Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But Louisa, you shoot yourself in the foot by contradicting yourself. You clearly despite the working poor and you clearly hate the better off. That to me only means one thing.....ME ME ME and ME (AKA as inverse snobbery). And btw, I am working class through and through, but thankfully have managed to escaped the kind of narrow mindedness that so many of my kind are unable to move away from.


The North peckham Estate was not a social experiment. It was built to deal with a real housing problem. It replaced slums and delapidated buildings (like many other similar developments) and those that were first to move into the homes were impressed with the imporved living standards. Sadly by the end of the 60s and into the 70s the country had hit recession. Traditional industries were collapsing and the traditional labour market for exactly the kind of people in North Peckham was disappearing fast (ergo factories and the east end docks).


Louisa, you seem to have no conception as to why socio-economic change occurs. To blame bricks and mortar over industry and economy is just plain ignorant. The working classes are also every person that owns or works in one of those small businesses on Rye Lane that you bemoan. There are many ways for local people to influence town planning and local government. Sat in the comfort of your own home whining on a local forum isn't one of them.

PokerTime how do I shoot myself in the foot? Explain please. I don't despise the working poor, I do my best to stand up for them on this forum when you look at all the changes brought to the area by wealthy cash buyers. How is it about me? Lots of people feel as I do, are you suggesting that they are all ignorant for holding these beliefs, and you are somehow enlightened in some way because you feel differently? Patronising beyond words.


FYI the North Peckham Estate WAS a social experiment. Many of the old dilapidated homes in Peckham had a strong sense of community and those communities were broke up because the government presumed knocking down rather than renovating was a good idea, destroying working class communities and sending them off into the suburbs. The traditional industries had been on their way out for years and they felt it was acceptable to come to an area like Peckham, Deptford et al and destroy that community because they 'knew best'. As a result of poor planning and sociological political decisions Peckham had a fragmented population (as did East Dulwich). And how are the businesses on Rye Lane working class? Have you done a survey of them? I was very vocal back in the 80s and 90s and it fell on deaf ears with our council. They didn't care about the working class areas of London until it becomes a big media thing or posh people want to buy up housing stock.


Louisa.

So in your belief Louisa, governments deliberately set out to destroy communities by clearing substandard housing and building an 'experiment' ? Whilst I agree that with hindsight, there were fundamental flaws in the design of large 60's estates, exacerbated by economic decline over the following decades, any suggestion this was intentional on the part of the planners is nonsense. Many of the design ideas came from Europe, part of a movement that had to address housing provision, and fast. There was genuine reason for removing substandard and delapidated homes, many of which had no indoor toilet and poor bathroom provision. Let's not be nostalgic about the homes they were replacing. The move was right, even if with hindsight the means were flawed.


I think also, the argument plays on a notion that these communities would somehow have continued to be unfractured, yet technology and the way life has changed now sees just as many broken communities in the many streets that didn't see the wrecking ball. To think that architecture and redevelopment alone has broken community spirit is just not born out by evidence. Neighbours just don't need each other in the way they did in 1960. Where community spirit can be found is where people actively engage to create it. Again, architecture plays little part in facilitating or stopping that.


You might not like Rye Lane without it's chain stores, but many other people do. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it intrinsically bad. What you are are saying is very different from genuine comments about litter and parking. You are the only person on this thread that seems to hate everything about it. That is what I am having great difficulty making sense of. I may be wrong, but I suspect your dislike goes deeper than the range of shops.

Perhaps not deliberately PokerTime, but local and national government seem to use experimental methods to deal with the working poor, and always have done. The middle classes would be up in arms if a compulsory purchase scheme popped up in an affluent area because an important rail link needed to be built. Just as they have with regards the station redevelopment at Peckham Rye. You don't think of them as being mad for wishing to protect the artists studios and incoming businesses aimed at a the Shoreditch blow-ins, and yet I am considered slightly insane for suggesting the condition of this street is diabolical and has needed addressing for years? One rule for some, another for someone else.


