Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

On 23/03/2024 at 16:01, ab29 said:

Where they are introduced, councils should regularly review LTNs, ensuring they keep meeting their objectives, aren’t adversely affecting other areas, and are locally supported. The Dulwich LTNs fail on all these points. 

I do wonder if the reason the monitoring strips have suddenly re-appeared all over Dulwich is as the council tries to satiate the above - given Cllr McAsh clearly stated that the LTNs can only be considered a success if they reduce traffic for everyone and given he now has ultimate responsibility for the LTNs and whether the council meeting the governments new guidance on them  I do wonder if they are trying to "prove" they are working. How they manage to prove they are supported locally in light of new guidance on how they run consultations is a massive challenge for them - they can't fall back on previous consultations because they don't pass the new bar and if they run a new consultation they will have to add a yes/no response and that didn't work out too well for them over the CPZs.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • 3 weeks later...

One Dulwich

 

Campaign Update | 13 Apr

Southwark to close Calton Avenue to emergency vehicles…again

Emergency vehicles arriving from all over London need access through the Dulwich Village junction, which is the quickest connecting route in the Dulwich area.

This was recognised in 2022, when the junction was reopened to the emergency services. Indeed, the design that went out for public consultation in December last year showed Calton Avenue as a ‘cycles and emergency services route’.

Now, however, Southwark Council has decided once again to block off this arm of the junction, leaving just Court Lane open to emergency vehicles.

This is clearly unworkable. The LAS has previously highlighted the dangers of closing a road at this junction saying that “emergency vehicles will be forced to take long detours around congested and narrow side streets… that could further delay an emergency response” for a “critically ill or injured patient”.

The Council says it wants to block off Calton Avenue because a small number of non-emergency vehicles drive through the junction. In our view, this is down to poor signage – a straightforward traffic management issue.

The London Ambulance Service (LAS) was pressured into accepting the blockage at a meeting with the Council in February. However, according to a recent FOI, the London Fire Brigade confirmed “we have had no confirmation of this proposal or communications regarding this”.

Why is the safety of local residents being put at risk in this way?

Please email us at [email protected] if you experience delays from the emergency services, and please continue to send us photos of emergency vehicles doing three-point turns or reversing out of side streets because of 24/7 road closures anywhere in the Dulwich area.

So who are OneDulwich and who funds them? They purport to be a community organisation, but no one on these threads knows who they actually are, or if they do, are unwilling to share the information. But they still post their press releases - this I find baffling in the light of the accountability these posters demand of people whose views they don't share.

Some of the names I've gleaned potentially associated with One Dulwich appear to be engaged in extending their influence into the Dulwich Society at the next AGM on 20th May. Of course, it is always hard to know exactly who One Dulwich are, as their leadership and structures are completely opaque, so this 'grouping' may or may not be formally One Dulwich. 

Measures proposed by the current Dulwich Society leadership which this 'grouping' appears to be resisting include the ability to have online AGM's, which is a modern step to allow older people/ people working away to vote, and also they appear to be resisting anonymity for Dulwich Society members taking part in committees looking at traffic issues.

The reason why Dulwich Society wants this anonymity is so that the chance of such members getting trolled online is diminished. Given the abject personalisation of some local issues on these threads, and the real-life intimidation of some pro-LTN people by persons unknown in the past, Dulwich Society's current stance on this looks reasonable to me. You would have to question why someone wouldn't want it.   

  • Agree 2

DVR, lots of smears or attempted smears there. One Dulwich posts have the ring of truth about them. Rather than bang on about shadowy, opaque organisations why not address the content OD put out with some really convincing rebuttals.

What say you to this bit?

 

"The Council says it wants to block off Calton Avenue because a small number of non-emergency vehicles drive through the junction. In our view, this is down to poor signage – a straightforward traffic management issue.

The London Ambulance Service (LAS) was pressured into accepting the blockage at a meeting with the Council in February. However, according to a recent FOI, the London Fire Brigade confirmed “we have had no confirmation of this proposal or communications regarding this”.

Why is the safety of local residents being put at risk in this way?

DulvilleRes - that's the best post...honestly - never have I seen more perfect example of the over-riding problem here...was it posted as a joke?

The fact that some, who clearly come from the pro-LTN side of the argument, are so vexed by what One Dulwich puts out there shows what a great job One Dulwich are doing to ensure both sides of the argument are heard and that is the very essence of democracy at play - the fact some are trying to demonise them for doing so speaks volumes.

Do elements of the Dulwich Society fear that One Dulwich are going to mount a coup and turn Dulwich Village into a multi-storey car park.....or maybe it's more a case that One Dulwich are, in fact (and this will probably vex a few people), a community action group run by local Dulwich residents who are interested in a range of wider issues covered by the Dulwich Society?

 

Edited by Rockets
  • Haha 1
On 16/04/2024 at 09:09, Rockets said:

The London Ambulance Service (LAS) was pressured into accepting the blockage at a meeting with the Council in February.

This is quite a serious allegation. What evidence is there of this? Pressured how and by whom? This is quite a spin on ‘it’s been agreed with the emergency services’.

