Jump to content

Recommended Posts

there are the schools and health centre nearby so the longer hours are much more suitable.


Yes, whatever we do, let's make sure none of the teaching or medical scum can park up close to serve our needs, let the b**gars walk, preferably crawl on their hands and knees to serve us. Or maybe they'll get work where they can 'commute' more easily. And not bother us with their so called expertise and 'caring'.

The health centre and schools were always included as an issue. I think some people have focused on Melbourne Grove but the CPZ covers a greater area than that.


CPZ creep is natural and we suffered even when surrounding areas only introduced 12-2, 11-1 etc. If you live around Lordship Lane then you can vote for two hour windows when you get the opportunity again.


There is also a big problem with people selling cars on the road, long term cars parked which never move, abandoned vehicles etc. The CPZ solves all of these issues as well.



first mate Wrote:

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

> Yes, well you might but it was always argued that

> commuter parking was the central issue, this could

> have been dealt with by the time limited option.

> Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers in

> cars harassing householders and all sorts. The

> health centre and schools were never mentioned.

> The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in a way

> that was never necessary.

Bit over the top. Many of the schools around here have their own parking, good train stations local as mentioned, bus links or even get the coach with the pupils they will be teaching that day, which I understand come from all over London.



Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> there are the schools and health centre nearby so

> the longer hours are much more suitable.

>

> Yes, whatever we do, let's make sure none of the

> teaching or medical scum can park up close to

> serve our needs, let the b**gars walk, preferably

> crawl on their hands and knees to serve us. Or

> maybe they'll get work where they can 'commute'

> more easily. And not bother us with their so

> called expertise and 'caring'.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Yes, well you might but it was always argued that

> commuter parking was the central issue, this could

> have been dealt with by the time limited option.

> Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers in

> cars harassing householders and all sorts. The

> health centre and schools were never mentioned.

> The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in a way

> that was never necessary.


Why they didn't go for the 2-hour window is beyond me - but then again we know what the real motivation for this is - another example of the council not listening to the constituents.


We will soon find out how much of the problem was commuter related because if those who were lobbying for it on the basis of commuters were right we will see huge swathes of empty spaces around the station.


I really worry about the impact on Lordship Lane as the combined factors of the creep from the CPZ and now the horrendous congestion caused by the closures will have a detrimental impact.

Yes often around 10 years to get another vote as I understand its an expensive process doing a consultation


jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> roywj Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I live in the new CPZ zone, neighbours and I

> are

> > already very happy with the effect it has had.

> > However I can understand people in other areas

> > being unhappy with the knock on effect, we

> > suffered the same here when neighbouring zones

> > were introduced.

> >

> >

> > Abe_froeman Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Can we request the removal of a parking zone

> to

> > > put things back to how they were? That would

> be

> > > far better.

>

> This is the inevitability of CPZs - they dislocate

> traffic and make you realise just how many people

> who aren't residents are parking in some areas. I

> suspect many areas that voted 'no' for a CPZ will

> soon rue the day this happened.

Lordship Lane is not in the CPZ area so will be unaffected. A lot of people commenting on the CPZ who do not actually live within the zone. Sounds like sour grapes to me.


Rockets Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Yes, well you might but it was always argued

> that

> > commuter parking was the central issue, this

> could

> > have been dealt with by the time limited

> option.

> > Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers in

> > cars harassing householders and all sorts. The

> > health centre and schools were never mentioned.

> > The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in a

> way

> > that was never necessary.

>

> Why they didn't go for the 2-hour window is beyond

> me - but then again we know what the real

> motivation for this is - another example of the

> council not listening to the constituents.

>

> We will soon find out how much of the problem was

> commuter related because if those who were

> lobbying for it on the basis of commuters were

> right we will see huge swathes of empty spaces

> around the station.

>

> I really worry about the impact on Lordship Lane

> as the combined factors of the creep from the CPZ

> and now the horrendous congestion caused by the

> closures will have a detrimental impact.

Posted by roywj Today, 05:02PM


The health centre and schools were always included as an issue. I think some people have focused on Melbourne Grove but the CPZ covers a greater area than that.


CPZ creep is natural and we suffered even when surrounding areas only introduced 12-2, 11-1 etc. If you live around Lordship Lane then you can vote for two hour windows when you get the opportunity again.


There is also a big problem with people selling cars on the road, long term cars parked which never move, abandoned vehicles etc. The CPZ solves all of these issues as well.


We have parked vans in our street festooned with parking ticks and have been there for months.


Dont hold your breath.


I was against the CPZ in our street but am now a confirmed fan. Life is much better.

Many of the schools around here have their own parking, good train stations local as mentioned


And many don't. Additionally the public transport routes that serve us are optimised for those travelling from further south into town (north) - anyone living on an east:west axis and wanting to work in the Dulwich area will have a nightmare (and very long and 'round the houses' commute) on public transport - and that's if they want to risk that in Covid-19 land.

