Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, first mate said:

I suspect you are wrong.

You think it's going to collapse the high street? Really?

BTW, I think (could be wrong - hopefully someone will know more), that shop workers can obtain business parking permits for CPZs. So it may help those who really need to travel to their place of work by car, to actually park (although I suspect the vast majority use public transport).

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

Businesses on LL have set out reasons why this could be an issue for them.  If you live in the area you will surely be aware of these. 

I would add that I do not personally think CPZ will lead to the complete collapse of the Lane but it could make life very difficult for some of the independents and I would hate to lose those. Long term, if businesses fold there will always be others to step in, the chains in particular. But part of EDs charm lies in its independent shops. 
 
Aside from that, currently parking pressure is not enough to warrant a CPZ and parking pressure is the only legal reason to impose one.

I do have a problem with cycling activists that live outside the area taking it upon themselves to try to impose CPZ on others for ideological reasons.

Edited by first mate
6 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You think it's going to collapse the high street? Really?

BTW, I think (could be wrong - hopefully someone will know more), that shop workers can obtain business parking permits for CPZs. So it may actually help those who need to travel to their place of work by car to park.

Another cost for them 

Don't forget the increase in business rates, higher employers NI, minimum wage increase, and if people are discouraged from shopping local a potential dip in revenue  then additional costs for parking may be the straw that breaks their backs. 

Like I say, I don't feel strongly either way on this. But I think the idea that a CPZ on Melbourne Grove will destroy the high street is absolute fantasy. I wish people would just make the argument and not resort to such hyperbole. If you genuinely need a vehicle to get to work, then parking permits probably help. It's not easy to park at the moment.

  • Agree 1

But, for someone who has no strong feelings you are focused on just one aspect and repeat it to seem like it is the main and only point . What about the fact that there is not sufficient parking pressure to warrant a CPZ? What do you say about that and why then is the council so very keen to make it happen?

Why is the council suddenly so keen to facilitate shoppers in cars when the reason for the first CPZ was to deter this? Only recently, a pro CPZ/LTN activist posted criticism of shoppers in cars in ED. Do you agree that a major reason to impose unnecessary CPZ on ED is because zones much closer to central London have them, even though they benefit from vastly superior transport links? The messaging is muddled and inconsistent.

What do you think about the consultation wording and design? 

I don't think anyone is surprised that the council have returned to their borough-wide CPZ plans so quickly - they now clearly have to take one road at a time and we can expect a similar approach across the rest of Dulwich. Dulwich spoke and told them we do not want CPZs but they are now chipping off one road at a time and creating parking pressures that never existed before. Around Calton they made Townley and Calton a CPZ which is utterly ludicrous as they are the two most sparsely populated streets in the whole borough and they have created parking pressure problems across Beauval, Dovercourt, Woodwarde, Druce etc which never existed before. No doubt a few knows on the door of some Labour members and they'll get a hdnaful of people to support the drive for a CPZ and before you know it another consultation for those streets will be run.

Southwark wilfully manipulate the process to their benefit and there is nothing anyone can ever do about it as they cannot be held accountable.

17 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Southwark wilfully manipulate the process to their benefit and there is nothing anyone can ever do about it as they cannot be held accountable.

There are local elections. 

38 minutes ago, first mate said:

But, for someone who has no strong feelings you are focused on just one aspect and repeat it to seem like it is the main and only point

I mention it, because it's on the top of the poster that was shared:

cpz_flyer.jpg

As I said:

"There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make without resorting to hyperbole. I also want a thriving high street. I don't for one second believe this proposal will threaten that. I suspect no one really does."

So I'm 'focussed on' (responding to) this point, because it's the one I specifically disagree with. 

Ultimately, I don't live on those roads and can't say what residents might want (although I know they're pretty chocka). 

Thanks for drawing attention to that campaign Earl. I hope residents will get involved. I imagine local businesses are best placed to know the threats or challenges local CPZ might place on them. I know a number of local businesses are very worried and galvanising support.

What do you think about the council encouraging visitors in cars to park on the high street? Aren't you one of those that gets upset about the impact of parked cars on the high street on cyclists and buses? Do you agree with what the council are doing in this respect?

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There are local elections. 

There are but between elections they pretty much do what they want and bend every process to get what they want - even when it goes against the wishes of their constituents.

On the subject of Lordship Lane I do not see how anyone can say that they do not think it will have an effect. Lordship Lane is a destination location and whilst many fo us walk to and from the shops there are still a large number of people who drive to Lordship Lane (the last council survey said that it was a large proportion - I think about 25% but it was done some time ago - who drive from neighbouring boroughs). Lordship Lane is already under threat from soulless chains like Megans, Jo the Juice and Chipotle so I would suggest that anyone who wants to try to retain what remains of  the unique nature of the Lane  and supports the independent traders does everything they can to resist this blinkered CPZ land grab.

