Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We need to get all the groups together 

Nunhead and Queens road are on opposethecpz.org 

there are 3 or 4 different petitions just against cpz in Dulwich hill on the Southwark petitions website 

so if everyone can make contact via the website absolve we can all join forces 

On 19/07/2023 at 15:03, JMK said:

is there a lawyer who can advise at a high level as to the legal basis upon which Southwark Council can implement a CPZ such as this and the routes available to challenge it, if any?

It strikes me as possibly being "ultra vires" but that's a question of law

And certainly disproportionate to anything to do with traffic management

thanks in advance

Yes, legal routes are being explored and the pressing thing for now is to get everyone from all the areas talking to each other. Queens Road and Nunhead are pretty far along and are on opposethecpz.org 

we can all make contact there 

For info Southwark is planning to update its Parking Enforcement Protocol, principally to reduce / in some cases remove the 5 min observation time before a ticket  can be issued, for various types of contravention

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50032081

 

  • Like 2

 

I suspect the 5 minute grace peruod has reduced the number of tickets they can issue and with CPZs coming they know from other boroughs that they can increase the number of fines significantly.

 

They have probably run the revenue numbers of 2 vs 5 minutes and like what they see.

 

How charitable of them.....;-)

  • Like 1
17 hours ago, Andrea Mac said:

We need to get all the groups together 

Nunhead and Queens road are on opposethecpz.org 

there are 3 or 4 different petitions just against cpz in Dulwich hill on the Southwark petitions website 

so if everyone can make contact via the website absolve we can all join forces 

Yes, legal routes are being explored and the pressing thing for now is to get everyone from all the areas talking to each other. Queens Road and Nunhead are pretty far along and are on opposethecpz.org 

we can all make contact there 

Is it clear who in a given area they accept input from?

3 hours ago, march46 said:

Here are the actual reasons stated for the change. I’m pleased they’re listening to residents and businesses to tackle inconsiderate parking by drivers.

IMG_0424.jpeg

The problem is there is no consistency in the new rules, some are now two minutes, some are now immediate. Perhaps designed to add confusion? Will also probably lead to confusion by traffic officers as different rules now apply in different circumstances for different bays. 5 minutes seemed to be a universally accepted sensible rule so seems like other motivations are behind this and I very much suspect that is more revenue generation.

 

Is 5 mins not the rule everywhere else? I don't like it when councils deliberately go against the norm, like yellow line parking on Sundays which is enforced by some and not others.

Edited by Rockets

Yes that is a good thing when it comes to idling engines but not when it comes to delivery drivers. You can't make a delivery (other than small Amazon parcels) in two minutes so those who have shopping delivered within CPZ areas may find the drivers struggle. 

 

I think the "we have listened to businesses" is a smoke screen and this is about maximising revenue opportunities and targeting delivery drivers as an opportunity to raise more funds.

Yesterday Keir was trying to tell everyone Labour are the party of working people....hmm....

It is good to see that there is some sort of record of what was said by Cllr McAsh on CPZ plans at the recent Assembly. That was the meeting where the sound was so bad on the YouTube video, it was unintelligible.

On reassurances that he gave in the past he is pretty shameless, saying that because there is a new plan no undertakings or promises given prior to that count in any way. We should all remember that.

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/councillor-under-fire-for-a-blog-post-from-4-years-ago-that-contradicts-councils-cpz-policy/

I'd also like to make a point that hasn't yet been mentioned about the CPZ. There are a number of homes that have a crossover drive and more than one vehicle. Some residents park one car on the  drive and the other across their drive on the road. As far as I'm aware this technically breaches highway code 243 which states 'do not stop or park infront of an entrance to a property', (no mention of an exemption if it's your own property). Currently with no parking enforcement in place this practice goes unenforced. You can imagine that once the council start enforcing parking, any infringement will be swiftly punished. 

If a CPZ is introduced, double yellow lines across and extending past each dropped curb will appear making it illegal to park across their own drive. 

Where two houses next to each other have a dropped curb, the two parking spaces between will become only one due to these extended lines.