One moment you say you feel for people suffering parking displacement as you know what it is like, the next it is ?sour grapes?? Please don?t pretend not to be aware of the widespread effects car owners living close to a station and choosing all day CPZ, will have on the rest of us.

Thanks Sallybuying, I know from other areas that they usually remove vehicles after the third ticket. Maybe worth cotacting parking.


sally buying Wrote:

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

> Posted by roywj Today, 05:02PM

>

> The health centre and schools were always included

> as an issue. I think some people have focused on

> Melbourne Grove but the CPZ covers a greater area

> than that.

>

> CPZ creep is natural and we suffered even when

> surrounding areas only introduced 12-2, 11-1 etc.

> If you live around Lordship Lane then you can vote

> for two hour windows when you get the opportunity

> again.

>

> There is also a big problem with people selling

> cars on the road, long term cars parked which

> never move, abandoned vehicles etc. The CPZ solves

> all of these issues as well.

>

> We have parked vans in our street festooned with

> parking ticks and have been there for months.

>

> Dont hold your breath.

>

> I was against the CPZ in our street but am now a

> confirmed fan. Life is much better.

roywj Wrote:

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

> Lordship Lane is not in the CPZ area so will be

> unaffected. A lot of people commenting on the CPZ

> who do not actually live within the zone. Sounds

> like sour grapes to me.

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > first mate Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Yes, well you might but it was always argued

> > that

> > > commuter parking was the central issue, this

> > could

> > > have been dealt with by the time limited

> > option.

> > > Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers

> in

> > > cars harassing householders and all sorts.

> The

> > > health centre and schools were never

> mentioned.

> > > The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in

> a

> > way

> > > that was never necessary.

> >

> > Why they didn't go for the 2-hour window is

> beyond

> > me - but then again we know what the real

> > motivation for this is - another example of the

> > council not listening to the constituents.

> >

> > We will soon find out how much of the problem

> was

> > commuter related because if those who were

> > lobbying for it on the basis of commuters were

> > right we will see huge swathes of empty spaces

> > around the station.

> >

> > I really worry about the impact on Lordship

> Lane

> > as the combined factors of the creep from the

> CPZ

> > and now the horrendous congestion caused by the

> > closures will have a detrimental impact.



But it's pretty damn close and the neighbouring roads which will suffer from the displacement. I am not suffering from sour grapes - just, and always have been, worried about the impact all of these changes will have on Lordship Lane and the wider community.


A bit like the road closures - a few people will benefit whilst the majority suffer. Hardly sour grapes being concerned about the impact on others.

We witnessed cars receiving parking tickets on Matham Grove this morning. Reading a couple of posts re the CPZ, it seems to me the residents who wanted the CPZ, are still under the illusion they will get to park their cars outside their house. This will mot be the case, and when they are tired of having to pay the parking fees for friends and family, when they visit, and still cannot park your car outside your home, then you will be asking to remove the CPZ.

To the selfish few who just had to ruin East Dulwich and insist on CPZ, I hope you are proud of yourselves.

monica Wrote:

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

> We witnessed cars receiving parking tickets on

> Matham Grove this morning. Reading a couple of

> posts re the CPZ, it seems to me the residents who

> wanted the CPZ, are still under the illusion they

> will get to park their cars outside their house.

> This will mot be the case, and when they are tired

> of having to pay the parking fees for friends and

> family, when they visit, and still cannot park

> your car outs your home, then you will be asking

> to remove the CPZ.

> To he selfish few who just had to ruin East

> Dulwich and insist on CPZ, I hope you are proud of

> yourselves.


Over in N Dulwich, parking for residents improved enormously when the 12-2 CPZ was introduced as it stopped commuters and those from neighbouring Lambeth CPZs who were leaving their cars in N Dulwich. One could again guarantee that there would be parking space outside or close to the house.


I suspect the CPZ in East Dulwich will have similar effects, but I agree that the 9-6 will make it more onerous for visitors and will also damage businesses along Lordship Lane.

So n dulwich northerner what you are saying is that due to neighbouring CPZs you needed one due to the ripple effect


I do wonder if all CPZs were removed, that with the exception of a few hot spots, parking wouldn't actually be the problem that they were introduced to combat ?

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> So n dulwich northerner what you are saying is

> that due to neighbouring CPZs you needed one due

> to the ripple effect


Yes. My neighbours all expressed opposition when a CPZ was first proposed, and only streets very close to the NDL and Herne Hill stations were in favour. But the introduction of Lambeth CPZs made parking very awkward, and everyone supported the CPZ when it was again proposed. My estimate was that about 1/3 of parked cars disappeared.


