Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A £5 investment (in southwarks Green plans) wager says that the council will spin the different funding pots wheel when you ask why the 11.5 million wasn't invested in the green projects 😉

Guess they think their residents are stupid and we all have wool over our eyes.

5 hours ago, Charles Martel said:

Southwark is not a poor area where problems with council finances are obviously linked to a low, and declining, council tax base. In the last 20 years or so billions upon billions upon billions of pounds of investment have poured into Southwark to transform areas that were derelict in the 80s and 90s into acres and acres of “luxury” flats. The council tax base in Southwark must have been vastly expanded by these developments.

This is a very good point - I wonder how council tax revenue has increased over the years due to the regeneration and gentrification in, mainly, the north and south of the borough.

 

I do wonder whether Southwark's problem is not with funding but with spending. Remember the proposal they put in for Dulwich Village/Square that was going to cost something extortionate and was laughed out of the room for the ludicrous cost associated with it, How many times have they had to re-run consultations for various vanity projects (the aforementioned DV junction being one that has a lot of consultations linked to it) - none of this comes for free. 

I walk down East Dulwich Grove and see messy, littered and unsafe pavements, holes in the road and blocked drains that cause huge puddles when it rains - making it unsafe for cyclists and an unpleasant walk when cars go through the puddles, litter and waste not cleared for days - Southwark really needs to sort out the basics so we can live in safe and clean areas.

I say this as a Green Party member - all for environmental and green policy, but priorities please!

  • Like 3
9 hours ago, Charles Martel said:

Southwark is not a poor area

Southwark is like the UK in miniature: there are Dulwich Village mansions with 5 cars parked in front, but there are also people living in abject poverty across much of the borough. People generally should be careful not to extrapolate their own experience too widely.

The idea that Southwark is bathing in an ocean of Council Tax from new builds is just wrong. It's taken years to redevelop the Heygate Estate - and those were the years of austerity. Southwark's finances are all freely available - check them out for yourself, and see how much money has been cut.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/fairer-future/fairer-greener-safer-southwark-s-council-delivery-plan?chapter=2

  • Like 1

Funding has been cut, that’s not disputed. Councils should have balanced budgets, and they should prioritise what they spend money on. The £11.5m “waste of money” is unfortunate but let’s not forget it happens on a wider and larger scale… Boris spent £50m on consultants to design the Garden Bridge, and the government have handed out huge contracts to private companies.

There is clearly a bigger problem than Southwark asking for crowdfunding.

 

On 01/03/2024 at 21:52, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Southwark is like the UK in miniature: there are Dulwich Village mansions with 5 cars parked in front, but there are also people living in abject poverty across much of the borough.

We are not talking about the income of individuals in Southwark, where everybody knows there is individual poverty and wealth.  We are talking about the income of Southwark council from council tax and business rates.  If you consider what the area around Tower Bridge looked like in the 80s compared to what it looks like now it is impossible to believe that the income of Southwark council has not increased as derelict warehouses were turned into shops, restaurants and multi-million pound properties.  

shad_thames_old.png.081a706fd23e1d1e7b9cc6a63e062c4a.png

Shad_Thames_New.png.2ee717a74b4fd9b9256c7ff60adef789.png

 

shad_thames_property.png.1dfcad23d84f3b379b93ae52af1e454a.pngThis same process of renovation and renewal has been happening across the borough.  In most cases this process has been driven entirely by private capital so this increase in taxable property and new businesses has come about with no effort from or cost to Southwark council.   We can all see that there are now new build properties in many parts of the borough.  Although not on the scale of Shad Thames, if a derelict plot of land on Lordship Lane has two new houses built on it that increases the council tax income to Southwark council.  The disposable income of the new residents supports local businesses which in turn pay Southwark council a fraction of this income as business rates.

