Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wow......just wow....basically the whole of Dulwich Village is going to become a CPZ area after all....I found this link on the bottom of the flyer announcing the Dulwich Villahe redesign consultation. I wonder if there will he a seperate flyer on the CPZ consultation as I sense the council are trying to bury this consultation?

It will be interesting to see if a yes/no mechanism is added to the consultation when it opens next week.

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/option2-dulwichvillage-stage2-cpz/

Time for the people to mobilise and go tell the council what we think of their plans......

December 2023 to January 2024 – Public Consultation.

  • 15 December 2023, Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane SE22 8NB, from 5pm to 7pm
  • 10 January 2023, Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane SE22 8NB, from 6pm to 8pm.
  • In addition to the above, you can speak to someone from the council at Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane SE22 8NB, from 10am to 4pm on 11 January 2024.
  • February 2024 to March 2024 – Decision making.
  • May 2024 – Statutory consultation subject to prior decision making.
  • June 2024 to September 2024 – Decision making.
  • Late 2024 – Implementation subject to prior decision making.
Edited by Rockets
  • Rockets changed the title to Dulwich Village area-wide CPZ consultation is back!

Fantastic 

So the councils "poster scheme" restricting access to the village is going to get parking restrictions, why ? 

Cars are restricted from the area, apart from an occasional flurry of parking around the picture gallery or the pub, the area doesn't have issue. There is limited public transport in the village so not commuter pressure 😉  

I can only suspect that the council are hoping for apathy in the consultation  as most big houses have off street parking so they won't vote either way.  Let's hope and prey not and the village folk vote it down otherwise the impact on the shops in the area will be catastrophic with the double impact of restricted access and no parking. 

 

 

Edited by Spartacus

I doubt many Dulwich Village residents will mind that much. As you say Spartacus, many have huge driveways, garages and front gardens, more than enough to keep multiple cars without ever having to pay CPZ fees. I wonder how many of those houses is truly car free? 

What this will do is keep the hoi polloi from parking in DV and make the lives of poorer residents harder, while the wealthy get off scott free. Rejoice in our socialist council, giving to the rich and taking from the poor. Remind me also, how many councillors live in this area?

It will also place parking pressure on other nearby areas, I think that is what this is really about. Because, as you say, with the installation of village squares onto highway junctions and cameras set to fine ' motorist incomers' at various times of the day, it is not as if the area really needs CPZ. Deeply cynical, in my view.

 

 

  • Like 2

For the sake of balance, and the need to reduce emissions, is there a link to a site that supports restrictions on vehicles?  Have you got any alternative proposals Charles?  What about OpposeCPZ, do they have any good ideas or are they single issue who couldn't give a fig about health and the environment which is my experience of those that most vocally oppose anything that restricts their motoring.

The council says that they propose to "reduce congestion for northbound traffic at the Dulwich Village – Red Post Hill junction." 

Pray tell, how can that be done when the congestion is due entirely to the LTN measures they introduced during the last 2 years?

They also say" We are also proposing pedestrian improvements at the Dulwich Village – Red Post Hill junction."

Pray tell, how can this be achieved without impairing traffic movement more than it is at present.

The back up of traffic at the DV-RPH-EDG  junction is horrendous with all these stationary vehicles pumping out pollutants- not to mention the deterioration of the buses on routes 37, 42 and P4.

25 minutes ago, malumbu said:

For the sake of balance, and the need to reduce emissions, is there a link to a site that supports restrictions on vehicles?  

How does a CPZ reduce pollution Mal ? 

If a car is parked its not polluting, if the driver doesn't have a permit they will be forced to moved their car daily this increasing pollution. So as a pollution reducing measure it hasn't got any merit. 

CPZs are supposed to aid residents parking when there are parking pressures in their area, they are not designed as a green measure, also CPZs apply to electric cars as well so that's not encouraging take up of electric now is it. 

So please explain how a CPZ will reduce emissions as you claim .

  • Like 1

Maybe in some places it does, who knows. However, to stay on subject, there is hardly a need to reduce car journeys in Dulwich Village and many residents will be under no requirement to stop using their cars as they have plenty of room to keep them without incurring CPZ charges.

Those impacted will be the poorer locals, without the land on which to keep cars. It will also impact neighbouring areas and less wealthy residents by creating parking pressure. As I said, a socialist council benefitting the rich while taking from those less well off. Great job!

  • Like 2

The consultation is now live and it has a yes/no response to two questions:

Do you agree with the proposed parking zone in your area?

Do you want controlled parking on your street?

Having a yes/no response is progress but, remember, the council has given itself an out by saying that even if there is an overwhelming negative response they can still force a CPZ on residents.


And I think that is what they are gearing up for with the "evidence" section and I suspect they are using that to force their plans through. Look at the "parking stress research" they have done for the area - not something I recognise as, to me, there seems to be very little parking stress in the affected area yet the council's "research" which took place over two days (allegedly between 7am and 7pm on a Tuesday and Thursday) tells a very different story.

 

 

 

 

DV parking stress map.JPG

If you charge for parking when you are away from home you may decide that it is preferable to use another mode of transport.  If you are charged for parking outside or close to your home you may decide you won't keep a car.  If your visitors are charged for parking near your house then they may decide to use another mode of transport.  Perhaps the councillor engaged with kids as they understand this elementary logic.  I'm not sure why some on this thread do not.  

