Jump to content

Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale


Recommended Posts

Just received notification from the Council of proposed changes to the junction of ED Grove and Townley Road. This is a junction that was completely redesigned only a few years ago and then resurfaced and re-marked last year.


I haven?t got time right now to go into detail, but the main gist seems to be to remove the staggered crossings, to add ?waiting bays? for nervous cyclists and to ban the right turn from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove (because of the space taken up by said waiting bay).


My initial reaction is distinctly negative. The right turn into ED Grove is well-used because alternatives involve quite a detour. And I?m not convinced about the meticulous consideration for nervous cyclists. The dilemma here is that for the remainder of their journeys, these cyclists will be expected to merge with the traffic along with everyone else. Unless you make the whole of the road network as ?cycle friendly? as this, it?s quite likely to be counterproductive.


More when I have the time.


Here?s the online consultation. Replies needed by December 12th.


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3639/townley_road

I am particularly concerned about the banning of the right turn from Townley Road into ED Grove. Surely this would have the effect of diverting yet more traffic from Townley Road into LL and make the junction of these two roads even more dangerous than it is already, what with cars speeding down LL from The Plough.
kford, are you referring to the LL/Townley Road junction? On the contrary, this junction does need lights, which indeed is something that we were going to suggest to Southwark. If you're referring to the Townley/ED Grove junction, you clearly have forgotten (or don't remember) the chaotic situation at that junction before lights were installed.

I also received this consultation document this morning. I too am concerned that banning a right turn from Townley road into east dulwich grove will cause increased chaos at the junction with townley road and lordship lane. This junction is already a bottleneck at the beginning and end of the school day with many large coaches attempting to turn there, and is also jammed up during the rush hour. Moreover crossing Lordship lane at the pedestrian crossing near Townley road/Heber road is already quite dangerous with cars speeding down the hill from the Forest Hill direction and buses at the bus stop blocking the sight lines. Children from several local schools cross the road at this point. The construction of new housing on both sides of lordship lane near this junction can only add to the traffic problems here.

I obviously support improved safety for cyclists but would suggest a dedicated cycle path, separate from the road, could be considered. If there is room for tree planting there should be room for a cycle path. The East Dulwich Grove/Townley road junction was indeed replanned fairly recently and I am surprised it needs a rethink now. Perhaps Southwark should address the problem of coaches and cars bringing pupils to Jags and Alleyns

I got the information in the post this morning and on the whole I'm in favour. As someone who regularly cycles and walks through this junction I think it will hugely improve road safety for more vulnerable road users. I have been forced off the road by drivers at this junction, especially those on the Townley Road side waiting to turn right who ignore the fact that, when lights are green, oncoming cyclists from Greendale have right of way (just like a car, folks).


However, I agree that removing the right turn from Townley Road is impractical, and I think it's likely to lead to illegal turns or people using the top of Greendale, outside the school, for U-turns, which obviously would add to the danger.


Also not sure about building out the pavement on the end of the Townley Road part of the junction as I think that will tend to increase the bottleneck at busy times, and adding trees at a point where schoolchildren are crossing could decrease visibility.


One area it doesn't address in my view is parents collecting children from JAGS by car. They frequently cause obstructions, do illegal turns and pull out in front of cyclists without checking (again, just speaking from my own experience). I would make parking at the top of Greendale permit-holders only.

That'll be reported incidents, though. I cycle through the junction frequently and have had lots of near misses, as well as being intimidated into getting off the road by drivers turning right out of Townley Rd who act like they have right of way over traffic going straight on from Greendale, and also parents outside JAGS who show a total lack of concern for anyone but themselves and girls in a JAGS uniform. Perhaps the nasty incident with the bus recently has been a trigger for the consultation.

1. My main objection to this is that (along with all previous such proposals), we, the rates/tax payers are not being advised of the costs - either of the costs involved in the study so far or of the overall project cost, if implemented.


2. No mention has been made of the project timescale and the hence duration of disruption to traffic.


3. It states that the proposal has evolved as a result of concerns raised by local stakeholders. How many people have raised concerns and over what timescale? Where's the evidence?


4. It states that there will be a ?banned right turn? out of Townley. This will inevitably result in traffic from Townley crossing over into Greendale to do a?U? there so that they can then turn left into East Dulwich Grove! These ?U? turns will be close to the side entrance to JAGS! This area is already massively congested with drop offs and collections twice a day!


