Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 22/03/2025 at 14:01, geh said:

 

our position is that we do not think there will be much displacement to the eastern side of Lordship Lane, based on scheme we have put in within the borough in the last year

 

 

we would not be able to provide you with examples of recently installed permit schemes in Southwark where there has been little or no displacement, similar to the Melbourne Grove South CPZ area.  This is because every scheme we implement is different.

This is so completely disingenuous. They 'believe' there will only be a little bit of displacement, which they also 'believe' will not cause further parking issues. 
 

I wonder if there is a legal test for CPZ imposed to 'fix' parking pressure that then causes parking pressure on the roads close by? 
 

The council are gaslighting us. 

Edited by first mate
  • Agree 1
On 22/03/2025 at 14:50, Rockets said:

Well I think we can point the council to what has happened on the roads surrounding Calton and Townley since their CPZ went in - utter chaos and misery from those now having to live with the displacement.

A lot of residents have emailed Margy and Richard and the response is along the lines of: "Yes we are aware of the increased parking problems as a result. Would you like a CPZ as well?"

The fact they are doing this after they failed to get the area-wide CPZ plans in place shows what a bunch of untrustworthy charlatans they are - never ever trust a politician. One day I do hope constituents hold them accountable - next local elections may be interesting especially if they become victims rather than victors of a central government protest vote - and the way the Labour govenernment is going that could well be a stark reality for them - could well be a double whammy.

The displacement of vehicles since the CPZ went in is unbelievable.  Woodward Road, Desenfans, Dekker, Court Lane etc are now bumper to bumper all day.  It has done nothing to deter all the school staff from bringing their cars in, since Carlton and Townley are no longer an option.

I have no doubt these roads will desperately want their own CPZ soon!  The cars will then migrate further afield and so it goes on.,,,,,

And the utterly ludicrous thing is the majority of people on both Calton and Townley voted against the CPZs during the consultation and both roads are probably two of the least densely populated roads in the borough and many houses have off-street parking. The council has clearly dropped a CPZ displacement bomb there to create problems elsewhere or as I like to refer to it CIPP (Council Initiated Parking Pressure)!

It's utterly shameless - lose an area-wide consultation and come back straight away with a devious plan to roll it out anyway propped up by a few council-friendly lobby groups and locals.

Edited by Rockets

@geh thanks for posting the thread. Clearly the original statement about 'schemes in the last year' (or however it was worded) was not straight forward. I think the later response is more honest (although they should acknowledge that it contradicts the previous, misleading statement by their collegue).

That said, I'm not convinced that there are a lot of people driving to Lordship lane and parking on the side streets to the west of it. There are very few (if any) free spaces there. For businesses who need to travel in by car, the provision of business permits may well help ensure they can actually park.

Personally, I would like to see some loading bays and some disabled bays and little else. There are regular buses down the lane, very limited parking and unless you're collecting something heavy, or have mobility issues, it's better for people to use the bus. What would help businesses (and traffic flow generally), would be to speed buses up by making the bus lane down lordship lane 24 hours.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

Earl said: "That said, I'm not convinced that there are a lot of people driving to Lordship lane and parking on the side streets to the west of it. There are very few (if any) free spaces there. For businesses who need to travel in by car, the provision of business permits may well help ensure they can actually park."


That suggests the other side of the consultation area may be affected by displaced parking, if this CPZ succeeds. We may even see a return of the 'commuter parking stalkers'. Remember the reason for imposition of the first Melbourne Grove CPZ, for roads close to the railway station, was that residents were unable to park outside their properties because commuters and visitors in cars were 'harassing' them for spaces. As if by magic, after CPZ was imposed, they all disappeared. 
 

I have also been thinking about the 'fairness' point used by the council as partial justification for imposition of CPZ, the rationale being that since those living close to central London have it, then we should too. Is it fair that those living closer to the centre also benefit from proximity to much better transport links, with tube stations? That seems to weight the 'fairness' argument against those of us living further away, as we do not enjoy that benefit.

