Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Melbourne Road was a rat run.  I've used it in the past.  It would not have taken that many vehicles, which would all have to have returned to the main road.  I'm pleased that many rat runs have been closed.  Many were closed or restrictions were bought on long before LTNs.  London roads have always suffered from congestion.  Certainly in the last 50 years or so.  

This in a discussion about a CPZ, in an area you don't even  live in !! 

4 hours ago, fredricketts said:

over the years that I have been in East Dulwich the Council has slowly tried to bring in CPZ

This is very true, they have tried and tried and now they are trying again. The suddenly 'necessary' proposed installation of paid parking bays for visiting shoppers in cars (something they were very against up until now) is just another way of turning up the heat.

 

  • Like 1
On 24/02/2025 at 22:50, Moovart said:

I just tried to do that and it said I had already participated so if my first survey attempt is discarded as incomplete then my input will not be counted at all.  Seems unfair if true.

I found this paragraph interesting in the "options to consider" section :


Nearby CPZ schemes operate Monday to Friday, 8.30am to 6.30pm (zone ED) or Monday to Friday, 9am to 11am (zone PW). If similar parking times to neighbouring CPZs are implemented for the proposed zone, this may help prevent vehicles from other CPZs parking in your zone.

 

 

Basically it's encouraging people to vote for 8.30-6.30 restrictions because that's what the parking restriction times are in the adjacent Melbourne Grove North.  Seems like trying to influence the survey result in the instructions!!!

So residents would need visitors' permits all day if anyone comes to visit. What a pain.

So Southwark is concerned about people in adjacent parking zones parking in your new zone if you don't opt for all day restrictions but they're not concerned about displacement to the east side of lordship lane and are not even seeking the views of the rest of us in east East Dulwich even though we will all be affected.  All feels a bit 1984, pick us off one section at a time.

 

 

 

 

The pollution in Dulwich is quite high, and its because Southwark Council has forced thousands of cars from minor main roads onto all our main roads, trebling the pollution and traffic, increasing Ambulance, Police and  and fire services response times. (facts) Why because some big wigs in other countries say we need to get to net Zero so put in LTNs as they will make our streets safer. So far I have filmed about 20 over ten ton lorries backing down my road out onto the main road Lordship Lane. They don't care a monkeys for the people who, pedestrians, people who live above the shops, the schools that are on the main road, of which some, they have not long built to do away with a police station. They have allowed more flats above what used to be Somerfield's, let them build on their customer car parks and the same was with the site M&S,202310AshLBD.thumb.png.10b5e46ff498bd3815d1d08202145d82.png

 

Thurs 6 March 6-8pm
Last CPZ consultation meeting at Dulwich Grove United Reformed Church

To send your response online go to:

https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

 

Most in this area live in old Victorian terrace housing, maintenance costs can be frequent and high. Consider that if Southwark council steamroller through their CPZ agenda, the costs for necessary work on your property will be much higher every year as you will pay for contractors parking. You will also pay for any visitors who use a car.

The council aim to stop you owning a car altogether if they can, so expect CPZ costs to go up year on year. Don't forget, they want the cost of owning a car to become a huge burden.

 

  • Like 1

And?  To live in this area you have to be reasonably well off unless you are in a position to be in social housing with labour costs for builders and other professionals in the 100s of pounds a day what is a few more quid?  There are huge swathers of London with controlled parking, and the central London congestion charge.  You still see loads of Pimlico Plumbing vans though.

I hope others see that you have an agenda, since you do not live locally but have extremely strong views on what you believe should be the priorities of those that do live here, to the extent that you have said you are prepared to attend local meetings out of your area.

We do not need CPZ. Currently, most people are able to park, including visitors and contractors in cars. Parking may not be directly outside the home and sometimes it may involve parking a street away, but for the most part everyone manages, including shoppers in cars. Demand for CPZ is wholly a council led agenda with the help of activists, like you.