Housing provision in the 1960s was a big issue, and during this period inner London had a falling population because they called these communities slums- despite the fact most of the people were hard working. They tore families apart because rather than invest in making these areas better by improving the buildings they found it easier to move all the people out of London to new towns, pull it all down and stick up sub standard concrete slabs with no thought behind the damage it would be doing to the people who would eventually be forced to live in these large concrete prisons. Your point about neighbours not needing each other as they did in the 60s is not relevant here. That's an organic change over time. These places had the heart ripped out of them when communities and families living close to one another were still important aspects of city life.


Rye Lane isn't just about a lack of chain stores. I understand retail isn't an immobile beast. It is adapting and changing all the time. I have two conflicting things I so dislike about Rye Lane. The first being, yes it does fit the demographic of the area as it is today, but does that mean it has to be dirty and smelly just for the sake of it? Why can it not be clean and tidy with people obeying the rules regarding parking and refuse collection? Why should anyone be forced to shop in such a dirty environment? My other main gripe is that this is the largest remaining retail plot of land for a good few miles and as the demographic of the area is constantly changing it should reflect that in every sense. Most of those businesses down there are all of the same kind, why can there not be room for others to open up? Why does Lordship Lane have the same problem? Estate agent after estate agent. Mixed retail representing everyone should be the answer and council can play a role in facilitating this. I do not wish to have to travel miles out of my way to do my shopping just because everywhere around me is so pointless. It shouldn't have to be this way.


Louisa.

I agree with Louisa about mixed retail.


Lordship Lane is great if you eat out regularly or want to buy/sell a house.


Peckham is great if you want to get your nails or eyebrows done and shop in poundshops.


Personally I don't do either so there needs to be a limit to the number of similar shops opening up.


Out of the two, I still prefer Rye Lane by a mile & I actually like the music & atmosphere it creates when shopping.

With chicken carcasses piled high and foul smelling fish I certainly would not by food from any outlet on Rye Lane.


Fresh Fish should Not smell of Fish. It should smell of the sea.


By comparison, on a recent visit to Brixton, I strolled through the so called 'Brixton Village'

There were two Wet Fish Shops where the Fish on display smelt fresh and looked fresh. Eyes bright and clear.

Fish being laid out on ice and clearly labeled and priced up.


Rye lane is disgusting .. Many outlets need to be closed down.


DulwichFox

am absolutely mixed retail should always be the aim of every high street. We seem to do it so badly in this part of south London. Rye Lane could be a good example to other areas when you look at the capacity of the area as a whole. A restoration of the shop fronts should also be top priority, there is no need for smelly meat and fish displays out onto the streets, I find it really disgusting. I also agree with Fox, if Brixton market can do it so well why can't Peckham? There is NO excuse for the dilapidated state of that street whatsoever, and neither is there for the samey dull cheap nasty shops selling smelly food items.


Louisa.

The demograph is changing now and Rye Lane will change - maybe slowly as it has before.

I moved here in 2007 and since then we lost Currys, Woolworths, WHSmith that I can remember.


I don't deny I'd like a few coffee shops etc - notice the burned out shop/house and the old

Greggs next to it is still burnt out, never mind the terrace behind the bus stop(rats live there)

- there's room certainly.

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Dulwich Fox has that spot on. I wouldn't buy any

> meat or fish along Rye Lane. It stinks and gives

> the impression of being rotten and dirty.


I'd buy vegetables only too :)


But no proof of that, other then the recent temporary enforced shutdown of one of the shops.

That's when the environmental health people can be bothered to go down there. So many of those shops must be selling out of date 'fresh' food items, because as Dulwich Fox points out, a fishmonger for example should smell of the sea- not gone off fish. The romantic image of Rye Lane is grating. It isn't romantic, it's disgusting.


Louisa.

I get my goat and fish there.

Also in the summer you can get HUGE African live snails to boil-up, mmmmmmm good.

I'm not comfortable with the inferences equating smells with disarray - I think that's your own boundaries being threatened there, it's been there years and works fine but the reason to change it shouldn't be because you don't like it.

Go to Moxons if you wanna pay 3x !