On 16/04/2024 at 09:09, Rockets said:

The Council says it wants to block off Calton Avenue because a small number of non-emergency vehicles drive through the junction. In our view, this is down to poor signage – a straightforward traffic management issue.

They think the vehicles pictured driving through with partially covered plates are the result of ‘poor signage’ 🤔 

If it is as they say ‘small numbers’ driving through the square, that doesn’t suggest that the signage is unclear. I mean who honestly believes it’s possible to drive through there without noticing the signs / planters (assuming you’re driving with due care and attention)?! 🤨 

Also, haven’t ‘One’ opposed any improvements to the layout / landscaping and signage proposed by Southwark? It’s all a bit desperate.

On 22/04/2024 at 09:15, DulvilleRes said:

So who are OneDulwich and who funds them? They purport to be a community organisation, but no one on these threads knows who they actually are, or if they do, are unwilling to share the information.

At the height of the LTN ‘controversy’ a number of co-ordinated ‘One’ groups popped up across London. It doesn’t feel like a local grassroots movement, but has all the hallmarks of astroturfing. The lack of transparency about it’s funding / sponsorship and structure does not help with this impression. 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Agree 2

@Earl,

Be assured, it is purely a local group. In fact it is a genteel group of Dulwich area residents, mostly ladies , who are a little  reluctant to publish their individual names as they do not wish to be targets for hostility from internet trolls.

Local residents who attended the anti-LTN gatherings in Dulwich would have easily recognised the active members of the group.

Should you have any queries about funding, it is quite easy to send them an email.

Ha ha, some people really don't like an opinion that differs to theirs do they!

Bravo One Dulwich - you're magnificently rattling the cages of people who don't want to hear a differing opinion and the fact they get so irate about it is the icing on the cake! Some spend so much emotional energy trying to convince themselves One Dulwich is some shadowy, agitator state-funded lobby group when all they are is a group of local residents giving a voice to the majority of residents impacted by the measures.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

I am faintly amused by the cries of horror when the overtly political actions of Southwark Council Labour (their car hatred does after all form part of their manifesto) is countered by what might possibly be political action of others (although there is some evidence to support it being a groundswell of purely local and not party-affiliated activity).

Who is behind Southwark Labour party one might ask - is it Militant Trotskyites? From where are they being funded? The Kremlin, Beijing?

I have no doubt that local people are genuinely involved (and personally can understand their not wanting to publicise their involvement). That said the proliferation of One groups across London and the degree of co-ordination suggests it is more than just a local grassroots group. I’m not really that interested, except that many of their supporters do bang on about transparency and accountability.

I would be interested in the substance of their latest missive. Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how? Who genuinely believes that people are partially covering their plates and driving through due to inadequate signage? Sounds a little ridiculous / desperate. It feels like it may be time for them to start coming to terms with the changes tbh.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
9 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They think the vehicles pictured driving through with partially covered plates are the result of ‘poor signage’ 🤔 

But you have to assess whether these persistent drivers are creating more safety issues than diverting emergency vehicles on a longer route and clearly they are not. The fact members of the pro-closure lobby have built their argument on this actually shows how desperate, some would say selfish, they are to have the junction closed and just the way they want it. And unfortunately they seem to have the council over a barrel on something as the council weakly concedes to their position without hesitation.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how?

Was this not borne from an FOI that said one of the emergency services confirmed that they had not been consulted on the new DV design that Cllr Leeming then said was actually a mistake by the emergency services - and then it's a case of whether you believe Cllr Leeming or not....and his track record is hardly unblemished when it comes to all things LTNs?

6 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

I am faintly amused by the cries of horror when the overtly political actions of Southwark Council Labour (their car hatred does after all form part of their manifesto) is countered by what might possibly be political action of others (although there is some evidence to support it being a groundswell of purely local and not party-affiliated activity).

Exactly! When the "small vocal minority" was given a mouthpiece that proved it was anything other than small then some have repeatedly tried to discredit the mouthpiece. 

The far-left has never been very good at accountability and One Dulwich is forcing our local councillors and council to be accountable to constituents and it wouldn't surprise me if the council are behind a lot of the depositioning activities as One Dulwich is stopping them from getting CPZs rolled out and must be seen as a huge thorn in the side of the idealogical plan they have. Southwark Labour has a long track record of trying to stifle constituents with a view that differs from theirs (see Cllr Leo Pollack for one example) or depositioning anyone trying to represent them (see Cllr Williams during the infamous Cllr Rose "mansplaining" episode.

But you know, some think it's One Dulwich that are the greatest threat to local democracy and should not be trusted! 😉

Edited by Rockets
  • Haha 1

You haven’t answered the question… who has been pressuring the emergency services and how exactly? We all know the answer of course.. no one.

As for anyone driving through Dulwich Square without realising that they’re not meant to - well they should t be behind a wheel at all frankly.

I have no idea what the ‘far left’ has to do with Dulwich LTN either 😂

 

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I have no idea what the ‘far left’ has to do with Dulwich LTN either 😂

Because the council responsible for it is far-left....

