Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I cycle there. 

I don’t think that’s entirely correct, and how about imposing your views on those who do live in that location, or is it ok because you live there (part time) which you don’t in the current consultation area?

Edited by geh
Spelling
  • Like 1
11 hours ago, malumbu said:

I cycle there. 

Hmm, I am sure you do cycle when you are 'there'; you are an exceedingly keen cyclist. But, do you really cycle door to door, each time, that is to the ferry terminals and train stations either side, or to airports? Perhaps you do, but your part of France is a good way. If so, good on you; it is wonderful you enjoy the fitness, health and time to make that journey each way.

Back on thread, I was not quoting you in terms of asserting people should move house if they are not close enough to their workplace to cycle. That was someone different, but someone else very involved with LCC/Southwark Cyclists.

In terms of the current Melbourne CPZ consultation, I was taken aback that the large development planned for land to the back of Charter and adjacent to Melbourne Grove, includes plans for car parking. I do not personally object to that but it seems at odds with the council's declared aspiration to rid the area of cars. Perhaps I misread the plans- I did skim.

  • Like 1

I used the link provided in the development thread and found the link to the development and it was there is the first para, if I recall. I may have misread it. 
 

Suggest this is pursued in relevant thread in main section and keep this focused on the CPZ consultation. I have also commented in the other thread.

Edited by first mate
  • 1 month later...

No, nothing as yet. I very much hope I am wrong but my expectation is for the council to announce they have 'listened' and 'considered' but decided that all the area should be fully CPZ. This decision will be based on 'greening' the environment and 'fairness'.

On 23/05/2025 at 09:53, first mate said:

No, nothing as yet. I very much hope I am wrong but my expectation is for the council to announce they have 'listened' and 'considered' but decided that all the area should be fully CPZ. This decision will be based on 'greening' the environment and 'fairness'.

Remind me again why you think you should be allowed to store your private property, for free, on public land?

15 minutes ago, melbournemarcus said:

Remind me again why you think you should be allowed to store your private property, for free, on public land?

I believe its called Parking  not storage 

But possibly the same reason that we can walk or cycle freely down the road. 

 

  • Like 2
19 minutes ago, melbournemarcus said:

Remind me again why you think you should be allowed to store your private property, for free, on public land?

Because that has been the custom in this country, and hence the law (because there is no law requiring otherwise). We are not charged to ride bicycles on public roads, or to walk on public pavements- are you suggesting that these too should now be monetised? I can also access (Gala notwithstanding) public parks for free - should these also be charged for? Just because you could, or in some cases can, charge for the use of things in this country doesn't mean you should.

The law says that you can introduce CPZs where there is parking pressure and if the the residents (broady) concur. It does not say you can introduce CPZs as a money raising scheme or because they exist in other parts of your borough (where, explicitly, there is parking pressure).

I do recognise that councils round here, and their cheerleaders, have contempt for the law, but that is not something I share.

Edited by Penguin68
56 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Because that has been the custom in this country, and hence the law (because there is no law requiring otherwise). We are not charged to ride bicycles on public roads, or to walk on public pavements- are you suggesting that these too should now be monetised? I can also access (Gala notwithstanding) public parks for free - should these also be charged for? Just because you could, or in some cases can, charge for the use of things in this country doesn't mean you should.

The law says that you can introduce CPZs where there is parking pressure and if the the residents (broady) concur. It does not say you can introduce CPZs as a money raising scheme or because they exist in other parts of your borough (where, explicitly, there is parking pressure).

I do recognise that councils round here, and their cheerleaders, have contempt for the law, but that is not something I share.

Usage and storage are different things though? They should be taxed/subsidised in line with the externalities which they cause. There are almost no negative externalities with walking/cycling hence these shouldn’t be taxed. It’s widely known current car tax is below the externalities which cars cause (pollution, noise, accidents etc).

Anyway, as a resident of the street most of my neighbours are in support and hopefully we here some positive news soon!

There's a lot of nonsense bout the law and motoring restrictions.

Local authorities have statutory powers introduce restrictions through Traffic Regulation Orders.  This link provided a good explanation.

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/tros/what-is-a-traffic-regulation-order-tro/

There is a statutory consultation.  This is not a referendum.

I don't park in Melbourne Grove, certainly not in the last ten years so this doesn't affect me.  I expect that this similarly doesn't affects some who post on this thread.  Obviously excludes Marcus based on the address 

There is no mandate for these measures. The council was not voted in on an agenda to create lots of CPZ and LTN because neither were mentioned. 

Should add, I am as local as Marcus and do not support this latest attempt to CPZ East Dulwich- which is what will happen if this is pushed through- though given the Council's past form on CPZ, I am not holding my breath.

