Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Residents of Marmora Road have received emails from Danny Hathaway (from Harriet Harman's office) and Gavin Edwards

Councillor for Peckham Rye (With Victoria Mills and Renata Hamvas)today in response to our calls and emails. Several people have also been phoned.


A meeting is being planned for some point next week - I'll be surprised if this actually happens. But the bus drivers ARE slowing down (after a campaign of speed awareness signs made by residents).

Any humps in the road tend to increase vibrations in the houses nearby rather than reduce them. I am sure that the prior 'subsidence' in our house is more due to the speed humps in the road than simple earth movement. I'm also entirely unsurprised by the bus drivers ignoring any speed limits while off duty. There's a restriction on Wood Vale to stop large vehicles going along the LL end after 11pm but buses regularly go along around midnight.

As broadcast earlier today by Tfl at bus stops with update screens "63 buses are on diversion or subject to delays due to inconsiderate parking on Therapia and Marmora Roads SE22" (or words to that effect, sorry can't quote word for word, but that's the jiste of it), "resulting in 63's either terminating at Peckham Rye" or appear to having to go to Brockley Rise to turn around.


The NIMBY's seem to be 1-0 up at the moment following some "strategic parking". Will be interesting to see TfL's response. Any views on this from the councillors?

The message about inconsiderate parking was still being displayed at the bus stop at 10pm at Peckham Rye tonight. This sounds like a really badly managed scenario by TFL and the council. I live in Ivydale Road and my flat vibrates every time a P12 goes by so goodness only knows what a 63 feels like. Plus we regularly have stand offs as the buses try to negotiate their way around parked cars. delivery vehicles, recycling and refuse treks, etc. Frankly I think P12 bus drivers deserve every penny they earn.


I hope the 63 situation improves soon for you all.

OD Wrote:

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

> @skyoffire - as one of the residents that seem to

> be getting communications from the councillors,

> please can you (or anyone else who finds out) post

> the meeting details please.

>

> Much appreciated.

> OD


Yes, of course.

unlurked Wrote:

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

> If it's true about people purposely parking to

> stop the buses using that particular route then I

> wonder how they would feel if there was to be a

> fatal accident on the forced route?


The car that was crashed into definitely wasn't parked strategically - none of us have done that. A guy did double park the other night (a non-resident) but he wasn't aware that buses were using the road as a diversion.

No car was parked "strategically".


If you look at the picture that has already been posted you can see that the bus has hit the rear corner of the silver Fiat 500. What you can't see in the picture is that behind the car the pavement "sticks out" (sorry I can't think of a different way of describing it). I imagine that this "design" of pavement is to stop people parking right on the junction corner so that vehicles making the turn can always see oncoming traffic. It acts in the same way as the double yellow lines on the corners of Scutari/ Marmora. In this case it has resulted in an unsuitable vehicle not having the space to make the turn around the corner. The pavement on the other side of the road is similar and the cars parked on both sides of the road were parked close to the curb. There are no road markings to direct drivers not to park their cars here and both cars were parked responsibly.


Other buses had already successfully negotiated the corner yesterday before the incident occurred suggesting that driver error was probably the main cause of the collision. Having said that, the turn in such a large vehicle is a very tight one and it is startling how close the buses have to get to the cars parked on the "passenger" side of the bus when approaching the end of Therapia in order to make it around the corner. Therefore perhaps it is TFL's error as much as the individual driver's. I do actually feel *some* sympathy for the bus drivers - I'm sure they wouldn't have chosen this route.


On a side note, I find comments such as this:


unlurked wrote:


> If it's true about people purposely parking to

> stop the buses using that particular route then I

> wonder how they would feel if there was to be a

> fatal accident on the forced route?


inflammatory, unnecessary and slightly twisted.


I look forward to receiving details of the planned meeting and I fully intend to attend.

I've been watching this thread with interest and I can see there is no simple answer. Maybe it would be an idea (if at all possible) to use the hopper-type buses like the ones used by the P12/P4, as they are smaller and would likely cause less vibration. This would probably mean the 63 terminating at the beginning of Forest Hill Road/Peckham Rye (as someone mentioned earlier) and transferring onto the smaller bus for the final part of the journey. Although a better place to terminate would be where the buses used to turn around just as they came out of Rye Lane by the little green patch. I think this is called The Heaton Arms (after the pub which is no longer there).


From my experience, this final part of the journey for the 63 from the City is usually less busy passenger-wise than the rest of the route, that's why I came up with the idea.


Unsure about the logistics of this, but it's just a thought.

Like thousands of others I use the 63 twice a day and see no reason why we should be inconvenienced with a reduced service/ having to get on some ridiculous and no doubt insufficiently large hopper service between Peckham Rye and FHR due to a few inconsiderate NIMBYs. Clearly the works need doing and will result in an overall long term improvement

Less than six weeks of increased traffic on a street is hardly a big deal - lots of people live on narrow roads with busses going past every day.