Lordship_lane_newbuild.png.ef84037711394d1f1e9567e92048400a.png

I am not saying Southwark council must be awash with surplus cash, but what I do observe is that there should be a very large and steady income stream into the council. In the 80s, with large areas of the borough derelict, Southwark council had no problem sweeping our streets daily.  Now those areas are covered in million pound properties and we can literally wait weeks for leaves and litter to be swept up.  

If we can see public money being spent on absurd schemes, seemingly at the behest of a handful of activists, then we should all be questioning the spending priorities of the council. 
https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/traffic-warden-contract-worth-11-5-million-branded-appalling-waste-of-money-after-southwark-councils-cpz-u-turn/
This contract is essentially an engineered wealth transfer from ordinary people in Southwark to the shareholders of APCOA Parking Ltd.  

The fact that there is poverty in Southwark should be front of mind when public money is being allocated to nice to have, but totally unnecessary,  “Streetspace measures” in areas like East Dulwich where many private households already have spacious gardens.
https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/streets-for-people-in-the-east-dulwich-area/
While at the same time there is apparently no money to complete needed social housing projects in Peckham.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/london-council-rips-out-playgrounds-then-runs-out-of-cash-southwark

The latest post from the Oppose the CPZ group states that £43,801 of public money has been spent on CPZ consultations.
http://opposethecpz.org/2024/03/02/were-still-here/
Perhaps the activists who are so keen on these repeated, pointless, consultations can now  put their hands in their own pockets to pay for them.

5 hours ago, Charles Martel said:

...but what I do observe is that there should be a very large and steady income stream into the council. In the 80s...

Luckily you don't need to draw inferences from your observations about new flats on Shad Thames in the last 40 years. Just read the Council's budget documents. They're published in extreme detail and linked above.

On 01/03/2024 at 22:56, ianr said:

The £11.5m “waste of money”

What are the known facts and where can they be examined?

 

Here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s115170/Report GW3 Parking and Traffic Enforcement and associated services contract.pdf

 

This is the report submitted to Southwark Cabinet meeting by Cllr McAsh and  that was the trigger for the Cabinet agreement to extend and expand the APCOA contract.

 

Some key snippets (the total contract is actually £12.5m with £2.5m to provide an extra 48 enforcement officers - which is why there are so many of them circling Lordship Lane all the time now).

 

  • That cabinet approves the variation of the parking and traffic and associated services contract with APCOA Parking UK Ltd to utilise the available contract extension to extend the term of the contract for a period of three years from 1 June 2024 to 31 May 2027 in the sum of £4,150,611 p.a. and £12,451,833 across the three-year extension period.
  • 2. That cabinet approves a variation of the existing contract with APCOA Parking UK Ltd for parking enforcement and associated services as outlined in paragraphs 10 to 11 in the sum of £2,578,309 p.a to provide an additional 48 civil enforcement officers (CEO) up to a total value of £9,668,660 for the period from 1 September 2023 to January to 31 May 2027 (three years and nine months - 45 months).

Interestingly in the Southwark News article (https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/traffic-warden-contract-worth-11-5-million-branded-appalling-waste-of-money-after-southwark-councils-cpz-u-turn/) Cllr McAsh claims that this contract was not pre-empting the borough-wide CPZs yet in the document he submitted to cabinet last July it said (is he being economical with the truth to Southwark News?):

  • The contract is based on enforcement of the whole borough albeit 32% of the borough does not have controlled parking.
  • There is a need for additional civil enforcement officers to be deployed within the contract in order to provide the capacity to enforce the controlled parking zones that are to be implemented by August 2024.

 

If you can spend over £12m on a parking enforcement contract (to ultimately raise more money from constituents) and then spend the suggested £50,000 on a single "consultation" for the failed DV junction redesign, then don't come pleading that you don't have the cash for cycle hangers and street lights.....it might be a good soundbite but when you scratch beneath the surface you realise something isn't adding up and that there might be more than just a little bit of spin/smoke screening going on from the council.....

 

 

 

  • Like 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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...