timed restrictions there would be significantly more wanting to see the current scheme made permanent.

alice Wrote:

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

> As Court lane has no schools, nurseries, health

> centres, hospitals etc there never was any

> justification for any closures.


I pretty much agree: most of the justifications were pretty poor. On the one hand you have the SUV owners on Court Lane who quite rightfully want to drive their bought and paid for vehicles to where ever you want. All other justifications like the safety of the DV junction and the traffic by the school with the attendant pollution etc are quite unimportant by comparison. These people have expensive cars and should have the right to get value from their investments.

Mr.chicken, grow up and stop treating this whole thing like a joke. It?s not a joke for many, many people, and I don?t think your tone is coming across quite how you envisage it might be. The current scheme causes more pollution for the schools in DV, I suspect, and in any case, as others have pointed out, some schools ought not to be more equal than others.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Mr.chicken, grow up and stop treating this whole

> thing like a joke. It?s not a joke for many, many

> people,


Indeed it is a very serious matter which is why I am taking the time to post. All I'm doing is following the opinions of the anti-LTN people to their obvious conclusions and enthusiastically agreeing. If you don't like that then perhaps you don't actually like the reasoning behind the opinions. If that's so then you're welcome to change yours: the other camp is right over there ---->


I'm sure they'd welcome you.


> and I don?t think your tone is coming

> across quite how you envisage it might be.


I can't really speculate on what your opinion on how you think I think what I say looks.


> The

> current scheme causes more pollution for the

> schools in DV, I suspect,


That's good enough me! We definitely need to reopen the road to more cars to reduce pollution.


> and in any case, as

> others have pointed out, some schools ought not to

> be more equal than others.


Indeed, the goal is to make sure everyone breathes their fair share of pollution. We shouldn't do anything to reduce the total amount just in case the whole "fair share" thing gets temporarily unbalanced. I think we reached the ideal point in 2019 and should strive to return to that. After all, we tried the LTNs and they didn't seem to appeal to many people and there don't seem to be other credible plans.

Perhaps you?ve failed (or refuse) to understand the reasoning behind the criticisms of the Dulwich schemes, which are based on specifics rather than the principles of LTNs?


I don?t like the idea of ?camps? tbh, I think that all the details of the schemes should be up for debate and we shouldn?t be talking about ?for? and ?against? when it comes to details of schemes. On the other hand, I think being for or against the way the process has been handled and the way the current consultation/ review process is being carried out is possibly a bit more binary. Whatever your view on the merits of the LTNs happens to be, it?s worth thinking about the process issues.

The Consultation document is anything but, it reads as a piece of propaganda. The whole debacle is such a lost opportunity for a well supported, fully consulted plan to reduce car use and traffic across Southwark, with a subsequent increase in public transport and cycling routes.

People who have supported greener travel are now split and people who needed convincing about car use reduction are now probably more entrenched in their views.


Poor politics, bad planning and has caused such a division in this area. I'm not sure it is possible to bring in a change in a more incompetent way.

The review document is a joke, it's shameful in its brazenness - designed not to gauge local opinion but to prove the success of the project. It is no surprise that groups like One Dulwich are saying they are left with no option but to suggest that everything returns to normal.


This council is totally out of control and is clearly manipulating the review and the review process..but did we expect anything else from them?

I have written to Alleyn's, Jags and Dulwich College to ask what they are doing to prevent congestion and associated noxious emissions from motorised travel to and from their site, and how they plan to improve on their current performance. So much congestion is caused by parents driving their children to these schools, or sending them there in taxis or in coaches (the latter being much more environmentally friendly than if they were travelling via car, granted).

Similarly, I have emailed the schools and the response received clearly established their position was sitting on the fence.

They said that they would leave it to parents to decide on if/how they wanted to tackle the issue because it effected different families in different ways.



Nigello Wrote:

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

> I have written to Alleyn's, Jags and Dulwich

> College to ask what they are doing to prevent

> congestion and associated noxious emissions from

> motorised travel to and from their site, and how

> they plan to improve on their current performance.

> So much congestion is caused by parents driving

> their children to these schools, or sending them

> there in taxis or in coaches (the latter being

> much more environmentally friendly than if they

> were travelling via car, granted).

Rockets Wrote:

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

> The review document is a joke, it's shameful in

> its brazenness - designed not to gauge local

> opinion but to prove the success of the project.