1 hour ago, first mate said:

 

I do have a problem with cycling activists that live outside the area taking it upon themselves to try to impose CPZ on others for ideological reasons.

That's worrying, who are these activists?  Why have they come to our part of SE London?  Unlike me I bet they don't even know the roads affected, use the shops, the 176/185/P13, drink in the Castle, occasionally go to DHFC (much more in the past).

Out of interest who amongst us actually live on Melbourne Road? I'm a mile or so away but it was once one of my commuting routes and I now use it when over at TJ.  

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So to be clear, you would like to encourage people to drive to Lordship lane and to park on the residential roads just off it? 

To be clear 

There really isn't a problem with that happening at the moment, so why is it an issue in your mind 

Been meaning to ask, which part of the council do you work for? 

@Malumbu So you live well out of area but say you participated in the consultation. What I do not understand is when you answered the question about whether you want CPZ on your street, how did you answer? This is to help me understand how it works, because your street is not within the consultation area?

BTW it is Melbourne Grove, not road. 

Edited by first mate
2 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Been meaning to ask, which part of the council do you work for? 

This is such a silly comment. I've said quite clearly "There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make", but simply pointed out that claiming a CPZ will destroy the high street is not really the best one to lead with. It's hyperbole and no one seriously believes it. One step away from 'will no one think of the children!?!?'

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So to be clear, you would like to encourage people to drive to Lordship lane and to park on the residential roads just off it? 

It happens already, it has always happened,  and I am fine with it. It just means sometimes we cannot park outside the house and occasionally have to park on another street. There is no need for a CPZ.

  • Like 1

Fair enough. I'm surprised as you've often said you're concerned with congestion, pollution, and with traffic slowing the buses on lordship lane. Seems slightly at odds with wanting to encourage people to drive to the shops.

I'm surprised those living on Melbourne grove and surrounding streets want to encourage shoppers to use those roads for parking, but up to them ultimately.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

That is because more traffic has been funnelled onto Lordship Lane after imposition of the Melbourne Grove LTN. 

What surprises me and ought to surprise you is that it seems the council are happy to see congestion on LL get even worse, by encouraging shoppers to park there. It just seems so contradictory.

  • Like 1
21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So to be clear, you would like to encourage people to drive to Lordship lane and to park on the residential roads just off it?

Earl, this was a conversation about the impact it could have on the traders of Lordship Lane and why the CPZ may impact those traders. Why are you trying to flip the story to somehow suggest we are encouraging people to drive to Lordship Lane? I was stating facts based on the council's own report on how many people drive to Lordship Lane as it is a destination venue - that's not hyperbole.

I was responding to this.

46 minutes ago, first mate said:

What do you think about the council encouraging visitors in cars to park on the high street? Aren't you one of those that gets upset about the impact of parked cars on the high street on cyclists and buses? Do you agree with what the council are doing in this respect?

I've said quite clearly "There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make". But if you want to lead with the claim that a CPZ will destroy the high street be my guest.

It is also the council that have made a case for CPZ citing the need to balance resident parking needs against those of visiting shoppers in cars, so it is the council that is making the case for visitors in cars and not only that, they also point out that they are supporting business on LL by letting cars park in the high street.

Please show where I have led with the claim that "CPZ will destroy the high street". You posted a leaflet and said you were talking about that.

 

Edited by first mate
8 minutes ago, first mate said:

What surprises me and ought to surprise you is that it seems the council are happy to see congestion on LL get even worse, by encouraging shoppers to park there. It just seems so contradictory.

This makes no sense. You think that people are driving to Lordship lane but shunning spaces on the Lane in favour of the surrounding streets? 

I agree what the council are proposing makes no sense. If CPZ makes it harder to park on side streets surely providing more spaces on the Lane will increase existing problems with congestion etc.?

It is not just about shoppers either.Many in the local workforce drive in and park on side streets. It may not be that easy for them to use public transport or cycle, though I expect all the usual rhetoric about laziness etc..

Edited by first mate
2 minutes ago, first mate said:

I agree what the council are proposing makes no sense. If CPZ makes it harder to park on side streets surely providing more spaces on the Lane will increase existing problems with congestion etc.?

Ah, Ok I see what you're saying. I hadn't realised the council were proposing additional parking on Lordship Lane. Is this right? I haven't seen this - do you have any further info.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

They also want to install 'metered' parking at the end of every side street. What you'll get is more congestion and more driving round waiting for spaces. I genuinely do not think this is the positive move it has been presented as. Quite apart from that, it is a large chunk of money every year on a permit, then any visitors / necessary building and maintenance work on top, and by all accounts still no guarantee you will necessarily be able to park when you need to.

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...