Jump to content

Recommended Posts

davidh Wrote:

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

> I have lived in scutari for 8 years and have been

> pressing the council for some means of reducing

> speeds. it is a long, wide road and is used as a

> rapid rat run morning and evening. the so-called

> bumps put in today are waste of time and our

> money. they hardly qualify as bumps at all, so

> weeny are they. note johnie... there were no speed

> bumps on scutari at all before this rubbish

> attempt.



David, there were some rather pathetic bumps both sides of the Mundania and Therapia cross roads - see this streetview photo - and there were enough pot holes to give a calming effect. My point was once the road was resurfaced it looked like Santa Pod, and downhill one way to boot...

Ward councillors did not push for traffic calming measures on this road! (James' comment above). A few months ago there was consultation on the Forest Hill Rd / Colyton Rd Traffic lights. Some residents raised there were issues with speeding/rat running Scutari Rd. There was a consultation during the last half of August as it whether the speed cushions (there prior to the resurfacing)should be replaced by humps and raised tables be put at the junctions. 14% of respondants were against the scheme ( so not everyone wanted the scheme) and 86% for it ( ie not everyone but the majority).


I can see that on this thread there are differing opinions! As the scheme is currently going in, I would suggest residents wait and see the full outcome eg does it slow traffic or not, is their any impact on rat running or not? etc,

Renata

Not sure about the reliability of those maps - the Guardian one shows a vehicle crash on Milo Road, which if true demonstrates that there are some accidents that nothing can prevent, not even limiting the length of road to just 10m.

> I can see that on this thread there are differing

> opinions! As the scheme is currently going in, I

> would suggest residents wait and see the full

> outcome eg does it slow traffic or not, is their

> any impact on rat running or not? etc,


How is this going to be assessed? Do you have the traffic volumns/number of speeders data before the work started?

Well I make no secret of my view that the council have indeed gone hump mad......and don't get me started on the money wasted on many of these schemes. However did any of us get across the road safely 30 years ago? Oh we actually looked for traffic before crossing the road........


In my view.....all that humps do in the wrong places, is take away responsibility from drivers and pedestrians alike, for their own safety. And tbh does nothing to stop those drivers intent on speeding.

I have noticed at the bottom of Barry Road (the most inviting 'drag run' in East Dulwich for hooligan motorists) a couple of blue signs asking drivers to drive with respect to the residential nature of the road. There are a couple of junction humps at the top of Barry Road, and we know it is crossed by small kids attending the many schools (Goodrich, Heber), yet there are no other measures in place. I quite prefer this, or even simple speed signs, to remind motorists that they are in a 20mph restricted area, than the speed humps that cause additional noise and more erratic driving than a smooth clearway.


I have to also say that Renata's post included the following:


'There was a consultation during the last half of August as it whether the speed cushions (there prior to the resurfacing)should be replaced by humps and raised tables be put at the junctions.'


This does not suggest that additional humps would be put in on the lower part of Scutari Road (where everyone lives) which was where humps were previously opposed by the residents, which is what has happened - hence my original outrage.


I would also like to ask how many responses to the consultation were received, as it is more than likely just a handful.


7 responses would give a 14%/86% spread. Such a low response from a larger population would, in any statistical study, be considered worthless, and disregarded.


It may seem like a 'rat run' to newer residents, but believe me this is nothing compared to the chaos that we endured when the major works were carried out at the Reservoir behind Homestall Road, and we had heavy lorries and traffic avoiding the building congestion all using the road.


The humps and raised junctions are all now in place, so I suppose we will have to do as Renata suggests, and just see how much difference they make. If there is an accident now that they are installed, will that be considered good enough reason to remove them?

More traffic means lower speeds Renata because the roads are more congested. And you will also know that 30 years ago ther was a massive road safety campaign aimed at children through the media and schools along with speed awareness campaigns aimed at drivers.....because, just like today, some (not all) motorists speed and some (not all) pedestrians aren't careful.
I live on Scutari Road and am delighted that at long last some traffic calming measures have been put in. In 2002 a speeding car turned upside down outside our house and wrote-off one car and a motor bike and damaged a second car. Cars do seem to be driving more slowly now.