Edited by first mate

In the last Lordship Lane footfall analysis (I believe the last) done by the council in 2015 their research suggested that:

 

  • 29% of visitors (and by far the largest group) were from SE22
  • 17% of visitors were from SE15
  • 11% of visitors were from SE12
  • 5% of visitors were from SE5
  • 4% of visitors were from SE23
  • The rest were spread across a lot of London postcodes further afield but a lot from the wider South London area

 

  • 37% of visitors had walked
  • 21% had got the bus
  • 22% of visitors had driven
2 hours ago, Rockets said:

In the last Lordship Lane footfall analysis (I believe the last) done by the council in 2015 their research suggested that:

 

  • 29% of visitors (and by far the largest group) were from SE22
  • 17% of visitors were from SE15
  • 11% of visitors were from SE12
  • 5% of visitors were from SE5
  • 4% of visitors were from SE23
  • The rest were spread across a lot of London postcodes further afield but a lot from the wider South London area

 

  • 37% of visitors had walked
  • 21% had got the bus
  • 22% of visitors had driven

That's interesting (albeit a decade old now), do you have a link?

I'm surprised there are so many people travelling from Lee? When they've got Blackheath and Greenwich much closer. All those other areas are a short walk or bus trip away.

[edited to add] found the report here https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/lsbu_high_street_report_-_lordship_lane_high_street.pdf

It also says that 90% of those shopping on the lane live and / or work locally. The customer base is "predominantly local, shopping little & often". 

I wonder whether there are any plans to repeat this exercise. I suspect that the number of people driving to the lane has significantly reduced over the last decade, but would be interesting to see some more recent data.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

Funny isn't it - the council rinse and repeats this approach all across the area, they say there will be no displacement but the moment anyone says there is a problem they acknowledge that it is due to the CPZ and, gleefully, ask whether people would like a CPZ on the streets impacted.

  • Haha 1
40 minutes ago, first mate said:

Yes, exactly that and, goodness, it only takes a very few people to get the CPZ ball rolling each time, in comparison to the many locals who beg for them not to put it in.

Yes and I do wonder how many of those "asking" for a CPZ may be Labour supporters/activists and been tapped up to do so. 

I still can't work out how the council justified doing the Townley and Calton CPZ seeing as the consultation results showed the majority didn't want it. 

This is it. The current consultation was fired up by a small number of 'complaints' and not clear about the origin those either, not having seen how loosely local residency is treated in the consultation.

Wonder if the 'we do not 'believe' it will affect other streets' close by, was also used in the course of objections to the Townley and Calton CPZ?

A consequence of CPZ is that driving round streets looking for spaces to park may well increase if the CPZ is imposed as they will start looking further afield to park. The idea that all of those driving in for work, or other reasons, will suddenly stop and instead cycle or take public transport is unlikely, in my view. I remember, some years ago, one of the cycling advocates here suggesting that unless you lived close enough to your work to cycle you should move house.

  • Haha 1
46 minutes ago, first mate said:

The idea that all of those driving in for work, or other reasons, will suddenly stop and instead cycle or take public transport is unlikely, in my view.

For us in Dulwich travelling East or West is poorly supported by 'quick' public transport. The few hopper buses that do go east and west tend to operate circuitous routes that take a long time. It is only north : south routes that are quickly served, if at all. And getting into and out of Dulwich involves hill stretches not appealing to the casual or in anyway infirm cyclist. 

  • Agree 1
1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

And getting into and out of Dulwich involves hill stretches not appealing to the casual or in anyway infirm cyclist. 

I agree.

I am all in favour of cycling, but our area has hills in every direction.

I had the best of intentions. I actually applied to have  one of the first bike hangars installed in my road, and then got a bike, and had lessons.

For various reasons this  didn't work out for me, and the hills plus my being ancient didn't help.

My bike went to a refugee, which was one good thing that came out of a sorry saga (for me).

But that doesn't mean that cycling shouldn't be strongly encouraged for everybody who can!

Those who can't must be a quite small minority, surely. You can get off the bike and push it up hills, after all.

And for those who can afford one, I gather that electric bikes are brilliant!

Edited by Sue

I cycle most places locally, though, confess, not up and down the hills either end of ED. I cycle because I am very local and it is convenient for me.  For many of those commuting in for work I imagine cycling may not be a realistic option and public transport links in to ED may be poor. As a someone that cycles regularly I am all for it, but I also appreciate that many may not share the privileged position I enjoy in being able to. 

7 hours ago, first mate said:

I cycle most places locally, though, confess, not up and down the hills either end of ED. I cycle because I am very local and it is convenient for me.  For many of those commuting in for work I imagine cycling may not be a realistic option and public transport links in to ED may be poor. As a someone that cycles regularly I am all for it, but I also appreciate that many may not share the privileged position I enjoy in being able to. 