Don't expect to retain as many parking spaces in your road as there are now. 

Don't hold your breath...Southwark is one the Labour councils most likely to resist and fight against Keir and his sensible centrist politics. Momentum and the far left is still strong in Southwark and they don't have the best track record for listening to the electorate.

  • Like 1

I believe the council has just announced that they plan to reduce to 0 minutes (it used to be 5) the 'tolerance' for parking breeches. This, in effect, means that anyone expecting a simple delivery (Amazon, supermarket etc.) will need to buy parking time anywhere in Southwark if the delivery agent is not to risk a £60 fine. Or, in other words, I suspect, it will mean that many carriers will refuse to deliver in Southwark. Oh, and don't expect the Post Office to continue to send out vans with post in them from Peckham, when they won't be able to park-up in SE22 to deliver 'ED' Delivery Office mail.  Or even to collect mail from post boxes. Because we know the agents employed to 'police' the new CPZs will be encouraged to fine everyone to generate the revenues the council wants, and they'll go for the easy targets. The - well I was going to say 'unintended' - but of course the council couldn't give a damn - consequences of this disastrous set of council decisions will be dire.

And, before anyone weighs in about the environment - whilst environmental intentions may be admirable - it is the actual impact of those which are key. The Aztecs ripped the hearts out of people to ensure the sun rose each day - well it did - but perhaps not as a function of human sacrifice. There is no evidence at all at the moment that the actions of the council have had any net benefical impact on the environment.

Oh (just to wind certain people up) - the current suggestions that it is only 'fair' that people in the south of the borough pay for roads as those in existing CPZs do in the north - as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, car ownership in the (very well served by public transport) north of the borough is comparatively low - so there are lots of free loading no-car-owners taking benefit from the roads which they use (buses, taxis, shared usage) without paying a red cent for them, as it is clear that the hypothecated revenues from the car owning community are now, or will be, paying for Southwark's roads. Where's the 'fairness' of that? (as if fairness, rather than a hatred of the kulak class was the driver in our branch of North Korea).



Just to note that, according to Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation, EV's are not the panacea to climate change or local air quality issues and will make particulate emissions worse which they classify at "the most dangerous pollutant for human health"

 

"Whilst the proliferation of electric or zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) is likely to reduce NO2 concentrations, it will not improve air quality in its entirety. This is because a significant amount of PM2.5 is released from tyre, brake and road abrasion, rather than through exhaust emissions. The government’s own air quality expert group notes that “particles from brake wear, tyre wear and road surface wear currently constitute 60% and 73% (by mass), respectively, of primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from road transport, and will become more dominant in the future”, as vehicles become larger and heavier.iii"

Written evidence, Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation (CCE0012)

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/41541/pdf/

 

The point also applies to many popular cars incl. 4x4s sixe to their size and weight; however, taking spiteful and arbitrary action as Southwark Council is doing with the CPZ is not the answer but certainly discriminatory and likely to be unlawful too

15 hours ago, JMK said:



Just to note that, according to Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation, EV's are not the panacea to climate change or local air quality issues and will make particulate emissions worse which they classify at "the most dangerous pollutant for human health"

 

"Whilst the proliferation of electric or zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) is likely to reduce NO2 concentrations, it will not improve air quality in its entirety. This is because a significant amount of PM2.5 is released from tyre, brake and road abrasion, rather than through exhaust emissions. The government’s own air quality expert group notes that “particles from brake wear, tyre wear and road surface wear currently constitute 60% and 73% (by mass), respectively, of primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from road transport, and will become more dominant in the future”, as vehicles become larger and heavier.iii"

Written evidence, Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation (CCE0012)

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/41541/pdf/

 

The point also applies to many popular cars incl. 4x4s sixe to their size and weight; however, taking spiteful and arbitrary action as Southwark Council is doing with the CPZ is not the answer but certainly discriminatory and likely to be unlawful too

Hope we're not being led down another mistaken route like we were years ago when we were told to buy diesel cars to reduce CO2 emissions.🤔

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...