Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In the grand scheme of Southwark Council's budget ?3000 is not a great amount. That said when we have local councillors blaming central government funding cuts for Southwark services being reduced it seems they may be misreading the mood of the crowd by providing funds for such a divisive event.

Agree. In light of the village ward councillor's comment last year that they can only fund what people apply for, probably timely to remind people that this year's neighbourhood fund applications close on Monday 11th October


https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/neighbourhoods-fund-2022.

Maybe we should apply for funds for a Death of Democracy party, with some loud, dark band made up with frightening make up to scare the bejesus out of everyone.


Seriously, I cannot write that name. DS. All the years I have lived here, I have never been so disgusted by the behaviour of the councillors for our Ward. When so many people have strong feelings and basically you are met with an "Oh well....".

'Disgusting' is the word. To close a junction and pretend it is some sort of Italian piazza, waste money on 'performances' on the said junction, being clearly told by constituents it is wrong and yet showing the same constituents a middle finger and continuing...Southwark Labour councillors have clearly departed from real world.


How can they criticise Tories after something like this?

ab29 Wrote:

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

> 'Disgusting' is the word. To close a junction and

> pretend it is some sort of Italian piazza, waste

> money on 'performances' on the said junction,

> being clearly told by constituents it is wrong and

> yet showing the same constituents a middle finger

> and continuing...Southwark Labour councillors have

> clearly departed from real world.


Told not only by constituents, but by the London Ambulance Service. Reckless and shameful.

>

> How can they criticise Tories after something like

> this?

Good luck, I've posted elsewhere other groups who are heavily involved in air quality (as I have been for a number of years). I'll post the link later. I hope that you will be looking at ways of discouraging motorised road traffic, or more efficient use of it (I like high occupancy lanes where you need two or more people in a car, this is common in the USA but generally we don't have a second lane).


Another really useful piece of advice is on driving style, 95% of drivers do not know how to drive down traffic calmed roads - I could lecture for Britain on this - back off before you hit the speed bump, then slight acceleration over this. When open I could drive down Court Lane without stopping once, yet EVERY driver I have ever watched over the decades will accelerate towards the speed bump, brake, accelerate, brake - increasing fuel use, brake and tyre wear (and particulates) and increase the stress on the engine increasing NOx. All aspects of urban driving need better anticipation which in turn would lead to smoother journeys.


Anyone who doesn't agree should go and have an eco driving lesson. In fact all drivers should have such lessons. Smoother driving means less stress on both driver, passengers and other road users.


Finally it would be great if you could encourage greater respect between road users, and better sharing of the road. Principally aimed at car drivers, but some of this would be aimed at scooter and bike riders.


On your suggestions on buses hope you have contacted TfL, there may also be a community group (Dulwich Society or equivalent in SE22?). I was involved in a community group a few years ago not so far away, and we did a lot to lobby on transport and amenities. The value of this is that you are also not a single issue group which would therefore have more influence.

P3girl - do keep us posted on the council's feedback to your budget submission - it will be very interesting to see how Southwark responds! Also refreshing to see a local interest group that doesn't block responses to tweets like your good friends at Clean Air Dulwich do!


I am getting to the point of exasperation with the council and might superglue myself to a cycle lane until the council starts taking note and addressing our concerns! The good thing about gluing ourselves to cycle lanes is we won't be blocking emergency services and putting lives at risk like Insulate Britain and Southwark council do in their efforts to deal with climate change ;-)

Or grove reopen who block anyone disagreeing with them or clean air for all dulwich who cry ?misogyny ? if anyone dares suggest they say anything untrue you mean. Suspect this is more of the same, but if not brilliant. We need more people campaigning for clean air and genuine change!

A cry of 'misogny'?

Some women felt gaslighted or trolled when they talked about walking their children to school on a busy road for example. I have read some of the comments from accounts in reply to women who feel that LTNs have negatively impacted their lives, including some rather disgusting comments to Rosamund Kissi Debrah. In light of the current climate, I suggest thinking before posting.

Just to clarify - are you looking for people to join you to support the bus and get funding for that or for this educational programme around EVs and Hybrids? Or is it both? Just trying to work out what you are looking for support with.


Have you considered what funding you are looking to access too?

You did say that - but then you also said that you wanted to understand if there was support for the bus route before you contacted TFL so it wasn't 100% clear which you would be asking people to DM you in support of. Its clear now, and would have been without the caps and rudeness!

P3girl Wrote:

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

> I have not contacted TFL yet because the suggested

> routes are my first pitch to gauge support within

> the community.

>

> If you and others support the idea then we can

> take it to TFL.

>

> All interested, please get in touch and then we

> can take it from here.

>

>

>

> malumbu Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Good luck,

> >

> > On your suggestions on buses hope you have

> > contacted TfL, there may also be a community

> group

> > (Dulwich Society or equivalent in SE22?). I

> was

> > involved in a community group a few years ago

> not

> > so far away, and we did a lot to lobby on

> > transport and amenities. The value of this is

> > that you are also not a single issue group

> which

> > would therefore have more influence.


I can give you the answer from TFL now, they can't afford it


A new bus route would just cannibalise revenue from other bus services, those who drive will continue to drive and when challenged will just come up with some new excuse


Look at the 42 bus, minimal loading between sainsburys and herne hill


The only way to deal with congestion in aggregate, is road pricing and failing this LTN restrictions of available road space for cars

How does your group differ from any of the other anti LTN groups out there?


