Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am sorry, but it is more than three people and they actually live in the consultation area which suggests there is a bit of an issue no? If those meant to be consulted cannot actually respond then what is it all meant to be for?

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

It took me a couple of minutes to fill in the consultation form on line and send it in, I didn't have that much to say.

Just helping me to understand how this works? Many of the questions are optional but there are a couple that are not; one asks if you "want permit controls on your road"?  If you live a bit away from the consultation area, neither on one of the roads in or adjacent to the area, how do you answer that? Doesn't the question suggest you live on one of the roads in the consultation area? I can see that people close and adjacent to the consultation area might be affected and so could answer if CPZ installed then they also want controls as they will take displaced parking. But, if for instance, you live a bus journey away and answer 'yes, I want permit controls on my road" doesn't this suggest you live in or adjacent to the consultation area?

Edited by first mate
1 hour ago, malumbu said:

commuters/workers be treated specially?  It took me a couple of minutes to fill in the consultation form on line and

So, Mal, despite not living in Southwark, let alone the proposed CPZ, you decided to influence our lives? You got the working staff link I suppose? 

Mal may have somehow sent in a submission to test the link, perhaps he will say. I am however puzzled as to how you can respond in an honest way to the consultation if you do not live in or adjacent to the consultation area? One of the very few mandatory questions asks if you are a resident and if you want permit controls "on your road". There is not an option to say I live further away but I support CPZ in destinations I visit.

 Not at all, if people feel strongly that a street they do not live in should have CPZ then obviously they are free to post their views on here.

This is more about me trying to understand how the results are collated and interpreted. For instance, one poster on here said he was advised that the council would not make those streets that do not want CPZ have CPZ (aligning with Cllr McAsh' 'promise' this would not happen). However, from the design of the consultation questionnaire, how can they be sure what each street wants?

The issue I see is that if you put down the road you live in you have limited options. The only roads named are those within the proposed consultation area. However if you answer that you live in one of those roads there is no way to check if you do or do not. 

There is also the category of 'other'. By ticking that box it means you may live in a road adjacent to, or very close to, the consultation area and may therefore be directly affected with displaced parking if the CPZ is imposed. But, 'other' could also apply to anyone living in any other road in the borough; so how does this then relate back to the question "do you want permit parking on your road"? Are all the 'other' answers given equal weighting?

What about the bit that asks if you are a visitor or a resident to the area. How does that relate to the "other" and "on your road" questions? Someone in an adjacent road or very close by might legitimately say they are resident..but what about the those living further afield?

 

Edited by first mate

Just to shift the subject slightly, nobody recently seems to have mentioned cost of parking permits (apologies if it has been mentioned, there's a lot of pages!). We've just had our letter asking us to renew our brown waste bins. It is currently £80 a year, double the price it was three years ago. If CPZ comes in is there anything to stop Southwark doubling the price of permits in three years? 

3 hours ago, Eats Dulwich said:

If CPZ comes in is there anything to stop Southwark doubling the price of permits in three years? 

If it only doubles you'd have escaped lightly. It is fair to note that all councils are on reduced rations from the centre (National Taxation redistribution) which makes even meeting statutory requirements an issue (hence local fury at what has been wasted in the Village vanity project) - but Southwark will continue to ramp-up what it can out of discretionary charges - i.e. car related and waste collection related. When I moved here nearly 40 years ago, garden rubbish and large items were collected out of 'general rates' (Community charges). And there were no CPZs.

Regarding CPZ costs, the current charge is £247.50 for the first car if ULEZ compliant otherwise £320.10.  Second or more cars are charged at £320.10 regardless.

When we first had to pay in August 2020 it was £125, so it's doubled since then. Most significant increase was from £133 (in 2022) to £225 (in 2023).

  • Agree 1

Thanks Northern, I also had to use a laptop in the end, so it seems the council questionnaire may not be compatible with a range of handheld devices, which may have put off those who would like to participate. If the case, that is a pretty poor show in this day and age.

13 minutes ago, first mate said:

. If the case, that is a pretty poor show in this day and age

Surely you cannot be surprised. The council's 'consultations' in whatever context (vide the discussion on Gala) bear no resemblance to anything which might imply democratic accountability or any unbiased search for 'truth'. Their object is to grind down protesters such that they don't bother to be consulted in future, knowing it to be a farce. And it's working. 

Shall we open a book 

Evens : a few residents in one or two streets wants it, and to stop parking spilling into other streets it will be implemented in all 

2:1 : a load of invalid responses will be rejected leaving only ones wanting a CPZ 

10:1 : only some streets want and will get it 

10,000:1 : the CPZ will be rejected 

 

The tic tac toe man says "it's a single horse race" 

  • Haha 1

To be honest, I think it makes little difference. The consultation questionnaire seems deeply flawed and designed to allow anyone, anywhere, to vote to impose CPZ in areas they do not even live in. The council and its CPZ supporters, both outside of and in other parts of the borough, are determined ED should be CPZ.

Note the latest 'messaging' is if those living closer to the city (with the benefit of tube lines) have to have CPZ then it is 'only fair' we should also have it.

I hope everyone remembers that the only legal reason for CPZ is to alleviate parking pressure. In the current consultation area you may occasionally have to park a street away, but otherwise, parking is manageable. 

 

I attended the drop in on Sat 1st March and asked the representatives given Southwark Labours track record of failing to consult with business (Melbourne Grove) would they confirm there will be a full consultation with business on and adjacent to Lordship Lane. 
 