> I do wonder if all CPZs were removed, that with

> the exception of a few hot spots, parking wouldn't

> actually be the problem that they were introduced

> to combat ?


Who knows, but it's a pipe dream! And train stations are definitely hot spots.

I think the council have cottoned on to the domino effect now Jim Lad, and will respond much more rapidly to another new request, hence the partial implementation in the Melbourne Grove area and the heavy, heavy emphasis they put on the replies to "would you want a CPZ if the street next to you had one" last time round.

Does anyone know if there is a model for what happens to the displaced "commuters"


Whilst I suspect they drift from free zone to free zone as New CPZs are introduced, where do they go eventually ?


It's obviously not on to the buses as passenger numbers have been falling over the years.

Do they just give up and stop commuting full stop and at what economic impact ?


Let's look at Kings College hospital as an example, CPZs now surround it so how do medical staff get there ? Have the ones who live further out but are essential to running the hospital transferred to hospitals where they can drive ?


I'm not suggesting any solution or problems but I would be fascinated to see the modelling around where people go / how they behave if they can't commute as before. Is there a study for example that looks holistically at the impact across the whole of London.


You can bet your bottom dollar that no one has done a wider model than just around each CPZ zone 🤔


"Curious and curiouser" said Spartacus

first mate Wrote:

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

> Yes, well you might but it was always argued that

> commuter parking was the central issue, this could

> have been dealt with by the time limited option.

> Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers in

> cars harassing householders and all sorts. The

> health centre and schools were never mentioned.

> The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in a way

> that was never necessary.


The stalking ocurred in our area. I knew several female residents who were very upset at the way that commuters worked out when they would leave in the morning, parallel park to their cars, and then wait for them to go out - it was something that made a lot of them uncomfortable, particularly when the commuter got a bit aggressive if they were running late.


So not fantasy, but fact.


In this case it was in an area used by commuters for bus, train and hospital facilities.

I?m now unsure whether there has been much displacement. Had a look around top of Lordship Lane, surrounding roads and roads off of Townley Road about 9.30am this morning and there were plenty of parking spaces available. Surrounding roads at the bottom of Lordship Lane were busy but nothing unusual there, those roads were always busy pre lockdown.



Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Does anyone know if there is a model for what

> happens to the displaced "commuters"

>

> Whilst I suspect they drift from free zone to free

> zone as New CPZs are introduced, where do they go

> eventually ?

>

> It's obviously not on to the buses as passenger

> numbers have been falling over the years.

> Do they just give up and stop commuting full stop

> and at what economic impact ?

>

> Let's look at Kings College hospital as an

> example, CPZs now surround it so how do medical

> staff get there ? Have the ones who live further

> out but are essential to running the hospital

> transferred to hospitals where they can drive ?

>

> I'm not suggesting any solution or problems but I

> would be fascinated to see the modelling around

> where people go / how they behave if they can't

> commute as before. Is there a study for example

> that looks holistically at the impact across the

> whole of London.

>

> You can bet your bottom dollar that no one has

> done a wider model than just around each CPZ zone

> 🤔

>

> "Curious and curiouser" said Spartacus

Our street in the new CPZ would fill up with "commuters" every morning but more so on rainy or bad weather days. I think a lot of people that lived further away from the station would drive down and park to take the train rather than hopping on the bus or walking to it. During good weather, there were always less cars. So, I think these commuters are still commuters, but, finding another way to the station.
I was not suggesting this was fantasy simply noting that commuter parking, as in people leaving their cars on roads around the station was given as the main driver for CPZ on streets around the station. People would not be parking for long periods for a school drop off or to use the health centre. The main argument was very much about commuters going to work. Time limited CPZ would have dealt with that, as well as school drop offs for that matter.
People used to drive from roads like Heber, Uplands Ullverscroft etc and park near the station - especially when it rained as per above. Expect those commuters would just walk (like they always should have - but were enabled by not being restricted)

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> People used to drive from roads like Heber,

> Uplands Ullverscroft etc and park near the station

> - especially when it rained as per above. Expect

> those commuters would just walk (like they always

> should have - but were enabled by not being

> restricted)


But is that speculation or fact concerning where they originate from ?

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> People used to drive from roads like Heber,

> Uplands Ullverscroft etc and park near the station

> - especially when it rained as per above. Expect

> those commuters would just walk (like they always

> should have - but were enabled by not being

> restricted)


Interesting isn't it that time limited CPZs have been very effective in areas like Herne Hill in deterring commuters yet protecting the local community shops and Southwark opted for the all day option. Read into that what you will!

In the toastrack, some of the people who complained against the CPZ introduction to the Council confirmed they were driving in from Kent each day, parking up and then commuting the final part by train/bus. Where free parking exists, some people like to use cars where convenient.


In our area, since the CPZ came in, day to day parking takeup has declined by about 60-70%.

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...