You seem to be trying to claim you're a new group but then calling yourself 'clean air for Dulwich' looks incredibly like you're trying to misappropriate the name of an established campaigning group so its difficult to see this as action taken in good faith.


I suspect that the venn diagram of your new group and 'One Dulwich' is a wholly encompassed circle!



P3girl Wrote:

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

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Maybe we should apply for funds for a Death of

> > Democracy party, with some loud, dark band made

> up

> > with frightening make up to scare the bejesus

> out

> > of everyone.

> >

> We have formed a group call "Clean air for

> Dulwich" which is applying for funding to

> Southwark to promote various means of lowering

> pollution in the following roads:-

> Lordship Lane

> East Dulwich Grove

> Dulwich Village

> Grove Vale

>

> We will run an awareness campaign about the

> detrimental effects of concentrated pollution.

> This will focus on electric and hybrid vehicle

> awareness and promote their use. It will also

> highlight the inequitable distribution of

> pollution on young and vulnerable residents as a

> result of LTN's. Plus the effects on local

> businesses and protected minorities.

>

> This will involve educational presentations and

> materials plus lots of other complimentary

> activities.

>

> You might say "they won't fund that" BUT if

> Southwark is sincere about democracy and fairness

> they cannot refuse - given that they funded the

> "performance$" in the $quare!

>

> If you would like to get involved with us please

> send a PM.

>

> NB Southwark will dish out funds for:-

> Hire costs ? Venue / Van / Play

> equipment / Generator /

> animals

> Sports equipment

> Radio / walkie-talkie

> Music equipment, PA equipment and

> sound equipment

> Portaloo / Bunting/Marquee/barriers

> Other

> Sessions/ workshops

> Volunteer expenses

> Stationery

> Food and Refreshments

> Publicity

> Events ? promotion /

> Tents / Stalls / Gazebos etc

> Removable goal posts and small training

> equipment

> Small hand held gardening tools

> Consultants/professional fees

> Tutors /trainers/consultancy

> fees / sports coaches ;

> Artists / performers

redpost Wrote:

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

> No, frivolous car usage must go



Given the LTNs were designed to eliminate frivolous car use, after 18 months of them being in I think we can safely assume that either 1) there wasn't much frivolous car use in the area or 2) they don't eliminate frivolous car use.


Either way there is a strong argument for removing them and starting again with something far more fit for purpose.

No Way should Court/Village open, it's so much better for the schools and pedestrians now.



With roads it is a case of open them/build them and they'll fill with cars, close them and cars go away. simple. Once the drivers who do short unnecessary journeys realise it's not worth it, the surrounding roads will be clear for the people who do need to use their cars.

18 months in and there is not a sign that what you say happens is happening. In fact, there isn't an LTN anywhere that has not displaced traffic from one set of roads to another - the traffic doesn't evaporate it displaces.


LTNs are failing. That much is abundantly clear.

Asset, I live on DV and disagree that LTNs are better for schools or pedestrians, let alone worth the congestion and increased pollution on other roads. Perhaps there aren't as many short, unnecessary journeys as you think or have been led to believe.


The traffic on DV still bunches up from RPH to Turney Road. When there is a bit less traffic on DV - midday or evening - vehicles still speed by at 30mph or so. Non-local drivers have no reason to care about the people living on the roads they pass through, especially if they believe the residents are as selfish, entitled or hypocritical as the pro-lobby wants everyone to believe. We're not, and still suffer from the downsides imposed by the ill-thought LTNs.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> 18 months in and there is not a sign that what you

> say happens is happening. In fact, there isn't an

> LTN anywhere that has not displaced traffic from

> one set of roads to another - the traffic doesn't

> evaporate it displaces.

>

> LTNs are failing. That much is abundantly clear.



The Southwark Council data shows traffic down 10% across the area - 16,000 vehicles less per day across the area.


Maybe One Dulwich and their various off-shoots have got secret ways of measuring traffic they think are more sophisticated and accurate than the council's 24/7 monitoring strips on all roads in the area. I do recall seeing one of their members standing by the roadside with a pen and a clipboard. Maybe he is their source of information.

DC - two things:


Firstly, the council stated in their interim monitoring report that traffic was down 12% across Southwark. So are we actually running at a 2% increase compared to the borough average?


Secondly, and perhaps more damning, is that the council's monitoring data is incomplete - no monitoring data has been shared or included for Underhill Road, which, I am sure you realise, is one of the key displacement routes for traffic trying to cut the corner from Lordship Lane to avoid the Grove Tavern/A205 daily traffic jam. Anyone can see that Underhill's traffic has increased hugely since the LTNs went in and it was vital that monitoring should have been included in the "area-wide" monitoring numbers the council produced.


The council didn't add them - I wonder why not? The council was forced to add monitoring to Underhill by irate residents who had seen they were planning not to count there during the review and promised to include the data in the review. I wholly suspect that once Underhill is included in the council's data that the 10% reduction quickly evaporates and turns the area-wide decrease into an increase.

I think it would be easiest for everyone if the council and TfL just put ALL the raw data that they have out there in an "uninterpreted" form. Sure, it would result in loads of people trying to spin the data in their own different ways, but that's better than the council being selective and inviting suspicion. The fact that there were representations that more data would be released than has been released has just compounded the problem.

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...