Edited by first mate

@melbournemarcus you say cars are "stored" for free 

Aside nornal taxes, including council, income and NI, car drivers pay additional taxes in the form of VED, insurance tax, fuel duty amongst others which all comtribute centrally towards maintaining the inferstructure.

On thw other hand cyclists and pedestrians don't pay additional taxes to the same extent. 

Therefore what justifies your desire to squeeze the pips of vehicle owners even more ? 

I'm sure you would soon be up in arms if yiur ocado delivery couldn't occur because the cost of driving onto yiur street prohibited it ! 

So Marcus is in support and lives there. Most of the rest of us don't live in the vicinity.  But apparently some of us know better.

We all pay taxes.  The rich more.  Drinkers and smokers a little more.  Motorists a little more.  We could change the system, move to an insurance based health system, private/toll roads, cut other public services.  But I expect most are loosely happy with the ways of raising revenue.  Me? I'm disappointed that Starmer wimped out of removing the temporary reduction to fuel duty, and supported Blair's government's inflation plus policy.  With money going into public transport.

But, hey, I am for the broader good rather than self interest.  Although surely it is all our interests to have less congestion, less pollution, less carbon emissions even if we have to pay a little more and may be a little inconvenienced.

For those new to the forum we've been having repetitive conversations for years.

Big picture stuff.  I'm not getting involved directly with Melbourne Grove beyond using it to cycle to TJ surgery.  

If the CPZ does goes through, all the evidence points to the fact that the residents of Melbourne Grove can look forward to a transformed street. Any semi-dumped cars will go, put there by people who use free parking streets as storage for their buying and selling businesses, who will be forced to move their vehicles. Take a walk down Gilkes Crescent, a street that voted for the CPZ, and see the difference. 

  • Agree 1

 Malumbu said: "Big picture stuff.  I'm not getting involved directly with Melbourne Grove beyond using it to cycle to TJ surgery".  

So can we keep on thread and the issue of this specific CPZ.

Not all locals are in favour, not by a long shot. The original North Melbourne Grove CPZ was imposed because a few of those living close to the train station complained they could not park outside their homes, because of commuters. I would hazard a guess that complaints about inability to park outside or close by one's home are the driver with a few behind this latest Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation. Many of us have long accepted that we should not expect to park outside of our house or even on the same street, but we have always been able to park.

53 minutes ago, malumbu said:

So Marcus is in support and lives there. Most of the rest of us don't live in the vicinity.  But apparently some of us know better.

But, you, who live miles away yet told us on here you had entered into the consultation, so presumably you feel you know better too.

Edited by first mate

Don't live miles away.  Used Melbourne as an occasional rat run back in the day.  Thought 'fair enough' when they blocked it.

Ah yes, someone provided the  link and I'm sure people were complaining that there was a problem.  So thought I'd check it out. As my response included that I didn't reside on this or adjacent streets it would be rightly ignored.  Bit cheeky I know.  

Those driving to the station to park as part of their commute should pay.  What is the objection to that?  

2 miles from Peckham Rye to Forest Hill.

The thing is, I doubt your response will be ignored. If it were to be, they would only allow those living within or adjacent to the proposed CPZ roads to respond. As it is, anyone can join in, but of course you know that anyway, LCC are always exhorting their people to get in on all and any local traffic consultations, whether they are local to the area or not, because, I guess, they think they know better.

Edited by first mate
14 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

That's not the problem this is trying to fix!

To be fair, the problem they are trying to fix is a cap on their taxation scope and central government underfunding. Using CPZ revenues is of course against the law, these are meant simply to cover the cost of the CPZ scheme, but that doesn't worry them. Oh, and they hate private ownership of 4 wheeled transport. 

They can commute.  Just have to pay for their parking.  Although at that time of the morning there may be some free parking.  Most of central London has controlled parking, and the world hasn't stopped turning.  Let's have hands up.  Who starts work at 6am?  Not me and I am sure not many of us. Occasionally I am on a bus at 6 and stunned how busy it is.  Cleaners busing into central London to do the offices.  None obviously driving in.  

Anyway this I'm not campaigning for a CPZ on Melbourne Grove but it amazes me how many are jumping in to defend the right to street park free of charge all of the working day.

Edited by malumbu
32 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Anyway this I'm not campaigning for a CPZ on Melbourne Grove but it amazes me how many are jumping in to defend the right to street park free of charge all of the working day.

Really? It sure sounds like you are and presumably you said you would like it imposed when you participated in the Melbourne Grove South consultation exercise?

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...