“Yes, we will drop in to see every business” was the response .

I’ve just spoken to a local business owner, their experience is not only have the borough not done this, but they appear to have deliberately excluded businesses to the eastern side of Lordship Lane (Franklins side) deeming them “unaffected by the proposals”. 

What ever side of the argument you’re on this is disingenuous, dishonest and underhand behaviour from an administration driven by dogma rather than the wishes of its constituents. 

Edited by geh
Edited for typos

Businesses on that side will be viewed by the council as 'unaffected' until a few individuals magically pop up with a 'complaint' about parking and then there will be another consultation on that side. Disingenuous is an understatement.

I got this leaflet today. Well done to whoever is organising this.

cpz_flyer.thumb.jpg.066d8cd3869dd6efc0dd2ad88139f44d.jpg

However I would suggest visiting https://opposethecpz.org/home/documents/ which has several leaflet templates which explain the legal position with regard to CPZs.

oppose_the_cpz_flyer.thumb.png.cd061a1d27e6c287981b361420d9ab73.png

It is important that we all remember the lessons of 2023. Southwark council's declared aim then was a boroughwide CPZ with no consultation. This was entirely outside the law and eventually their plan had to be withdrawn, but only after a well organised opposition campaign based on the lack of legal backing for their plan. Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the legislation relevant to CPZs, has not been revised, extended or amended since 2023 so any CPZ decision must be made in line with this legislation. This means without reference to nonsense like “kerbside space”. Given Southwark council's stated aim the only thing that is likely to deter further CPZ expansion is a legal challenge. A legal war chest was collected in 2023 and specialist solicitors were retained so this remains a possibility if this scheme is pushed through on unlawful grounds.

 

My issue is all the stop the ULEZ, stop the CPZs, stop the LTNs, stop taxing motorists etc are single issue campaigning against restrictions on motoring.

Meanwhile the UK is still failing to meet air quality standards, is behind on legal commitments to reduce carbon emissions from road transport, so in the short term more people are ill and die, and longer term (and not so long term as it is happening in front of our eyes) radical changes to our climate.

These campaigns have no answer to this.

  • Agree 3
48 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Meanwhile the UK is still failing to meet air quality standards, is behind on legal commitments to reduce carbon emissions from road transport, so in the short term more people are ill and die, and lon

CPZ adds nothing to air quality issues, indeed vehicles driving around to look for parking space or circling whilst someone does something all add to it. And your pro cycling stance is a little single issue, isn't it?

11 hours ago, malumbu said:

My issue is all the stop the ULEZ, stop the CPZs, stop the LTNs, stop taxing motorists etc are single issue campaigning against restrictions on motoring.

Meanwhile the UK is still failing to meet air quality standards, is behind on legal commitments to reduce carbon emissions from road transport, so in the short term more people are ill and die, and longer term (and not so long term as it is happening in front of our eyes) radical changes to our climate.

These campaigns have no answer to this.

In a few years we won't be allowed to buy new ICE vehicles, electric only therefore that alone will massively reduce carbon emissions so the argument that a CPZ is there to reduce carbon emissions in itself should lead to removing CPZs when cars are mostly electric 

Or do you disagree @malumbu

Edited by Spartacus

Ah but the council will love that since electric vehicles are heavier it means they can charge more. They already have plans to penalise owners of electric cars.

In summary, on the one hand Cll McAsh and fans want to rid the streets of all cars, but they also want to encourage shoppers to visit the area in cars and ensure they are able to park, as a matter of 'fairness'. They also feel that because areas closer to the city and to tube lines have controlled parking, it is only 'fair' other areas, with weaker transport links,  like ED, have it too.

The overriding rationale for CPZ in ED has very little to do with parking pressure- the only legal reason to ever have it. 
 
The council also presumably think it only fair that the consultation process is open to anyone, meaning someone living much further afield can decide that your street should have CPZ, purely for ideological reasons, not because of any parking pressure. How is that fair?


 
 

  • Like 1
19 hours ago, Charles Martel said:

I got this leaflet today. Well done to whoever is organising this.

cpz_flyer.thumb.jpg.066d8cd3869dd6efc0dd2ad88139f44d.jpg

However I would suggest visiting https://opposethecpz.org/home/documents/ which has several leaflet templates which explain the legal position with regard to CPZs.

oppose_the_cpz_flyer.thumb.png.cd061a1d27e6c287981b361420d9ab73.png

It is important that we all remember the lessons of 2023. Southwark council's declared aim then was a boroughwide CPZ with no consultation. This was entirely outside the law and eventually their plan had to be withdrawn, but only after a well organised opposition campaign based on the lack of legal backing for their plan. Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the legislation relevant to CPZs, has not been revised, extended or amended since 2023 so any CPZ decision must be made in line with this legislation. This means without reference to nonsense like “kerbside space”. Given Southwark council's stated aim the only thing that is likely to deter further CPZ expansion is a legal challenge. A legal war chest was collected in 2023 and specialist solicitors were retained so this remains a possibility if this scheme is pushed through on unlawful grounds.

 

Charles, this is very useful. The question I would ask is what does the 'majority' mean? Is it the majority of residents in the consultation area or the majority of those who respond to the consultation? Well organised pro CPZ groups, with members living well outside the consultation area will be engaging with this consultation and that could weight the response. Are there any insights into how responses are calculated?

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...