Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 10/12/2024 at 14:23, Penguin68 said:

For Southwark, in addition, they are part of their stated desire to drive out (sic) privately owned cars from the borough as part of their class warfare objectives. Need I remind you that the north of the borough is very well served by public transport, and where residents have little or no need of private vehicles to lead a normal life, very much not true of much of the south of the borough, poorly served, if at all, by London's public transport, and notoriously not with a flat, Dutch style topology which readily supports unpowered bicycles.

And this is exactly why the council's own guidance was that active travel interventions should only take place in places with high PTAL scores (the north of the borough) where people have a plethora of other travel options.

 

CPZs have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with revenue generation.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

And this is exactly why the council's own guidance was that active travel interventions should only take place in places with high PTAL scores (the north of the borough)

Where is this guidance? All of the policy documents that I have seen have committed the council to action around active travel across the borough. I have not seen anything that states they are only looking to increase walking and cycling in the North.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

CPZs have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with revenue generation.

As stated many times before, Councils can’t use parking as a revenue-generating tool. The use of any surplus that results from parking is strictly governed by legislation and is tightly controlled. It can only be used for activities specified in Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). These activities include:

  • public realm improvements
  • road safety initiatives
  • freedom passes for disabled people and people over 60
On 10/12/2024 at 14:23, Penguin68 said:

For Southwark, in addition, they are part of their stated desire to drive out (sic) privately owned cars from the borough as part of their class warfare objectives

The most affluent households are far more likely to have access to a car. The negative impact of motorised transport disproportionately affects disadvantaged groups; including transport-related air pollution, climate change and traffic collisions. So a class war perhaps, but not in the way you think.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

The guidance came years ago during meetings the council held about OHS/LTNs etc - I don't have the details of it to hand but somewhere in the annals of this forum there are the references to it and where it came from - it was in the years pre-Covid and around the failed OHS consultation of DV.

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As stated many times before, Councils can’t use parking as a revenue-generating tool. The use of any surplus that results from parking is strictly governed by legislation and is tightly controlled. It can only be used for activities specified in Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). These activities include:

  • public realm improvements
  • road safety initiatives
  • freedom passes for disabled people and people over 60

But surely that is still revenue-generating because if you are able to fund those items you highlight above from revenue from CPZs and LTNs then it means you don't have to use other budget sources to fund those activities?

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

But surely that is still revenue-generating because if you are able to fund those items you highlight above from revenue from CPZs and LTNs then it means you don't have to use other budget sources to fund those activities?

Councils are struggling just to fund the services they're legally obliged to provide. If money wasn't raised in this way then they would simply have to do less to improve road safety or invest in the public realm. It doesn't fund, or cross-subsidise any other activities.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

The guidance came years ago during meetings the council held about OHS/LTNs etc - I don't have the details of it to hand

I don't think this is relevant. Clearly it is not the councils policy that active travel interventions should only take place in the North of the Borough. 

Not directly but, say, your budget for road safety or public realm is £10m a year and you manage to raise £10m a year from CPZs and LTNs surely you can then turn the £10m you had earmarked for road safety or public realm something else and if that is the case then are they not using CPZs and LTNs to raise revenue to help fund other spending? 

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Not directly but, say, your budget for road safety or public realm is £10m a year and you manage to raise £10m a year from CPZs and LTNs surely you can then turn the £10m you had earmarked for road safety or public realm something else and if that is the case then are they not using CPZs and LTNs to raise revenue to help fund other spending? 

I really don't think this is the reality of LA funding. It allows you to do things you otherwise wouldn't do, it's not allowing you to reallocate money you just had sitting there. 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

I imagine it is down to careful phrasing of what you intend to do. So some intentions are explicit and others are kept in mind but not necessarily stated, that way things you might want to do but have yet to raise funds for can be presented as 'new'. 

 

Very unlikely, particularly as school coaches take many cars off the road so smarter and more environmentally friendly 

You could argue of course that if families lived close to school very few children would need to be coached or driven by car to school.

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Very unlikely, particularly as school coaches take many cars off the road so smarter and more environmentally friendly 

You could argue of course that if families lived close to school very few children would need to be coached or driven by car to school.

I just think it's unfair that residents have to pay for permits and those who do not live in or contribute anything to the area park for free.

Plus the amount of these diesel coaches in this small area must be contributing vast amounts of pollution.  They also get to drive through DV and Townley Road during the hours that no-one else can, not even the people that live there.

I find it strange that a Labour council should allow this.

