Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I can accept that such a scheme may make money for the council and I can accept that setting-up CPZs may be incentivised to a certain degree.


But my real interest is in how the consultation gets interpreted..

If the majority of residents who reply to the consultation say no, is that the end of it?

If the majority of residents who reply to the consultation say no, is that the end of it?



Interesting question. There's no requirement for majority approval before a CPZ is introduced that I'm aware of. A number of councils (such as Lewisham) make clear that if there isn't a majority, a CPZ won't be introduced.


Southwark simply say, "there will be a consultation where you can express your views" and then "if a CPZ is approved"...with no detail about the approval process. However, the reality is, I suspect that any Council would be mad to bring in a CPZ against the wishes of the majority. The overall number of responses/pro/against to the consultation would be made available under FOIA and discussed at the various meetings where the CPZ was approved. And the decision is potentially subject to judicial review in theory. Just did a quick google and can see that some people/companies have actually threatened to judicially review the introduction of CPZs, so I guess it does happen.

In the interests of road safety I'm sure that most would agree that zig zags for zebra crossings or schools need to be painted on the street.


If people are to know where to catch their bus (and board it safely) there need to be bus stops.


Those making essential journies (and that's more difficult to catagorise but in my mind...) disabled people getting to the shops/services and those contributing to the economic success of an area (vehicles unloading goods into shops or customers collecting heavy goods. Well, they probably need to park nearby. If they're going to have a fair chance to park closeby it probably needs some signs to say that it is for loading or disabled people.


So now the kerb parking space is reduced even more.


So what to do with the remaining space? Do we just leave it as a free for all? Personally, I dont think that is in anyone's interests; the resident who circles for ages trying to find a space, the shopkeeper who cant get his deliveries (except when the lorry parks on the corner or blocks the bus lane) or the car driving customer who cant find a space and thinks "s*d it, I'm off to sainsburys car park." Whilst I'm never going to like being told what I can/cannot do, to me, a bit of rationalising isnt a bad thing.


Talking to friends who lived in Hackney when they had a CPZ consultation: they didnt like the idea to start with but once it came in, that changed. They (and their visitors) genuinely could park easier, traffic went down, the road became quieter and safer (and not totally dominated by the car) and shops didnt close down. (BTW: I understand that the "unsaid reason" that the shopkeepers were anti- was cos they didnt like the thought of not being able to drive to work anymore and not because they had any real concern about business viability!) Also the presence of a traffic warden wasnt a menace but a figure of authority and safety (yes! imagine that!) esp. when they had kids. Their CPZ was put in on a trial basis so it could be evaluated over a year or so. Sounds fair enough to me!

i appreciate the work that has gone into the survey that has now been posted as a way of getting some detailed views - but a survey that has 24 questions isn't going to be answered by anyone unless they really care (esp. since the main question isn't question number 1 but question number 15) so i don't see this being representative either

Good points SS, but I hope I can reassure everyone that the 24 questions can be completed in just a couple of minutes and it's great to get everybody's point of view! In the end this survey will only be representative of those people who respond to EDF surveys about CPZs ;-).


Amazingly, in the first couple of hourse we've had over 50 respondents, so quite a lot of people do care!


We felt that whether people were affected by parking problems, and whether people were well informed would probably have a bearing on how they felt about a CPZ but apologies if it's a bit lengthy.


As with the best bar votes, it's a bit of fun - you never know, everyone might agree with your view!

Bit of a joke survey....eg loaded questions about "parking problems", assumptions mainly negative, open ended questions all relate to assuming there is a problem, only asks once for an opposing opinion to a charge, weird question about changing your mind which assumes you have and no space for any other comments, I suspect its just because its done by amateurs rather than anything more sinister but seriously it's not a decent survey

Sorry for any confusion Quids.


Judging by submissions so far, it seems that few others have had too many difficulties. Responses have been sufficiently wide-ranging to suggest that the questions are't as loaded as you feel.


Q18 gives you the option to say that your opinion hasn't changed. If it hasn't then Q19 and Q20 should be ignored as they say 'If your opinion has changed, what....'


I've clarified this in the question for you, so hopefully it will address some of your concerns?

There's nothing wrong with a simple survey like that She'llsurvive but it's more of a vote than a survey and that opens it up to more criticism. We're just trying to get a few opinions about the CPZ in general and sorry you have to scroll down to number 15 but if we had it at number one more people would just fill in that question then bugger off. People who feel strongly about will make the effort to fill it in.


Anyway please can we move this discussion back onto the merits/pitfalls of a CPZ and not how the survey has been set up, thanks.

On the results so far I notice that 60% say there should be no parking restrictions, yet 89% think there should be restrictions for estate agents' vehicles.

How does that work? Clearly those Foxtons' minis have an effect that transcends normal rational thought.

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> On the results so far I notice that 60% say there

> should be no parking restrictions, yet 89% think

> there should be restrictions for estate agents'

> vehicles.

> How does that work?


I think it's the use of the words "special restrictions" at Qu16. I interpret that as most people don't want general parking restrictions on residential and business users, but do want special restrictions on estate agents, taxi firms and car salesmen (but not on tradesmen). Clearly the Foxtons effect at work, but see also Felicity J Lord, Wates (is it them with the Beetles?) and so on...

Is there such a think as automotive nimbyism? nimps?


How can it be OK for a local car owner to park without restriction but not a local car owner who needs their vehicle to make a living? If local businesses can't generate revenue then the local economy will decline unless perhaps this is preferable method of generating parking spaces?

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...