 

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You haven’t answered the question… who has been pressuring the emergency services and how exactly? We all know the answer of course.. no one.

And you haven't answered whether it is worth diverting emergency vehicles because a few cars drive through the LTN and why some lobby groups have been so desperate to close it to emergency vehicles. 

 

Emergency services hate non-permeable junctions as they lengthen response times....f you remember it's why the council had to redesign the DV junction because emergency services kept telling them they needed to be able to drive through it...but the council resisted and resisted until they finally relented because the emergency services said their LTN had increased response times....sorry if the truth gets in the way of a good story but those are facts. The council was putting lives at risk because they refused to open the junction to emergency services. Why? What could have been the motivation for that?

So, in fact, it was the emergency services who forced the council (kicking and screaming) to remove the permanent barriers and allow emergency services access.

So the council finally opened the junction to emergency services and is now coming back to re-close part of the junction.  Why? 

Perhaps you should be asking who is lobbying the council to close the junction or parts of it or why the council is happy to waste so much of our money on it - who are they representing as even their own consultation demonstrated they did not have support from the local community for the measures? The results showed the majority of local residents were against the measure...but they are going ahead with them anyway.

 

In time, I am sure the truth will come to light and those rewponsbile will be held accountable but you have to admit there is something very unusual going on with that junction - its the very definition of a (very expensive) white elephant.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I have no doubt that local people are genuinely involved (and personally can understand their not wanting to publicise their involvement). That said the proliferation of One groups across London and the degree of co-ordination suggests it is more than just a local grassroots group. I’m not really that interested, except that many of their supporters do bang on about transparency and accountability.

 

A bit like this: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/tory-staff-running-network-of-anti-ulez-facebook-groups-riddled-with-racism-and-abuse

  • Agree 1
7 hours ago, Rockets said:

Because the council responsible for it is far-left....

LTNs were pushed by the Conservative government (as was ULEZ). They were one of several active travel measures which were a condition of the TFL funding settlement post Covid.  £69m of direct borough funding (per year) was also provided to support more localised investment in walking and cycling schemes across the city and to accelerate the roll-out of LTNs…but we all know that Boris Johnson and grant shapps are secret commies 🤣

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

And you haven't answered whether it is worth diverting emergency vehicles because a few cars drive through the LTN and why some lobby groups have been so desperate to close it to emergency vehicles. 

I’ve no idea. I do know that people are covering their plates and driving through, and that’s probably an accident waiting to happen (although clearly down to signage 🤣). The emergency services have agreed the changes, so I would assume that on balance they think it’s the right move.

Whilst ‘One’ are suggesting the emergency services have agreed the changes under pressure, they wont say what sort of pressure, or who it’s coming from 🤔. Perhaps it’s the commies again 🤣😂

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Agree 1

Rockets said:

"Perhaps you should be asking who is lobbying the council to close the junction or parts of it or why the council is happy to waste so much of our money on it - who are they representing as even their own consultation demonstrated they did not have support from the local community for the measures? The results showed the majority of local residents were against the measure...but they are going ahead with them anyway"

This. 

 

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Rockets said:

"Perhaps you should be asking who is lobbying the council to close the junction or parts of it or why the council is happy to waste so much of our money on it - who are they representing as even their own consultation demonstrated they did not have support from the local community for the measures? The results showed the majority of local residents were against the measure...but they are going ahead with them anyway"

This. 

 

Check the link I provided above. It gives a very full account of where the push for LTNs came from, (in brief, central government).

The consultation did not show that the majority of local residents were against the LTN. Not for the first time, you’ve confused a ‘consultation’ with a ‘referendum’.

The outcome of local elections (which many opposed to LTNs excitedly promoted as a referendum on the scheme at the time…until they lost), suggests they are actually quite popular.

All the polling on LTNs generally, also shows strong majority support across London.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Thanks 1

Okay Earl, of those 'consulted' how many voices were in favour of the junction and how many against? Were there more responses in favour or more against?

This local junction change is being driven by Southwark Labour Councillors- not as you assert by Central Govt.

Also, if consultations are so irrelevant as indicators of meaningful local support in the way you seem to imply, why do organisations like Southwark Cyclists constantly ask their members to respond to all and any consultation on LTN's and CPZ's?

 

Edited by first mate

I believe around 57% of the 5,538 people who were part of the self selecting sample making up the original consultation, opposed the LTN. So just over 3,000 people. This was around 3 years ago now. I think there’s something like 40,000+ living across se22 and SE21 🤷‍♂️ 

The LTN is a minority interest at best. Whilst it’s an obsession for a small number on the transport thread who strongly oppose it, I suspect most locals quietly approve of the improvements made to that junction.

…and we still haven’t heard who has supposedly been pressurising the emergency services and how (are we seriously going with the far left / the commies)? Is anyone willing to stand up and support the 'One' claim that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the filters due to inadequate signage? Again, it all sounds a little ridiculous / desperate. Feels like it may be time for them to start coming to terms with the changes.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

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...