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't think this is relevant. Clearly it is not the councils policy that active travel interventions should only take place in the North of the Borough. 

 No but they did say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores....which is why they cited the north of the borough....because in the south we have low PTAL scores...that's what makes it relevant.

3 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

I find it strange that a Labour council should allow this.

I don't think they have an option. You can't encourage people to stop using cars and then complain if there are more school coaches for parents to get their children to school. I know Clean Air Dulwich embarked on a campaign against the school buses but it was massively misguided especially if your stated aim is to reduce pollution from car traffic....seems a little counter productive to then moan about the car replacement.....

I am still needing to be convinced that councils are not using PCN and CPZ revenue to make their balance sheets look a lot healthier by using that to fund road management etc and free the money originally earmarked for something else.

Wasn't this part of the issue for the council with the CPZ when they failed in their quest to get it area-wide - that they had already "booked" the revenue on their balance sheets for the forthcoming year?

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

 No but they did say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores....which is why they cited the north of the borough....because in the south we have low PTAL scores...that's what makes it relevant.

I don't think they have an option. You can't encourage people to stop using cars and then complain if there are more school coaches for parents to get their children to school. I know Clean Air Dulwich embarked on a campaign against the school buses but it was massively misguided especially if your stated aim is to reduce pollution from car traffic....seems a little counter productive to then moan about the car replacement.....

I am still needing to be convinced that councils are not using PCN and CPZ revenue to make their balance sheets look a lot healthier by using that to fund road management etc and free the money originally earmarked for something else.

Wasn't this part of the issue for the council with the CPZ when they failed in their quest to get it area-wide - that they had already "booked" the revenue on their balance sheets for the forthcoming year?

But, now that there is to be a CPZ all around the private schools there will be nowhere for private cars to park and drop pupils off.  In my opinion now would be the time to start charging the coaches. 

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

No but they did say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores....which is why they cited the north of the borough....because in the south we have low PTAL scores...that's what makes it relevant.

 I really don't think this is what Southwark say. They've clearly implemented LTNs across the borough. 

On the PTAL scores... it varies across the area, as it does for most London neighbourhoods; But the vast majority of East Dulwich is rated between a 3 and 5 ('moderate' to 'very good'). Peckham, Camberwell, and Herne Hill generally have a high ('excellent') PTAL score. The Village is much lower, largely due to it's low density and wide open spaces.

One Dulwich have tried to use PTAL to undermine the case for LTNs in and around Dulwich. I suspect this is because it sounds a bit technical / 'sciencey', and few people know enough to question how 'One' Dulwich use it, or it's relevance to LTNs. If you're in an area that's fairly reliant on bus, bike and foot as the main alternatives to motor vehicles for short journeys, then reducing traffic is just about the best thing you can do in the short to medium term to make getting around easier, safer, and quicker.  

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
48 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The Village is much lower, largely due to it's low density and wide open spaces.

I think PTAL scores are a function of the availability of e.g. public transport - clearly where there are wide open spaces and the public transport availability is low then the scores will be as well, but this doesn't stop it meaning that people have to go a long way (longer than those with high scores) to get access to public transport. Or are you thinking that's a trade-off people should accept, whatever their age and disability?

And here is where Southwark goes against it's own guidance on LTNs (there were others around the 2018 timeframe as well but I cannot find those as Suuthwark has been deleting a lot of stuff)  in areas with low PTAL scores (one has to wonder why they thought Dulwich was a good spot and when you look at a lot of their own criteria they have failed to deliver....:

 

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50011926/Final reports Wednesday 01-Jul-2020 19.00 Environment Scrutiny Commission.pdf?T=9

 

Recommendation 14: Introduce a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. These should be implemented: 

Over a wide enough area in order to realise the benefits of traffic evaporation, which has been shown to take place when there is a significant reduction of short journeys by car under 2km. 

As a priority in areas with high levels of public transport (high PTAL ratings), poor air quality, lower levels of car ownership, in areas of deprivation and where the programs would impact positively on local schools and hospitals. 

Where traffic may be displaced onto main roads, the council must monitor the impact on air quality, and mitigate negative effects in advance of implementation, possibly by widening pavements and creating cycle lanes, managing traffic to reduce vehicle idling time and introducing green screening programmes. 

In conjunction with the introduction of CPZ and a reduction of parking so the kerbside can be utilised for active travel and public realm improvements (such as pocket parks and cycle parking). 

In conjunction with improvements to Public Transport and other work on adjacent main roads to increase cycling and other forms of active travel. 

