Jump to content

Recommended Posts

PokerTime, some would suggest regardless of the outcome of planning decisions, Rye Lane has had some detrimental decisions made from local government which has contributed to its demise. Talk of the channel tunnel rail link, a tram hub, none of which happened but just by the mention of them they managed to force business diversity away from the area leaving us with a one dimensional high street.


Louisa.

My main point is that "consultation" in most cases slows down change, leaving areas undeveloped.


Louisa makes a good point regarding Peckham and th eRye Lane area - so many different plans have come and gone. Decisions should be made and then the plans implemented.

Give examples particular to Rye Lane Louisa. From a previous post had no idea what some of the groups you were dismissing do and I gave three good examples of how Rye Lane has been saved from major development (that would have destroyed it). You so far have given none, and didn't actually reply to my exposure of your lack of knowledge about Peckham Vision for example.


Please do reveal how the local council were involved of cancellation of Ken Livingstone's non funded tram development. I can give you lot's of information on how the Lib Dem council at the time tried to give over a huge area, surrounded by residential property, and what would have meant the loss of 400 existing jobs, to TFL for a 24hr maintenance and marshalling yard. I can also tell you how exposure of the planning process by local people, and consultation was crucial in forcing a rethink, and correcting the misinformation of the report supplied regarding jobs and suitability. And that those same groups argued for plans to be ammended (putting the yard in a more suitable location), not cancelled.


It's because of consultation written into planning law that councils can be challenged before signing away land and businness and anything else.


I agree anonymous, that bureaucrasy can slow the process, but that isn't a reason for bypassing consultation. Plans will always come and go because funding isn't ever in place before they come. It's easy to have ideas, not so easy to find the money to make them happen. And Peckham has had active local groups for a long time so ideas are plentiful.


But local councils, no more than planners, are not the reason that department stores have left Rye Lane. Basic economics are the reason. A shift away from smaller high streets to larger central malls and shopping centres. This is a change that can be seen all over the country over the last 20 years. Things change that local councils have little power to stop.

Agreed LadyD. The point missing from my post was that private enterprise pursues profit as the end goal. Local people don't matter in that equation. The proposed plans by network Rail for redevelopment of the land around and behind the station are a perfect example of that. The challenge coming from local groups is to protect exisitng businesses over a fast profit in property sought by TFLs planners.


So consultation works to find a balance. Neither side will get exactly what they want, but both sides should get something out of it. And that seems perfectly sensible to me.

On the haitdresser thing. I would suggest raising it at a community council meeting (I think Rye Lane comes under Lane ward) where a minuted motion can be presented to councillors. I agree it should be possible to make businesses aware of their responsibility to make sure hair is not swept onto the street.

Yes, democracy and community involvement are such a nuisance when you want to get yuor investment plans through quickly.


It is an unfortunate paradox that all the elements (necessary) of a democratic and fair approach to planning, which inevitably involve (particularly with major developments) substantial amounts of time, inevitably also lead to, and exacerbate, 'planning blight'


I can see no obvious way of squaring this circle - but some areas are almost constantly the focus of different plans, (if one fails, like buses, another one will there shortly) which can sequentially blight an area for a substantial period. Perhaps there should be a 5 year rule - no new plan for an area can be put forward within 5 years of the last being abandoned, unless a significant majority of those living in the area declare differently).

Failing to do anything about the hair and other rubbish might benefit any councillors who are pushing for change on behalf of the development companies, because they are more likely to get public opinion on their side.


Oldest trick in the book, let something get run down or grubby, offer a poisoned chalice solution and hey presto, we are thankful for being bum rushed by the saviours in power.

Those are interesting points.


I agree Penguin, that planning can lead to blight, and an element of that happened over the Tram scheme. Redevelopment of the building cornering Rye lane and Bournemouth Road was held up for years. It's completed now with some new shop space and I think looks tasteful (they kept part of the original facade of the building).


And I think your point LadyD about hidden political agendas in underdevelopment also has many examples in the history books. Not sure that the current Labour council can be accused of that though. Wider London authorities though, certainly can.

anonymous_third_part Wrote:

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

> I think it's very selfish of businesses (even if

> they are trendy) of taking advantage of cheap rent

> in old buildings and then campaigning for them not

> to be redeveloped. Places like the refreshment

> rooms and the Sunday Painter could easily

> relocate.