Or just don't buy there if you think it's sooooo dodgy.

yup Louisa - I didn't say those shops had closed everywhere, just in many places


WHSmiths would have looked at the figures and decided it wasn't worth keeping that store open. So people might want variety of shops but it would appear the bigger chains don't get the custom


Forest Hill is no shopping destination but the locals appear to use WH Smiths enough to warrant it staying open (for now) (it's smaller and probably cheaper to lease/rent as well)

KK I want to be able to shop there, but currently I cannot because of the smells and the condition of the streets. I think much of it is a health hazard and needs to be upgraded. The shop fronts need putting back and the lazy open shutter nature of the place has to change. Not just for me and my tastes, but for the benefit of the whole community. It isn't just smells that create a feeling of disarray, it's a whole number of things. I go to Soapers in Nunhead, I wouldn't waste my money on Moxons. Soapers don't have the same issue with regards smells of gone off fish (edited to clarify some of the shops along rye lane do smell of gone off produce, I wasn't referring to Moxons, I just think Moxons is overpriced).


SJ I agree that Smiths probably didn't think the area was viable any longer, however, as demographics change in an area chain go and come back again. Some of the chains are leaving at a major junction in the road ahead for Peckham, and I personally can only conclude it is because of other factors associated with the nature of Rye Lane and it's reputation for being one dimensional in terms of its shopping options.


Louisa.

The open shutter nature you speak of may appear lazy but it's more efficient from the shopkeeper's perspective and is often a part of the culture, whether it be Afghanistan, Indian subcontinent, SE Asia or Africa.

It's common in these places for the shopkeeper and family to live / sleep in the shop space when the shutters are down and also move their car in there at night (too cold in UK).


It will all change, sadly, so you'll get your wish in the next 5 - 10 years for sure.

A sterile honky-focused high st selling the same crap as every other high st.

It's up to environmental health to address hygiene concerns (which is the point of the comments about smells, right ?).

If EH are happy with those shops, they stay open.

A lot of these comments come across as very us / them, just because you don't like another culture's habits don't try and squash them into how you want it to be.

Maybe if you bought the produce and cooked it and ate it you'd be more accepting ?

Thousands of shoppers daily are managing for the two decades I've known about it !


No, stop. Someone says it's smelly.

Good debate.


With reference to goverments experimenting on the poor Louisa. It is the poor that most often need investment and help from governments. Finding solutions to poverty, poor health, infant mortality, poor sanitation (and let's remember many of the demolished homes nationwide had no indoor toilets or modern bathrooms) has been at the fore of pretty much every social reform going back 150 years. Add to that better working conditions, because let's not forget too that this golden age of tight knit communities was also an age of long working hours for pay so low (and often in conditions dangerous to health) that those workers were at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords. People had those communities because they had to depend on each other to get by.


The middles classes have never needed such help. They are also more often than not, more articulate and better at fighting their cause. That's why they do better at lobbying local government. The Unions used to play the same role for the working class and public sector workers. Now a growing slice of the labour force has no Union protection. These are all changes that bring us to where we are today.


Peckham only began to exist as residential and growing retail area when Peckham Rye Station was built. It is the whole reason that Rye Lane exists in the first place. Can't see how that has ever been a bad thing.

Writing things like 'So many of those shops must be selling out of date 'fresh' food items, because as Dulwich Fox points out, a fishmonger for example should smell of the sea- not gone off fish.' doesn't really help. The smell of off fish and meat is so strong that it would be very obvious. I know for a fact that Environmental Officers DO regularly inspect retail outlets there.


Just on Chains. Chain stores are not interested in communities. They exist for profit and many of the big ones are now owned by multinational corporations. They often kill off small retail businesses (there's plenty of evidence of that nationwide). They do though create jobs and have a place. 'Clustering' which is the term given to retail outlets of similar nature operating within the same area is a natrual feature of free market competition and is actually good for the consumer in keeping prices competitve. It has always been the case that if one shoe shop opens and does well, another will open to try and cash in on business. Banks have done it. Departments stores, jewellers, cafes and so on have all worked to that same theory when deciding where to locate outlets. We are seeing the same with the Pound Shops. They can't really undercut each other on price, so they try to compete for customers with ranges.


KK is closer to my thinking on all of this. I do think there is an element of us versus them in the debate. The idea that only sterile and uniform environments are safe to buy from is nonsense. But everyone is entitled to their own take on all of these things.

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...