Edited by Rockets
3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

I think PTAL scores are a function of the availability of e.g. public transport - clearly where there are wide open spaces and the public transport availability is low then the scores will be as well, but this doesn't stop it meaning that people have to go a long way (longer than those with high scores) to get access to public transport. Or are you thinking that's a trade-off people should accept, whatever their age and disability?

I don't really understand how the first point fits with the last. If you are surrounded by parks and fields, there are large houses/ low density, and fewer roads, then you probably are going to have to walk further to get public transport. You seem to accept that. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting? Buses cutting through parks and playing fields? You could perhaps increase the frequency of buses through the village, but you would still have to walk to the main road.

But point was that a low PTAL (it's not low across most of the local area) does not suggest the need to pursue policies encouraging more motor traffic and congestion and which make it more difficult to get about by foot or bicycle - quite the opposite.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

TFL's definition of PTAL which can be found here: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/connectivity-assessment-guide.pdf

 

2.2 What is PTAL?

PTAL is a measure of connectivity by public transport, which has been used in various planning processes in London for many years. For any selected place, PTAL suggests how well the place is connected to public transport services. It does not cover trips by car.

PTAL values are simple. They range from zero to six, where the highest value represents the best connectivity. For historical reasons, the Setting PTAL value of one is split into two categories (1a and 1b) and the PTAL value of six is split into two categories (6a and 6b). All together there are nine possible values of PTAL: 0, 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a and 6b. We often present PTAL values in maps, where a preset set of colours represent the different values. This is described later, in table 2.2.

A location will have a higher PTAL if:

• It is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops

• Waiting times at the nearest stations or stops are short

• More services pass at the nearest stations  or stops

• There are major rail stations nearby

• Any combination of all the above.

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Recommendation 14: Introduce a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

So the recommendation is a borough wide programme of LTNs. Not a policy of only introducing them in the north of the borough?

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

As a priority in areas with high levels of public transport (high PTAL ratings)

This is about where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to.

1 minute ago, Rockets said:

A location will have a higher PTAL if:

• It is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops

Exactly. Dulwich Village buses pass through the centre of the village. It's surrounded by big houses / is low density. It also has a number of large open spaces, parks and fields. So there are fewer people within a short walk from the bus. 

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So the recommendation is a borough wide programme of LTNs. Not a policy of only introducing them in the north of the borough?

Which parts of the south of the borough have high PTAL scores? Does Dulwich Village have high PTAL scores?

 

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is about where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to.

But you realise that LTNs are less likely to succeed in areas that do not have high PTAL scores don't you - it was actually that fact that the council was referring to back in 2018 when they stated the north of the borough was part of the borough to implement them? Why? Because in areas with low PTAL scores there are limited alternatives to car use - something Southwark pointed out in their 2018 Dulwich transport survey that stated....car ownership was high due to, a number of factors, including low PTAL scores....

And if there are limited options what happens when LTNs go in...they displace rather than remove traffic....

 

 

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:
42 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So the recommendation is a borough wide programme of LTNs. Not a policy of only introducing them in the north of the borough?

Which parts of the south of the borough have high PTAL scores? Does Dulwich Village have high PTAL scores?

That's quite the non sequitur:

  1. You claimed Southwark said LTNs should only be deployed in the north of the borough. You've then quoted them saying the opposite. 
  2. I've already named some of the areas in the South of the borough with high PTAL scores, including Herne Hill, Peckham, Camberwell and parts of East Dulwich.
  3. I've explicitly said that the Village does not have a high PTAL score and explained some of the reasons for why that might be. 
  4. I have said why I believe that a high PTAL score does not suggest one should avoid interventions that reduce motor traffic, or improve the ease and safety of walking and cycling, but the opposite.
26 minutes ago, Rockets said:
42 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is about where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to.

But you realise that LTNs are less likely to succeed in areas that do not have high PTAL scores don't you

Again, that's quite the non-sequitur.

What you have quoted does refer to where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to, as you wrongly claimed.

Might I suggest that there is some deflection going on? 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

Let's cut to the chase Earl, Dulwich Village, given the council's own guidance, seems a very strange location for an LTN don't you think? It seems it was doomed to fail from the outset as the characteristics were not conducive to success.

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Let's cut to the chase Earl, Dulwich Village, given the council's own guidance, seems a very strange location for an LTN don't you think? It seems it was doomed to fail from the outset as the characteristics were not conducive to success.

What guidance? You have quoted Southwark council as recommending:

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Dulwich Village is in the borough. It's also just one of several LTNs the council have introduced across Southwark.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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