 

Thurs 6 March 6-8pm
Last CPZ consultation meeting at Dulwich Grove United Reformed Church

To send your response online go to:

https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

  • Agree 1

I do live locally.  But not on Melbourne Road.  My local shops are in SE22, pub and bus stops.  I've been travelling through SE22 for decades.  I know a fair amount about local transport, the national picture, and the need to take action against emissions of pollutants and climate change gases to meet national legal requirements and international commitments.  With the rise in populist politicians and anti-science, against the backdrop of geopolitical tensions and poor national finances - Tories, COVID, Ukraine and a shaky start by the new government, as citizens there is even more we need to do.  In the  absence of personal responsibility and looking at issues from our own self interest, I understand why local authorities have to consider firmer actions.

And I could do more too before I am criticised of being holier than thou 

You live in Lewisham, don't you? You do not live in the area up for consultation in East Dulwich, or on streets adjacent to or contiguous with the consultation area, do you?

I travel through Forest Hill a lot and use shops there but would not claim to be a local.

There is no evidence CPZ directly reduce pollution or help climate change, unless you are one of those that sees CPZ as a way to tax people out of car use altogether ( I think we know the answer to that).  

Since you feel so strongly about all this, to the extent you will instruct others on car use, I cannot imagine you would use a car for any reason, even less that you would own one.

Thurs 6 March 6-8pm
Last CPZ consultation meeting at Dulwich Grove United Reformed Church

To send your response online go to:

https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

 

 

  • Agree 1
On 01/03/2025 at 16:37, fredricketts said:

Its one big Con caused by the non existent CLIMATE CHANGE

Eh?

You think climate change doesn't exist?

On 01/03/2025 at 20:16, Spartacus said:

This in a discussion about a CPZ, in an area you don't even  live in !! 

I expect there are many people contributing to this forum who don't live exactly within the SE22 or Southwark borough boundaries.

What on earth does it matter, if they have an interest in the subject under discussion and frequently come  to or through SE22 (or even if they don't)?

Do you think people should be required to prove where they live before they are allowed to post on the forum?

This constant griping is so tedious.

  • Agree 2
On 02/03/2025 at 10:36, first mate said:

You live in Lewisham, don't you? You do not live in the area up for consultation in East Dulwich, or on streets adjacent to or contiguous with the consultation area, do you?

I travel through Forest Hill a lot and use shops there but would not claim to be a local.

Where has Malumbu "claimed to be a local"?

Are you saying anyone not "living in the area up for consultation in East Dulwich or on streets adjacent to or contiguous with the consultation area" should not post on this thread?

How ridiculous. Probably most of the people using the forum, and possibly many of the people posting on this thread, don't conform to your requirements. I don't, for a start. I live on the other side of Lordship Lane to the area in question.

You and a few others on here just have bees in your bonnet because someone living just outside the SE22 boundary posts on the ED Forum and makes valid points  which you don't agree with.

It's childish.

Edited by Sue
Clarity
22 hours ago, malumbu said:

I do live locally. 

He also 'thanked' me in an earlier post for reminding him about the consultation and signalled an intention to get involved. 

Of course, no-one is objecting to Malumbu posting his views on this forum and he posts plenty; the objection is to those living well outside the current CPZ weighting the results by responding to the process for idealogical reasons, and it is the case that various pro CPZ organisations do get involved. Surely those living inside the consultation area or adjacent to it are best placed to judge if CPZ is required or not? It is easy for anyone outside the area to decide for idealogical reasons that everyone should have CPZ. However, as I said, there is no evidence CPZ directly reduces pollution or mitigates climate change. For what it is worth, I am not a climate change denier.

 

 

Edited by first mate
  • Agree 2

Hi first mate,

I also had three failed attempts to submit the survey, so I spent approx three hours yesterday tracking down the correct council dept and cc’d James McAsh.

i eventually got through to Highways who suggested that I should use this direct link:-

https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/melbourne-grove-south-parking-survey

It took me to the same page, but my response actually went through the fourth time. I’m not sure if the direct link made the difference or if they quietly reset the server… but it’s interesting that you still can’t get through today.