29 minutes ago, malumbu said:

If you charge for parking when you are away from home you may decide that it is preferable to use another mode of transport.  If you are charged for parking outside or close to your home you may decide you won't keep a car.  If your visitors are charged for parking near your house then they may decide to use another mode of transport.  Perhaps the councillor engaged with kids as they understand this elementary logic.  I'm not sure why some on this thread do not.  

So much to discuss there Mal 

Most people don't choose to drive to their destination, they do it as a necessarity due to family size, shopping requirements or simple lack of alternatives so being charged to park is just seen as a necessary tax. 

Very few people choose to give up their cars when a CPZ is introduced and seen as an unnecessary tax if there are no parking pressures locally.

If visitors or trades people are charged then they may well decide not to come to your house, and for some that increases loneliness 🫣

As for councillors engaging with school children, it's easy to present ideas to kids then get them to draw their solution as they are in learning mode and belive what they are shown, whereas adults stop and question things so it's a bit of a low trick for a school teacher /  councillor mCash 

"As for councillors engaging with school children, it's easy to present ideas to kids then get them to draw their solution as they are in learning mode and believe what they are shown, whereas adults stop and question things so it's a bit of a low trick for a school teacher /  councillor mCash "

How very true.

It appears this current generation have learnt their lessons at school well well as they seem to know all the answers to everything without any real life experiences. Not only lessons but social media directs them in the direction required without thought.

The reason the roads coded red have so many parked cars, is due to the private schools, JAGS and Alleyns.  Carlton Avenue in term time is bumper to bumper from top to bottom.  East Dulwich Grove and Townley Road is full of coaches and cars each day from around 1 p.m. onwards.

Likewise Gilkes Crescent, Dulwich Village and Turney Road have people parking to shop, (it is a High Street after all) and accommodate staff and visitors to the Village schools.

The schools have only a handful of parking spaces, so no parking for staff or visitors.  Therefore they all park on surrounding streets.

Why should Southwark residents have to pay to park just to stop the school staff turning their roads into car parks.

Do Southwark Council receive any payment from the school coach companies for parking?

 

 

 

 

Kathleen - you've made a good case for a CPZ, to discourage people driving their kids to school.  Coaches are preferable as you take dozens of cars off the road.   I wish Dulwich College would introduce paid parking on their roads.

And if you are concerned about the cost to you, think of the benefits of less congestion, less pollution, lower carbon emissions, wider health benefits as more cycle/walk with safer roads, and less parking pressure for residents.  Lots of wins there.

33 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Kathleen - you've made a good case for a CPZ, to discourage people driving their kids to school.  Coaches are preferable as you take dozens of cars off the road.   I wish Dulwich College would introduce paid parking on their roads.

And if you are concerned about the cost to you, think of the benefits of less congestion, less pollution, lower carbon emissions, wider health benefits as more cycle/walk with safer roads, and less parking pressure for residents.  Lots of wins there.

It doesn't affect me, I have no car and I don't drive.

I don't think CPZ's or LTN's work, they just make traffic/parking someone else's problem, and in Southwark that means the less fortunate.

And, free coach parking for children attending private, fee paying schools, where many of them also live well outside the area and even outside the borough. No free space for local residents, they must pay. However, free for those wealthy enough to put their children through private schooling. Go figure.

Edited by first mate
31 minutes ago, first mate said:

And, free coach parking for children attending private, fee paying schools, where many of them also live well outside the area and even outside the borough. No free space for local residents, they must pay. However, free for those wealthy enough to put their children through private schooling. Go figure.

That's right, the children bussed in on coaches everday are not local.  They are currently transporting 1,350 pupils daily.   Also bear in mind they contribute nothing to the local economy as they never leave the school premises!

What an absolute joke this survey is. 

How can they possibly expect people to swallow the myth that there is parking pressure on roads like Calton Avenue or Gilkes Crescent when literally every single house on those roads has a car park in front of it with space for at least two cars?

They must think people are so stupid.

 

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

What an absolute joke this survey is. 

How can they possibly expect people to swallow the myth that there is parking pressure on roads like Calton Avenue or Gilkes Crescent when literally every single house on those roads has a car park in front of it with space for at least two cars?

They must think people are so stupid.

 

According to Southwark's Evidence in the latest Streets for People, local residents in Calton Ave and Gilkes and others have asked Southwark Council to introduce a CPZ.

Regardless of their drives they want their streets emptied of all the parked cars which for the most part belong to staff and visitors of Alleyns and JAGS.

If they get the CPZ's introduced all that traffic and parking ends up on someone else's street, most likely where the less well off live!

 

Do we know that these are requests from residents? If I remember rightly anyone can leave feedback on the interactive map they have used to collate some of that "evidence" - you don't have to be a resident of said street to leave feedback - would be interesting to know how many of them are from local residents as the way they position it in the document it doesn't suggest it is resident feedback: The green dots on the map below indicate where we have received requests for parking restrictions:

 

Bottom-line is much of what the council are presenting as "evidence" is not something people in the area recognise as a problem and I very much hope that people mobilise against the council and say a firm no to the proposals and the council understands the weight of feeling against them - this has nothing to do with active travel or climate change and everything to do with revenue generation - a new tax for those that rely on cars.

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...