It seems that the relentless march of humps and controlled parking will continue despite what residents want. The new council says it wants to consult and even serve the residents. In many areas they are doing a good job. But in just this one area they seem to have no control over the council department.

I can only suspect that it is more about keeping certain contractors in work than actually doing what local people want.

I call upon our councillors to sort this out urgently and to listen to the residents. Remember councillors are only representative electors. The council legally consists of all of us!

Les Alden

I have to say that I am astonished (and somewhat pleased) that my original 'rant' has produced such a lively and meaningful debate. Now the humps and raised junctions are in, and, so far, there has been no noticeable difference in the volume or speed of the traffic that uses Scutari Road to avoid the traffic lights at the Colyton/Forest Hill Junction.


I also have to say that I find the new bumps quite acceptable, despite having a very stiff-sprung car with low ground clearance, for which speed cushions are far more of a hazard to sump plug/low bodywork.


So we will have to wait and see what happens as the bumps are installed into Marmora Road, and also see how the revised traffic management at the Colyton/Forest Hill junction affects use of this cut-through. I do recall Councillor Renata's visit and questions relating to the Colyton/Forest Hill junction, and can therefore vouch for her keen involvement in getting the more concerningly hazardous Forest Hill Road sorted out. There is now a traffic monitor on Forest Hill Road in place, opposite the Co-op, which I assume is measuring the volume and speed of traffic.


I'm afraid I do still hold the view that the installation of the speed bumps on Scutari(and the even more ridiculous additional recent bump, that means there are now 3 within the space of just 80 yards!!) is a needless waste of a huge amount of Council money that could have been better spent on more urgent traffic management schemes in the area.


What's done is now done, and we can only wait and see what the outcomes (if any) are.

2010, initial traffic count, then application for external funding and consultation.

Now: final traffic counts and monitering before works begin on Forest Hill Road. I have't got the start date yet, but will post when I have.



Keep me posted as to what you think once all the works are complete Brian.



I've had some positive feedback from residents about the Scutari Road works from residents.

Renata

feel sorry for you. we live over in Nunhead and the residents lobbied the council to take out the raised tables as they and the buses etc were causing subsidence to the road and properties. Since the've been removed we are now not shaking everytime a manic bus driver puts his foot down

Renata

Is all Forest Hill road being monitored? Nothing is being done about large removal vans parking on yellow lines between Honor Oak Rise and Honor Oak Park and between Honor Oak Rise and Brenchkey Gardens. Even when parked legallly there is absolutely no visibility.

These vans are not parked for the purpose of removal - merely for somewhere to park when not in use.

Hi DJ,

there are two separate scheme: Forest Hill Rd and East Dulwich Rd/Peckham Rye.


Forest Hill Road will start around March 2013 (lower part) and go into 2013/14(upper part)


East Dulwich Road/Peckham Rye, during this tax year once the OK has come back from TFL


Both schemes are TFL funded rather than from core Council funding.


Renata

Actually later part of August and early Sept. Yes, I know, James some residents may have been away for part of the holiday period. I have had no complaints about the timing of the consultation. However, I have had positive response about the scheme itself. The consultation happened not because of councillors, but becuase of residents and what they said in the previous consultation about the Colyton Rd/Forest Hill Rd junction.


Renata

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

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


> Keep me posted as to what you think once all the

> works are complete Brian.


Will do Renata.


I would also like to say that I don't endorse Fred's rather rude and graceless comments. The Council does have an enormous workload, relating to all manner of services and responsibilities that often go unrecognised. We only raise the flags and voice of complaint when we feel individually affected in a negative way.


So let's not 'put some stick where it belongs', but instead monitor the effects and outcomes of this work, and let the Council know whether it can be considered a success. I expect, on Scutari Rd, that will be a very long wait, unless there is an actual accident.


Time will tell.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...