The other option they suggested was to post the paper copy or drop it in to the Session on Thursday… but I went to the session on Saturday and I didn’t want to fill out the paper version because there are too many technical errors on the diagram of my end of Melbourne, which would take too long to write out… so I was more comfortable typing.

But even when I tried the final on-line version, the questions kept jumping around on the screen, which made it difficult to fill in my answers.

They seemed to think that the problem was just me, but I told them that I’d seen your post on the EDF and suspected that there were more people who had given up.

You can contact Highways directly by email at [email protected]

 

  • Agree 1

I'm expecting that either their chosen respondents (including staffers whether resident locally or not, it wouldn't surprise me to discover) will be getting the access url that works or they'll declare that nobody much was interested.

What they should do, of course, hearing their system was broken (which of course can happen wholly accidentally) is to re-set and re-start the process with a new deadline.

Anyone think they will? 

  • Agree 1

Thanks rch and Penguin, well, well, well how very interesting. I have been trying and still had no success. I would not be surprised if others have tried then given up. How convenient. It is interesting how often these consultations seem to suffer 'technical' glitches.

If anyone has succeeded then please let us know the magic solution. Better still perhaps the man in charge can sort it out.

 

Interesting, first mate. It would be useful to put down a marker by emailing Highways directly and copy James McAsh in… as I’ve now been told by several council officers that the problem is just with me and they’ve had a significant number of replies already.

I guess their contention would be that someone saying they cannot complete online is lying. That is the problem with these consultations and the way they are operated. I really do think responses should be limited to the streets directly involved as well as those immediately adjacent/ contiguous, otherwise the whole thing is open to abuse. Pro CPZ groups are highly coordinated and motivated. Of course, you may be in favour, so apologies if I seem to be making assumptions.

Hand on heart, I feel this is a done deal and the example of Dulwich Village CPZ shows that they will push it through, whatever the result. Cllr McAsh has said he would like to rid the streets of all cars so I think we know what is coming.

One thing I understand is that the leaflet gives options of times for parking controls and you have to fill one of the options out or your response is voided. The online consultation did not seem to have these? Is it legal to have two 'varieties' of consultation format operating at the same time, if indeed that is the case?

Thanks, Northern Star… the more people that email Highways, the more say that the residents will get, as the council will have to acknowledge the technical issues.

first mate, in the online version that I have, you can indicate how many days a week and how many hours a day you want. I noticed that the survey questions were flicking around the screen, so you may have to scroll back and forth/up and down a few times to read them all properly.

fyi, I haven’t owned or driven a car since the mid 90s (long story), so this won’t affect me personally. In fact several residents at my end of Melbourne (close to Lordship) don’t have cars… most of the cars parked around here are the teachers at both nearby schools and some doctors from Tessa Jowell, whereupon at school holidays and weekends the road is fairly empty down here.

Plus, a significant number of Lordship shopkeepers and workers drive in from out of town, so if they can’t park nearby then we may begin to lose even more shops on Lordship… William Rose the Butcher has a sign in their window asking residents to help them fight for staff parking spaces.

I attended the drop in session on Saturday because I have a lot of solutions to some of these issues… some of which I tried to implement when I was a councillor… plus there are several technical errors on the diagram that need addressing.

So, from my perspective, I’m neutral… but my observation is that whoever designed this proposal has done it really badly. The council officers I spoke to at the drop in session weren’t very knowledgeable.

I’ll post more specifics if I can find time to type properly…

 

That is simply amazing that you managed first time. I have been trying again today, on various devices and with no luck. Just from this forum alone, that is three of us that have had issues. i wonder why....?

Speaking to neighbours; they are also having issues and cannot get beyond the green circle going round and round.

One aspect of the questionnaire that puzzles me is how someone like Malumbu, who has managed to fill it in online and submit, answers the question about "Do you want permit controls on your road"- online most of the questions are optional, but that one is not. If you do not actually live in the consultation area how do you answer that question?

Edited by first mate

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...