Jump to content

Recommended Posts



Says who? And what is sudden about any of this? And who is taking anything away from anyone?




Well, technology is about solving problems - in this case what was once a simple pleasure, then a useful tool, then a necessity has now become the very problem itself. And who is suggesting reverting to horse and cart? I've seen and heard that reference from a few people now as if those people who can see what the problem is are nothing more than luddites. Leave aside the ecological argument for now (it's still relevant but some people seem overly defensive about it) It's maths ok? A street with 20 people begets a street with a further 20-30 people, who in turn beget a further 30-50 people. That street with one car per house now need a further 50 odd spaces for cars. And so on and so on. don't you see??????


It's not like alternatives aren't available (and none involving a horse and cart) - It would seem that for some people, mixing with their fellow humans is simply too degrading a step to take


As for the experiment:



I suspect in environmental terms you are right. In and of itself it would make little difference. But to do nothing? And people wonder why I'm reluctant to bring children into the world... No-one is blaming the home car user for everything. But home car users who can't see that they are starting to sit in their own waste but keep on doing it.. and then complain when the waste and other car users get in their way???


What will be will be is an admirable statement in many ways - but it doesn't appear to include other people fighting to eke out a few more years on the planet without recourse to being forced ever-more into their own homes by ever-upsizing vehicles and their demand for more roads.... Next time you pay a parking fine, increase in petrol or congestion charge just say - again and again - "what will be will be"

Several posts have asked for a Controlled Parking Zone free for residents.

Controlled Parking Zones cost money to run. Roughly 50% of households in Southwark do not own or run a car. It would clearly be unfair for those without cars to subsidise the running costs of a Controlled Parking Zone via Council Tax for those with cars.

Hence the need to charge.


The current charge is ?91 per annum. In the survey we've asked residents to tell us whether they think it should be related to CO2 emissions or not.


What do you think?


Regards james barber

Liberal Democrat councillor for East Dulwich

www.jamesbarber.org.uk

karter Wrote:

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

> Ashbourne grove is a particularly tight and

> cluttered road though, always has been.



Its proximity to the "Vibrant" LL doesnt help


the residents want the best of all worlds - close to the action, but far enough away for it to be quiet - this means keepinfg all the other victims who want a piece of the action as far as away as possible


ASh has been subject to a rash of dropped kerbs, as the new arrivals try to fence off as much of the street as they can to protect their precious ?800/900/1000 K properties


Unsurprising that local "characters" sometiems show their frustration on vehicles


Still, they will soon be selling up and moving off to Sevenoaks as they always do ( " the grammar schools are very good" etc )

JBARBER Wrote:

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

It would clearly be unfair for those

> without cars to subsidise the running costs of a

> Controlled Parking Zone via Council Tax for those

> with cars.



Your logic here is 'clearly' flawed - I subsidise loads of things through council tax that have no bearing on my life whatsoever - by your logic I should 'clearly' not have to subsidise them. Can I have my money back please?

JBARBER Wrote:

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

> Several posts have asked for a Controlled Parking

> Zone free for residents.

> Controlled Parking Zones cost money to run.

> Roughly 50% of households in Southwark do not own

> or run a car. It would clearly be unfair for those

> without cars to subsidise the running costs of a

> Controlled Parking Zone via Council Tax for those

> with cars.

> Hence the need to charge.

>

> The current charge is ?91 per annum. In the survey

> we've asked residents to tell us whether they

> think it should be related to CO2 emissions or

> not.

>

> What do you think?

>

> Regards james barber

> Liberal Democrat councillor for East Dulwich

> www.jamesbarber.org.uk



Hello Mr Barber,


Can you please PM me a copy of the survey? As I have stated earlier, I did not receive one in Lacon Road.


Ta very much.

Blinder999 makes a very good point - no other council services are charged on a 'per user' basis, so why single this out? You could equally argue that only those who want a CPZ should be charged for it to be implemented...


Additionally, i would like to point out that I have not seen any posts "asking for a CPZ free for residents" - the general consensus seems to be that a CPZ would not be welcome by the majority, but that if one were imposed, there should not be a charge for residents. Not quite the same thing.

Ko Wrote:

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

> James

>

> Please can you give us the full list of roads

> which will be surveyed? I live on Landells (at

> the Silvester end) and I am a 5 minute walk to

> Northcross Rd and a 5 minute walk to Lordship Lane

> (to the police station / William Rose butchers).

>

> I am very concerned that any CPZ on the roads

> immediately off LL will just push any problem to

> the next road along. So will roads like mine get

> surveyed because we ae only 5 minutes from the

> main shops?

>

> I think the council needs to look at the bigger

> pictures - efor exmaple, flats being built all

> over the place without enough parking provision

> being provided by greedy developers.



James - you have come on and posted since my question, but not answered my query.


PLEASE PROVIDE AN ANSWER. Many thanks

JBarber


RE Subsidies and cars


Can you please factor in Road Tax, VAT on new car purchase and VAT on petrol into your equation on subsidy of car owners by non-car owners...oh....and the 'revenue' your uniformed, targeted nazis dishing out tickets to 'illegal' parkers too

Karter, as I've said earlier in the thread (and on previous parking threads), I am greatly opposed to any CPZ of any kind. I have one car, live opposite Ashbourne Grove, and never, in four years of living here, have had ANY trouble in parking my car either outside or near to my house. And, even if I did have to park a road or so away, well, big deal - this is London. No one has the right to park directly outside their house always in a large metropolis.


Contrast this to the CPZ I had in a similar residential area in N.London (Camden Council). Endless fines, towings and tickets (all wrongly issued, almost all contested with great difficulty but successfully). And all that just for parking my car outside my home - for which I paid ?85 a year back then. And was parking more easy, were there more spaces after the CPZ was introduced there? No, of course not. Less spaces after bays were marked up and just as many cars parked up, so no improvement. But Camden made a nice packet out of all the fees and fines!!

"In the survey we've asked residents to tell us whether they think it should be related to CO2 emissions or not. What do you think?"


Disgusting idea - wheel out the green arguments for the purposes of revenue generation why don't you, like the congestion charge.


If you want to link the cost to anything at all at least have a tangible link between the cost and what you are trying to achieve. Availability of parking spaces comes down to the number and size of cars, and since we take as a given that numbers will probably not change much, then charge based on the length of the car. Since when did something chucking out more CO2 take up more space on the side of the street FFS.

Hi bobby and anybody else , if you havent had a form yet just PM Richard and James telling them that you do not want CPZ and mention where you live, how many cars you have, which party do you think runs southwark and who you would vote for in the next election, these are the questions they are asking.

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...