Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Closing this one, the message has been made, and there's plenty of similar threads - Admin


One of the shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove has set-up a petition against the road closures around their shop.


The link is below for those interested.


https://www.change.org/p/helen-hayes-help-us-not-to-get-road-closure-in-east-dulwich?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=b9ef0770-e198-11ea-a32a-a7c05e9e4c3f

I will sign but perhaps a mirror E-petition can also be replicated on Southwark's own petition site at

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgepetitionlistdisplay.aspx?bcr=1


Petition scheme

A petition is a statement about a local issue, supported by the signatures of local residents or those directly affected. A member of the public or a councillor can present a petition at a local community council meeting, the cabinet, to other council committees or council assembly.

All petitions sent or presented to the council will receive an acknowledgement from the council within 10 clear working days of receipt.


So what is within 10 days? The Southwark AGM! Need to get signatures going quickly over the weekend though

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=6772&Ver=4

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

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

> Do a lot of people drive to Melbourne Grove to

> visit the shops there? I would assume most people

> walk.


Well by the tone of the petition set up by the owner of Therapy on Melbourne Grove one suspects not. What you have to realise is that the businesses on Melbourne Grove are not high footfall businesses - their catchment area for customers tends to be much wider and so they rely on people travelling from across the area. Notice how along Melbourne Grove there have always been parking bays that allow, if I am not mistaken 30 minutes or one hour parking outside the shops - which suggests at some point the council acknowledged that these businesses needed parking spaces for their customers. Which, of course, would suggest that many of their customers use cars to get there.


Perhaps pop down to Melbourne Grove and ask some of them?


Rahrahrah - what makes you think the businesses will do better - and please do not quote that flawed council stat that people spend 40% more when they walk or cycle propaganda the council amplified during the CPZ consultation? Melbourne Grove has always been a bit of an outlier for shops in the area due to the lack of footfall so I can't see how this is going to help them.

The congestion caused on E Dulwich Grove may deter whatever car-using customers approach from that direction, maybe stopping en route to/from Sainsburys. Meanwhile any car-using customers approaching from Dog Kennel Hill or Grove Vale have nowhere to park. There aren't many shops anyway, so they can just get on their bikes and find other jobs (irony).
I went down Melbourne today and was really surprised they?d double yellowed the short-duration parking bays close to the grove vale junction. Why? All they were there for was to help parking / custom for the local businesses. Bizarre.

Thank you so much for doing this. I am the owner of Fashion-Conscience store on the corner of Grove vale and Melbourne Grove and just posted about how locals can support our petition and the various reason why they should.


There are is so much more to this than whether our customers come via cars or not, which I can confirm they do, especially elderly or ill who are not able to walk, yes who come from further afield, people who currently are still fearful of using public transport with Covid and the obvious fact that if people drive past you they think of you when booking an appointment.


There is not only the businesses livelihoods at stake but the very high risk of increased traffic and thus pollution on ED Grove and Grove Vale as all cars will need to use these routes, the social injustice of why people living on the closed roads should be allowed to push pollution onto other residents and business and schools, and the manner in which Southwark has been able to do this with NO consulation or any data gathering or monitoring under a very dubious Covid social distancing premise.


I urge you to support our petition if you can. There are peoples livelihoods and health at stake.

Please Follow us on twitter @GroveReopen and please retweet our tweets to any local journalists


Southwark petition

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049


Petition

https://www.change.org/p/helen-hayes-help-us-to-stop-the-road-closures-in-east-dulwich?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_24177815_en-GB%3A1&recruited_by_id=99cb3070-eeab-11ea-842f-6bf2fee0f1e3&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initialto sign the petition.


You can also voice your views here

Streetspace East Dulwich : [eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is]


Email your councillors below;


[email protected] - councillor now in charge of roads

[email protected] - new role Deputy Chair for Southwark Low Traffic

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


and

[email protected]

[email protected]

I assume that those of you pushing this petition will also support me in my bid to have the following roads re-opened, as without these closures my assertion is that the traffic will flow much more freely around the local area:


Oglander Road: (remove paved area at Grove Vale end to allow a straight cut through up to Bellenden Road and beyond), Ondine Road : remove one way section- benefit as above

Coppleston Road: Make 2 way throughout

Bellenden Road: make 2 way throughout

Oakhurst Grove: remove bollards near junction with Kelmore Grove - to allow access through from East Dulwich Road and remove pressure from the Peckham Rye junction.

Milo Road- remove barriers to allow easy access from Lordship Lane through to the village

Friern Road- remove barriers to allow for alternative to getting stuck down the side of Peckham Rye.


I feel sure that if all these closures were reopened then the gridlock in the area would disappear.

I assume that those of you pushing this petition will also support me in my bid to have the following roads re-opened, as without these closures my assertion is that the traffic will flow much more freely around the local area:


Oglander Road: (remove paved area at Grove Vale end to allow a straight cut through up to Bellenden Road and beyond), Ondine Road : remove one way section- benefit as above

Coppleston Road: Make 2 way throughout

Bellenden Road: make 2 way throughout

Oakhurst Grove: remove bollards near junction with Kelmore Grove - to allow access through from East Dulwich Road and remove pressure from the Peckham Rye junction.

Milo Road- remove barriers to allow easy access from Lordship Lane through to the village

Friern Road- remove barriers to allow for alternative to getting stuck down the side of Peckham Rye.


I feel sure that if all these closures were reopened then the gridlock in the area would disappear.


===========================================================================================================


Yes I would support you, and same for getting rid of Champion Hill one way system, Please let me know!

I would also support the reopening of those closed roads, but fear hat at this moment the council would use that campaing as a dilution of the message that these recent closures are utterly ill conceived and totally inappropriate.

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> Might be issues with refuse trucks with any

> closures in the middle of the road.


Might be an issue with the middle of the road being a school entrance...reversing vehicles and children don't mix too well.


It's a shame an 'eco' shop is objecting to this so soon. It's less than a week since the planters were installed, Week 1 is too soon to make a rational assessment on the actual impact - the 'it will kill our business' talk is fear, fear of change (totally understandable given the tough trading climate). Give it time. Anyone driving to these shops still can.

I would like to reiterate the below for those of you who agree that people should be consulted on these matters first.


Please sign our online petition, and email your local councillors to express your views. You can also express your views on the specific road closures via an app I have copied in below.


Please show us your support if you can. There are peoples livelihoods and health at stake.

Please Follow us on twitter @GroveReopen and please retweet our tweets to any local journalists



Petition

[chng.it] to sign the petition.


You can also voice your views here

Streetspace East Dulwich : [eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is]


Email your councillors below;


[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


and

[email protected]

[email protected]

Why can people not understand that access to Melbourne Grove is still available they (Local Authority) have simply blocked one way to stop it being a rat run. I think people are making things up to suit their arguments. It is disgraceful.

Would people who want the street open for the sake of businesses, like their own street used as a rat run?

If you think about the wider picture, we need less car use in order to reduce the catastrophic consequences of global warming. This is a move towards reducing car use across the borough which is better for all of us. Less pollution and traffic.

Question: How are the small number of businesses located at the bottom of Melbourne Grove affected by the road closure. Their customers can still access their stores by using the other entrance to the street. Are they saying customers zooming down the street at 30 mph (it is a 20 mph zone) suddenly think I have to pull over I need some 2nd hand clothes or are doing an emergency stop because they need a facial (which I am guessing would require an appointment).


TBH I could see the coffee shop not wanting it closed but the rest of it is @rse.


Not sure why I am wasting my life on a sunny Sunday putting up this post so I will stop.

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...