These are people who have invested money in their businesses, taken a punt in an area which is a bit rough round the edges, and helped make Peckham a more desirable and interesting place to live. Now they've done their job, they should be kicked out? To be replaced by Network rail's plans for "artisan studios"? No... could hardly disagree with your opinion more.

miga Wrote:

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

> Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> -----

> > And I'm not getting into the old boring working

> > class/ middle class argument that is so

> prevalent

> > on this MB. Bad, inconsiderate behaviour is

> > unacceptable, regardless of race, colour,

> creed,

> > class, sexual orientation etc.

>

> Some posters seem to think there are immovable

> definitions of good and bad behaviour - but social

> interactions and "manners" are deeply influenced

> by culture. What's happening on Rye Lane is that

> one subsection of society is interacting with

> others who by the looks of it have been there

> longer. Interesting to see gentrification in

> action.


This is very carefully worded. Applaudably so.


Let's be frank now:

Do you think some people believe it racist to criticise the practices of the afro hairdressers in regards to weaves and hair on the streets?

Or are those practices excusable/vindicated on a cultural basis somehow?

Does Peckham Rye being (culturally) majority African mean that African cultural norms have hitherot trumped British ones?


I'm curious on your thought process with this as it's crossed my mind too - it is the elephant in the room, as it were...

Interesting PDF on the current demographics of Peckham.


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/750/peckham


What I think cle is that people basically want the same things in life in general. But we are all products of our culture, environment etc. The world has evolved because of the exchange of culture and ideas - there's plenty of historical evidence for that. So I think a discussion about what hairdressers do with hair is just that. It has nothing to do with ethnicity, culture etc. It's simply a pattern of human behaviour, copied, because there are no firms rules in place or enforced, or so it would seem. And I think in most cases it would just require the LA having a word.


So is the issue really one of how does anyone get an official to have a word?


But it then gets clouded by undertones of us and them. And that sadly opens the door to a questioning of motive, in the way an opinion is expressed.


I can only speak for myself, but I will always challenge an assumption presented as fact, when there is clear evidence to the contrary. I think most people would do that. I also find those with the biggest assumptions are often the most poorly informed, the most entrenched, and the most insular in their views of anything. That's fine if you live on an island, but most of us don't. So we have to learn to get along, and find better ways of communicating with those we perceive to be different to ourselves. Diverse communities are here to stay. It's better we find ways to make them work, than wish for something already long gone.

anonymous_third_part Wrote:

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

> I think everyone knew that the station was due to

> be redeveloped though. The decision to redevelop

> the station is no surprise to anyone.


True. However Network Rail's decision to propose 6/7 storey blocks of flats alongside the station, to knock down the 30s art deco buildings on Blenheim Grove and to build "artisan" studios along all the arch frontages was a surprise to everyone, as they had not included all of that in their plans before and only snuck it in at the last minute. That's why it was helpful to have public consultation about it.

Good article. Glad it's at least been recognised by the media. No other city in the world puts up with the consumption of food on public transport like we seem to do, even New Yorkers aren't so socially inept, and American fast food is where it all began. These fried chicken shops popping up everywhere are not helping, what kind of people eat from these dumps on a regular basis?


Louisa.

Aren't there rules about food on public transport? Why are they not being enforced?


It's like litter louts. I once challenged a guy who dropped rubbish and yet was only two feet away from a bin. I got a mouthful. But worse, he only lived a few doors away! But what can be done about it?

Just returned from Japan where, despite the high number of vending machines and low number of rubbish bins, the trains and stastions - not to mention the streets - were litter-free. Noone needs to eat on a train or bus, unless they are diabetic perhaps, so ban it henceforth. The number of people who think it is A-OK to eat smelly food and then - sometimes - drop their litter afterwards on the bus is staggering and makes me angry and upset about society.

It's a recent phenomena. I've noticed it in other British towns and cities too. This notion after a night out that you can dispose of a kebab or box of smelly garlic mayo covered chips in the street or up against a car or shop window. It tends to be younger drunken people but not exclusively. I've been to Tokyo twice and I agree few litter bins around compared to London and absolutely spotless. We have no excuse here other than ignorance and utter laziness. There are rules about alcohol on public transport but certainly none enforced I bet, as for food are there any rules? KK if you want chicken why not do it at home yourself? Far more fresh and healthy, and not served from under some heat lamp. No city needs the number of chicken shops we now have. They're overtaking our traditional healthier take away meals. The chicken shop thing seems very much London based.


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> They're overtaking our

> traditional healthier take away meals.


The only traditional takeaway I can think of is fish and chips, which is surely no better than fried chicken. It might even be worse as the portions are always enormous.


I don't mind a bit of fried chicken now and again.

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...