Looking from the other perspective cycling and public transport are a reasonable option for many.

And as I have been quoted, without being named earlier, many of us choose to live in a location due to transport links, and convenience for amenities, leisure and work.  

I've always lived close enough to shops, bus stops and train stations.  As do all of you. In my time in London public transport and connectivity has improved for example the Jubilee Line extension, what was previously knows as the Overground, and Lizzie Line.  The introduction of the one hour ticket on the bus, following the two journeys in an hour, has been excellent, but the world of public transport was revolutionised with the introduction of the Oyster card and subsequently contactless.

There may be a case for charging us to park our vehicles on all public roads.  Making it less attractive to drive will change some travelers' behaviour.  How many of us would want to drive into central London with the C charge and zero free parking in many locations?  Gone are the days when I could drive into London for the evening and easily park near Waterloo.  One thing that has perplexed me for years is who on earth would ever drive up Charing Cross Road unless it was essential? I expect most of us have walked up their on a Saturday night when there is grid lock of vehicles.

Yes you can find areas that are more difficult to get to by public transport - parts of NW and NE London are a pain to get to.  Much of this was no central planning during the golden age of rail, when it was about getting most the masses into central London from the burbs and beyond as new commuter belts were established.  Lack of connectivity between southern and SE services, with lines often crossing, is a pain.  Having adjacent, or near adjacent, stations (some of which were amalgamated) - LB, Waterloo/Waterloo East, Kings x/St Pancras, New X and New x Gate, Victoria demonstrates the lack of joined up thinking.  The rich land owners not allowing routes to join up in Central London in a New York Central Terminus way.

11 hours ago, first mate said:

A consequence of CPZ is that driving round streets looking for spaces to park may well increase if the CPZ is imposed as they will start looking further afield to park. The idea that all of those driving in for work, or other reasons, will suddenly stop and instead cycle or take public transport is unlikely, in my view. I remember, some years ago, one of the cycling advocates here suggesting that unless you lived close enough to your work to cycle you should move house.

I was amazed at the amount of staff employed by the Dulwich Estate and the private schools in this area that live miles away.  No way could they cycle, and the ones coming in from Essex would spend hours on public transport.

Southwark Council also employ staff that do not live locally, but they moved the town hall from Peckham so they can all travel in directly to London Bridge! 😜

 

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Looking from the other perspective cycling and public transport are a reasonable option for many.

And as I have been quoted, without being named earlier, many of us choose to live in a location due to transport links, and convenience for amenities, leisure and work.  

I've always lived close enough to shops, bus stops and train stations.  As do all of you. In my time in London public transport and connectivity has improved for example the Jubilee Line extension, what was previously knows as the Overground, and Lizzie Line.  The introduction of the one hour ticket on the bus, following the two journeys in an hour, has been excellent, but the world of public transport was revolutionised with the introduction of the Oyster card and subsequently contactless.

There may be a case for charging us to park our vehicles on all public roads.  Making it less attractive to drive will change some travelers' behaviour.  How many of us would want to drive into central London with the C charge and zero free parking in many locations?  Gone are the days when I could drive into London for the evening and easily park near Waterloo.  One thing that has perplexed me for years is who on earth would ever drive up Charing Cross Road unless it was essential? I expect most of us have walked up their on a Saturday night when there is grid lock of vehicles.

Yes you can find areas that are more difficult to get to by public transport - parts of NW and NE London are a pain to get to.  Much of this was no central planning during the golden age of rail, when it was about getting most the masses into central London from the burbs and beyond as new commuter belts were established.  Lack of connectivity between southern and SE services, with lines often crossing, is a pain.  Having adjacent, or near adjacent, stations (some of which were amalgamated) - LB, Waterloo/Waterloo East, Kings x/St Pancras, New X and New x Gate, Victoria demonstrates the lack of joined up thinking.  The rich land owners not allowing routes to join up in Central London in a New York Central Terminus way.

Hey Malumbu, wondering what do you think should be done to discourage people from driving to their second homes on the continent?

 

Do you agitate for parking controls there too?  

 

At least you "live there" I guess, rather than in the current proposed CPZ area!

 

Sorry, can't resist!!!

Edited by geh
  • Haha 1

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...