Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Demolition of the crappy dishevelled shopping arcade in front of Peckham Rye station is going ahead, and by end next year there will be a public square on Peckham's main shopping street. This is excellent!

Hopefully it unlocks vision and funding for an upgrade to the station itself for lifts, accessibility etc.

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/demolition-of-the-shopping-arcade-blocking-peckham-rye-station-to-start-this-summer-80737/

peckham-rye-square-01.thumb.jpg.e2ee46cec13450c27442662af2b8bd91.jpg

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1

Thank you DKH, it's a shame the next two posters brought the mood down, with two others thinking that this was appropriate.

Edited; and further doubt,doom and gloom, and opportunities to moan about Southwark following that.

Edited by malumbu
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Yes it could be a massive improvement and useful to hear that contracts have finally been awarded. I totally understand though why doubts are expressed about when the new square will open.

This 2012 BBC article about mayoral funding after the London 2011 riots says "In Southwark, which saw parts of Peckham hit by the rioters, there are plans to redevelop Peckham Rye station". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19167948

A decade later, the first phase on Blenheim Grove - the white buildings with the new roof deck - was kind of completed by summer 2022. Yet three years on those buildings are still covered with hoardings, gathering ever more graffiti. There has been no clear or coherent explanation from Southwark why, just some excuses of water ingress. How much rent must have been lost in that time and who has taken the resultant financial hit?

In that context is it unreasonable to doubt that the new square will be fully opened next year - rather we'll get a fenced in walkway leading through an 80% completed square that we're forced to squeeze through for years to come? Dare I also remind people that the reality of what was built on Blenheim Grove didn't look as good as the renders. With construction inflation recently so high, it's valid to ask how the resultant funding gap for the main phases of this scheme will be bridged.

It's not just Southwark's inability to manage major projects that are a concern but also its senior leadership's reluctance to be transparent about problems let alone make any visible efforts to tackle them.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Fully appreciate your concerns rollflick, but (as you say) it's good news that contracts have finally been awarded. Feels like people want to bemoan its failure before work has even started, which seems a tad negative.

1 hour ago, alice said:

It’s just the way things are prioritised how much was spent on revamping that waiting room to show exclusive art shows while  there are still no usable lifts to the platforms

I think it's a false dichotomy. Lift maintenance is a priority and I doubt the delays in fixing them is to do with lack of funding. Whether they go ahead with this scheme of not, will make zero difference to how lift maintenance is being managed.

There seems to be general opposition to any form of change across this forum. 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

You clearly don’t know Peckham Rye station there are lifts but they’re not available to the public. Actually, they were  briefly made available when the art exhibition was on.  Priorites again. 

Edited by alice

Anything that improves the front of the station has to be a good thing. Opening up the square in front is a superb idea, it will show the beauty of the architecture of the station, just as they did at Kings Cross when they ripped out the monstrosity of the 1960's frontage and now the station gleams. People probably go there to see the beauty of it. Now wouldn't it be good if once opened up and cleaned up, people visited to see how wonderful it then looks.

I guess there is a generally lack of trust that the station square will open by the end of next year, HOWEVER, when the current frontage is removed and the square is opened up as it originally was it will look grand.  

1 hour ago, alice said:

 there are lifts but they’re not available to the public. Actually, they were  briefly made available when the art exhibition was on.  Priorites again. 

Whose priorities?

Peckham Rye station is operated by Southern Railway. Southwark Council doesn’t own or operate the station, and it can't force Southern or anyone else to install lifts at the station.

I'd love there to be lifts at Peckham Rye. It would be very expensive.

I'm confused.

If there are no lifts, does that mean people who are in wheelchairs or who otherwise can't easily  walk, or who have heavy wheeled cases which they can't lift up and down stairs,  can't use Peckham Rye station?

I'd have thought that was against some or other disability legislation?

  • Agree 1
2 hours ago, alice said:

You clearly don’t know Peckham Rye station there are lifts but they’re not available to the public. Actually, they were  briefly made available when the art exhibition was on.  Priorites again. 

Oh OK. I do use Peckham Rye station regularly, and couldn't picture any lifts, so that explains it. Are you sure that there is nothing in the new plans to reinstate lift access? 

The plans to open up the front of the station feels like a good news story. There does seem to be a general objection to any public realm improvements locally, which I just find weird.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
27 minutes ago, Sue said:

I'm confused.

If there are no lifts, does that mean people who are in wheelchairs or who otherwise can't easily  walk, or who have heavy wheeled cases which they can't lift up and down stairs,  can't use Peckham Rye station?

I'd have thought that was against some or other disability legislation?

Yes, they can't use the station. Same as East Dulwich (into London), West Dulwich and North Dulwich...and dozens if not hundreds of tube stations.

No, it's not against the law because existing stuff was grandfathered in or got waivers. New and upgraded stations have to be accessible.

1 minute ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Yes, they can't use the station. Same as East Dulwich (into London), West Dulwich and North Dulwich...and dozens if not hundreds of tube stations.

No, it's not against the law because existing stuff was grandfathered in or got waivers. New and upgraded stations have to be accessible.

East Dulwich has a ramp doesn't it? 

It certainly does on the way to the platform to go to London Bridge 

 

Edited by Sue
19 minutes ago, Sue said:

East Dulwich has a ramp doesn't it? 

It certainly does on the way to the platform to go to London Bridge 

 

I thought it has stairs on that direction and a ramp in the other. My memory might be failing me - I'm usually undercaffeinated when I use that entrance of that station...

  • Haha 2
37 minutes ago, Brian up the hill said:

For those who haven't clicked on the link:

Quote

The upgrade will make the station fully accessible with more capacity and better facilities for passengers

...the improvements do include lift access to all platforms 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
1 hour ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

I thought it has stairs on that direction and a ramp in the other. My memory might be failing me - I'm usually undercaffeinated when I use that entrance of that station...

It has stairs and a ramp!

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...