Most simple answer - continue to ignore the NIMBYs.

daveybigpotatoes Wrote:

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

> Like thousands of others I use the 63 twice a day

> and see no reason why we should be inconvenienced

> with a reduced service/ having to get on some

> ridiculous and no doubt insufficiently large

> hopper service between Peckham Rye and FHR due to

> a few inconsiderate NIMBYs. Clearly the works need

> doing and will result in an overall long term

> improvement

> Less than six weeks of increased traffic on a

> street is hardly a big deal - lots of people live

> on narrow roads with busses going past every day.

> Most simple answer - continue to ignore the

> NIMBYs.


Agree.

unlurked Wrote:

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

> daveybigpotatoes Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Like thousands of others I use the 63 twice a

> day

> > and see no reason why we should be

> inconvenienced

> > with a reduced service/ having to get on some

> > ridiculous and no doubt insufficiently large

> > hopper service between Peckham Rye and FHR due

> to

> > a few inconsiderate NIMBYs. Clearly the works

> need

> > doing and will result in an overall long term

> > improvement

> > Less than six weeks of increased traffic on a

> > street is hardly a big deal - lots of people

> live

> > on narrow roads with busses going past every

> day.

> > Most simple answer - continue to ignore the

> > NIMBYs.

>

> Agree.


I also agree.

OR... continue to have the 63 bus turn round at Brockley Rise. I also travel on the 63/363 route (minimum twice a day)and it seems that since this arrangement was put in place on Saturday this has been working just fine!


I think that Renata also menitioned a side affect of trialing the so called '63 route extension'...different issue I agree, but a side effect nonetheless.

The ward Councillors have made some suggested time to meet up with TFL and Harriet on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday this week. Depending on the consensus time and day, it may be that only one Councillor can make it (eg I am chairing a meeting on Wednesday evening so couldn't make the meeting if it's then), but we have suggested times where at least one of us will be there.


Hi Nunhead Belle, TFL won't spilt routes into large bus/little bus as it is uneconomical for them (this has come up in conversation previously with residents and TFL over the 343 route). I have received some emails outside of the forum by residents who use the 63 and are concerned that TFL may terminate buses at Peckham Rye. Their concerns have been capacity on the 363 and worries that TFL would then make this a permanent route extension.


Buses were supposed to be driving at 15MPH on the diversion route and night buses should have been on here as the N63 goes to Crystal Palace. I am appalled to see that a bus crashed into a car while on the diversion section.


While I was away, Councillor Mills had beat me to it to suggest extending to Brockley Rise. TFL flatly refused at the time.


I will post on here once we have conformation of the meeting time/day.

Renata

My concerns are not so much with the bus route coming past our house, more about the volume (often 3 buses all at once) and the speed that they travel. We are lucky in that we have a drive to park our car on but I am very concerned about the buses turning into the road, they come round very fast and wheels have come very close/onto the pavement whilst I have been standing nearby with my small children. Also pedestrians are not good at looking before they cross the road at the therapia/fhr junction and there could well be a nasty accident just there (that's more an issue of the pedestrians, but it becomes far more risky when buses are turning in at speed).


To the people suggesting we are being selfish by complaining about this, I wonder what you would do if you had similar concerns about buses on your road.

jonbateson Wrote:

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

> To the people suggesting we are being selfish by

> complaining about this, I wonder what you would do

> if you had similar concerns about buses on your

> road.


I live on Melford Road which has all those concerns and yes, you are being selfish about this.

Sorry ruffers but I take offence to that, I was standing on the corner of therapia road and fhr with my two children 3 and under and a bus pulled very quickly around the corner, mounting the kerb. Do I not have a right to be annoyed about that? I already said in my post that I'm not worried about the buses coming this way but when they are driven like that it is not right (as it would not be right anywhere else). I think we will have to agree to disagree if you don't see the point here, I hope that you don't find yourself in a similar situation.

@jonbateson - I have experienced the same and have also wondered how the cars parked LEGALLY close to Therapia/FHR junction have thus far escaped damage; as the corner is very tight for the buses. You have the right to raise your concerns just like anyoone else.


@Ruffers (and others of the same opinion) if residents of Therapia & Marmora roads were suggesting that the diversion be routed via Colyton and Mundunia roads instead, then I could see this as a case of these concerns being selfish/outright nimby-ism.


However, most of the suggestions I've seen, and indeed the one that is currently in place (and as Renata confirmed 'TFL flatly refused at the time') are along routes which buses 'usually' travel via main roads.... and SEEM to be holding as a solution; unless anyone has an update that it isnt?

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...