> It is no surprise that groups like One Dulwich are

> saying they are left with no option but to suggest

> that everything returns to normal.

>

> This council is totally out of control and is

> clearly manipulating the review and the review

> process..but did we expect anything else from

> them?


Agreed. Southwark must think folks will swallow their "consultation" survey. Such a primitive attempt to manipulate the result they want.


They are blinding themselves to the reality that such a strategy actually alienates local residents and motivates them to protest and demonstrate. There is already a strong up-swell of resentment and this will only strengthen.


Councillors Leeming and Newens should take note that their stance on this will not be forgotten.

I am up for the fight.


I sincerely hope the labour will be trashed in the next local elections - they are asking for it.


It will be down to people like councillors Leeming and Newens.



KidKruger Wrote:

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

> They don?t care whether the consultation

> ?conclusions? are swallowed or not, anyone not

> convinced and wishing to take action will have a

> formidable project ahead of them to

> disprove/balance the findings and they believe

> no-one?s up for that.

march46 Wrote:

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

> Re ANPR timed restrictions not being listed as an

> option in the review, suspect it's because it

> isn't a practical or safe option - as was

> discussed during OHS consultation.

>



I'm fascinated by this assertion. It was raised during the consultation but the response from Cllr Dale Foden was thoroughly disingenuous. He said it wasn't feasible and that Southwark could not access the DVLA database.

He said that the council camera operatives viewed snapshots of the all vehicles contravening the timed restrictions. So if it was say a bus which was exempt then they would ignore it. If it was a private vehicle they would record the number plate and process the fine. In this technological age this manual process is slow, costly and prone to error.


Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) can do this automatically by accessing the DVLA database. Foden said it was not possible to access the DVLA database. The reality is that Southwark and other London boroughs do so already. Google for LSP Dulwich trial Phase 2 (notice dated 15 Oct 2020).pdf. Think also of ULEZ etc


In fact any member of of the public can make access the database and check Make, Model, Specification etc, etc etc of any vehicle by entering the registration number.


This was a blatant attempt to mislead the public by a senior Southwark official. It is a serious offence for a public official to deliberately mislead the public.


There is no justifiable reason why they cannot use ANPR to give exemption to users of zero emission vehicles. There would be a fast uptake of these and the reduction in pollution would be significant.


https://motorbreaker.co.uk/news/low-emission-zone-ulez-and-lez-zones-explained


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_six_month_evaluation_report_final_oct.pdf


https://www.ageas.co.uk/solved/your-car/new-charges-for-london-drivers-how-the-ulez-will-work/


http://www.transport-network.co.uk/Invisible-filters/15786

If that?s true that?s shocking. I?m assuming they must be using ANPR now in order to issue the number of fines that they have - either that, or half of their workforce have been diverted to the manual processing of LTN bus gate fines (I wouldn?t rule that out given references in various documents / the internal audit report to deficiencies created by staff being involved in COVID related activities: I guess fining people inadvertently driving through bus gates and dealing with related appeals might be regarded as a COVID related activity). I feel another FoI request coming on. If I put one in now I might get an answer by Christmas.

According to this the bus gates allows any vehicle with 9 seats or more through without a fine....so I can imagine the Southwark council officers zooming in and counting the number of seats.


https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/about


What exemptions are provided by the timed closures?


Bus gates allow exemptions for buses, taxis (hackney carriage licenced), cycles, scooters, emergency vehicles, waste collection services, and any vehicle with 9 seats or more, including coaches. The timed restriction prohibits all other motorised vehicles including motorcycles.

I'm sorry if this point is a distraction, but I've seen retractable bollards all over the country that only allow buses through. Surely it is not too difficult to adapt these, with ANPR to open and close for the allowed vehicle? The fines seem predatory and unjust, and the supposed monies raised adequate to now cover any costs (I am thinking in particular of that one on the mini roundabout in Dulwich Village).


I haven't been a fan of the closure of streets to traffic that I've seen since the mid-eighties. My opinion (note, opinion) is percolation rather than concentration. London has done exceptionally well in reducing private transport by spending lavishly on public transport. If we could follow that trajectory rather than this newer one, we shall do well. Unfortunately, I wish I had a better brain, but I don't, so there you are. *sips wine, enjoys last sunshine of the day, retires*

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...