Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear All


Is anyone aware of the plan to build 'bunds' in Dulwich Park in order to flood the park rather than Turney Rd, Burbage Rd etc plain during the 1 in 75 year flood that might affect Dulwich? I would have thought that heavy rain is going to affect the local area much more than their consultants suggest.


I am a local resident whose property would not be affected by this flooding so I have no vested interest in opposing the plan. I am however annoyed that a large open public space used by so families across the borough could be sacrificed because the council says it can't afford to put in proper drainage and is just shifting the problem and potentially affecting many more people.


Does anyone know anything about how these works or seen any consultation at all? It would mean that a large area of the park would be off-limits to the happy band of young, aspiring footballers who go there to train at weekends? Where will they go then?


The plans are on the Southwark website if anyone is interested in seeing them but the consultation period appears to have opened quietly and closes imminently.

Whilst there is a Labour Council and a Tory/LibDem government then the council will use the Southwark residents as a political football and blameit on 'cut-backs' from central government. They did it the last time the Tories were in power.

link here


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3681/herne_hill_and_dulwich_flood_risk_management_proposal


from a quick look through, it's not straightforward to see the extent of impact on the park. Would have been helpful to have seen the exhibition.


But I will say that citing the HH floor last year is a pretty disingenuous and alarmist way of garnering support. The flood at HH was caused by a burst water main so is irrelevant to flood plain discussions.


[edited to correct for the photo being from 2004 not 2013]

Surely it is far better to use a park as a very temporary flood relief area than to spend thousands on drainage which is only going to be used every 75 years? The water would gradually drain away once the rains stopped for a while. The footballers could survive without a park for a couple of weeks.

This is a widely used method in this country. It is far more cost effective to flood a park, a golf course or grazing land than buildings.

Another "natural" solution is to plant lots more trees in suitable parts of parks and sports grounds. Trees transfer millions of litres of water from the soil back into the atmosphere. Again far cheaper than artificial drainage.

lemerson Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I am however

> annoyed that a large open public space used by so

> families across the borough could be sacrificed

> because the council says it can't afford to put in

> proper drainage and is just shifting the problem

> and potentially affecting many more people.

>

>


I'd be annoyed if they didn't use this option frankly. Seems a common sense way of going about things as tgreen suggests and if it's saving money for other things then so much the better.

I think we need (a) more detail on which floods this could prevent e.g. how often, how severe, where and (b) what will be the impact on the park throughout the year particularly when it's not flooded.


As I said, my first impression was that it was hard to work out (b) from the drawings though I will have another go.


The council's document refers to floods in 1984, 2004 and 2007. Does anyone remember more detail on these? There's not a lot in the press except for the 2007 flood, where Brockwell Park is mentioned.

I agree with Townleygreen, Toldyouso and bloodyjon.


The Park is the best and most efficient way to deal with flood relief. I much prefer an open green space to be temporarily underwater than have homes flooded. I am thinking most sports would be called off if there was such a big flood, as surrounding parks would be waterlogged anyway.


If this option indeed works and saves homes from flooding, then why spend a huge amount of money on artificial drainage when funds are desperately needed elsewhere.

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I am in favour and will fill in the consulation. I think Peckham Rye Park could also help - after the awful (social) life threatening disaster when the Clockhouse was flooded!
It is about protecting the sancticy of publicly owned open spaces for local communities to use = amenity for all?! We do not know how long these flood plains might last as there is no mention of how the waters would be dispersed? Why can't they flood the fields the other side of the South Circular which are used far less? Doesn't a river u run under the Park so there's an obvious water course to use?

lemerson Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is about protecting the sancticy of publicly

> owned open spaces for local communities to use =

> amenity for all?! We do not know how long these

> flood plains might last as there is no mention of

> how the waters would be dispersed? Why can't they

> flood the fields the other side of the South

> Circular which are used far less? Doesn't a river

> u run under the Park so there's an obvious water

> course to use?


Unfortunately you can't pick and choose the appropriate flood plain on the basis of personal/public preference; it's a matter of hydrological design. The river may run through the park but if it flows the wrong way (ie because of relative ground levels), if it doesn't have sufficient bore, or if the underlying subsoils won't allow natural soakaway*, then a particular piece of land won't be suitable. In any event, this is not intended as a regular flood area, but as an emergency capacity. Seems entirely sensible. The cost of the alternative, for relatively rare occasions, would be a ridiculous waste of taxpayers money.


*or the opposite if the intention is simply to store and then extract by pumping

spider69 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Silly question.

>

> How does the water get into Dulwick Park?


Not a silly question at all. The consultation document doesn't explain (I admit to only skimming the drawings) but I would suggest a) Natural flow, b) Diverted flow, c)(most likely?) pumping from the piped/culverted underground rivers and streams in the local area, allowing them to take greater capacity where the flooding event has actually occurred.

Townleygreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely it is far better to use a park as a very

> temporary flood relief area than to spend

> thousands on drainage which is only going to be

> used every 75 years? The water would gradually

> drain away once the rains stopped for a while. The

> footballers could survive without a park for a

> couple of weeks.

> This is a widely used method in this country. It

> is far more cost effective to flood a park, a golf

> course or grazing land than buildings.

> Another "natural" solution is to plant lots more

> trees in suitable parts of parks and sports

> grounds. Trees transfer millions of litres of

> water from the soil back into the atmosphere.

> Again far cheaper than artificial drainage.



^^^^ This ^^^^

AbDabs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> spider69 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Silly question.

> >

> > How does the water get into Dulwick Park?

>

> Not a silly question at all. The consultation

> document doesn't explain (I admit to only skimming

> the drawings) but I would suggest a) Natural flow,

> b) Diverted flow, c)(most likely?) pumping from

> the piped/culverted underground rivers and streams

> in the local area, allowing them to take greater

> capacity where the flooding event has actually

> occurred.


Thank you for the reply.


I am in my late 60's and have always lived in the area and can recall much of the flooding is due to 2 things, not keeping the sewers and drains cleared, And burst water pipes which the blocked drains etc cannot carry away.


How many times can people recall seeing a regular drain cleaning lorry on the streets


I cannot ever recall a Biblical flood in the area due to adverse weather


Perhaps other long standing residents can comment

The DoE flood map suggests that we are nowhere near any riverine flood risk


Environment Agency - What's in your backyard?

http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=534633.0&y=173784.0&topic=floodmap&ep=map&scale=9&location=SE22%200QU&lang=_e&layerGroups=default&distance=&textonly=off#x=531758&y=173130&lg=1,&scale=8


This must all be about burst water mains and blocked rain-water drains.


The first cannot be readily predicted, the second can be avoided with proper maintenance.

spider69 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I am in my late 60's and have always lived in the

> area and can recall much of the flooding is due to

> 2 things, not keeping the sewers and drains

> cleared, And burst water pipes which the blocked

> drains etc cannot carry away.

>

> How many times can people recall seeing a regular

> drain cleaning lorry on the streets

>

> I cannot ever recall a Biblical flood in the area

> due to adverse weather

>

> Perhaps other long standing residents can comment



The OP refers to the proposal relating to risk of 1 in 75 year flood. This is a statistical risk event not a record of historical frequency. As Penguin68 suggests it may have nothing to do with riverine flood risk, which I understand - please correct me if I'm wrong - is due to flooding emanating from a river. I certainly agree about the lack of maintenance (although I do often see the drain cleaning lorry outside my house as I report every blocked drain in the street), but I would have thought that the (increased) risk may simply be due to run off (ie rain) that has less ability to escape due to overdevelopment (infill housing and extensions, and to a lesser degree off street parking) which all reduce natural percolation. The recent rains have demonstrated that once land is entirely saturated there comes a point where the water has nowhere to go; I could dig a pond in my lawn at present and it would fill immediately.

I suppose we should look on the brightside, It will enable Southwark to put in place another expensive department with a good fancy name and offer employment to all.


Unfortunatley a 1 in 75 year statisical risk is all that is required to set the ball rolling.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...