5. It states that ?the existing shared use/pedestrian footway from Carlton Avenue into Townley Road will be removed?. Good grief, Conways only finished creating that 24 months ago at great expense!



I cross this junction every day and have reached the conclusion that 99% of the improvement being proposed could be achieve by achieved by simply reworking/retiming the traffic lights to allow all the pedestrian facilities to operate at the same time ? including allowing diagonal crossing. There is no need or justification for new build?outs. Also, banning right turns into EDG will have serious unintended consequences.


I sometimes wonder who comes up with these ideas at Southwark. Could it be the Conway?s representative who is embedded at the Council offices?


Tom

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> kford, are you referring to the LL/Townley Road

> junction? On the contrary, this junction does need

> lights, which indeed is something that we were

> going to suggest to Southwark. If you're referring

> to the Townley/ED Grove junction, you clearly have

> forgotten (or don't remember) the chaotic

> situation at that junction before lights were

> installed.


No, the junction which is the subject of this thread - East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale.


The other end is fine as it is, with the crossing and central refuge. Lights just make drivers speed up, especially when they turn to amber. Watch how courteous and calm drivers are when traffic lights are out of action and they have to go back to old-fashioned eye contact.

A couple of posts by cyclists from Green Dale mention incidents with drivers turning right from Townley into EDG.


Surely, if the pedestrian facilities are timed to all work at the same time then the safest way is for the cyclists from Greendale to dismount and cross the juction as a pedestrian (pushing the bike) with all the other pedestrians. It might even be just as quick and certainly safer. But more than anything it would avoid the massive negative effects of banning traffic from turning right.


Tom

No greater fun in all the world than wasting other peoples' money. just recall the junction of Burbage and Gallery Roads~ sensible islands removed several years ago to produce a hideously dangerous crossing. Virtually identical islands just reinstated again after lengthy outcry. Total costs must have been monstrous. Nobody sacked as they should have been. The whole road "improvements" programme is absurd as it appears that annual"budgets" are set (by whom??) and then have to be spent come what may on whatever daft scheme some jobsworth dreams up.

I totally agree that it doesn't need lights at all. Just some kind of help for pedestrians crossing and that doesn't have to be at the crossing!

How did we cope before the lights were recently put in?!!

tomdhu Wrote:

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

>

> I sometimes wonder who comes up with these ideas

> at Southwark. Could it be the Conway?s

> representative who is embedded at the Council

> offices?

>


Is this true?


Conway are great people who do great work.


It says so on their vehicles.

edhistory Wrote:

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

> tomdhu Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> > I sometimes wonder who comes up with these

> ideas

> > at Southwark. Could it be the Conway?s

> > representative who is embedded at the Council

> > offices?

> >

>

> Is this true?



Yes, there is a Conway representative with a permanent office provided by the Council within the Council building - supposedly for "liason" purposes.


And some of us have always wondered why Conway get virtually all the Council work. Go figure!

because conway won bid to do contract for southwark and have won it many years in a row in fact way back to 2002. having lived southwark borough many years seems be there only contractor for these kind of works.

Villager Wrote:

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

> Why is it that this type of work always goes to

> Conway and why does it never appear to go out to

> open tender???????????


The latter would lead in turn, presumably, to people criticising the Council for wasting time and resources putting every job out for tender in a separate process instead of once, allowing economies of scale etc. Sometimes they just can't win, can they.

The "No right turn" will impact massively on the following three junctions - which are already congested much of the day:-


1. EDG/Red Post Hill/Dulwich Village/Village Way junction.


2. Dulwich Village/Calton Av/Turney Rd.


3. Gilkes Crescent/Dulwich Village.


Whoever drafted this proposal obviously us not familiar with the local traffic patterns.

While some of the measure appear sensible, we are totally against a no right turn. Where's the analysis to prove that a) it is necessary b) where all the traffic is going to go? Would be interesting to know what our local councillors stand is on this.

that is exactly what I thought dulwichquine - I think the no right turn could actually become dangerous as people race around finding alternatives (one of which is bound to be 3 point turns in daft places actually making it more dangerous for the many children at several different schools)


I pity Gilkes crescent

I think overall the scheme would be good, IF the proposed banned right turn from Townley Road were dropped. It is cited as being required to avoid conflicts with cyclists but the opposite direction stated cyclists would have a head start avoiding such cited conflicts. I can;t see that both measures are required.

My hunch the banned right turn isn't about what's been stated but to make a single lane work from a capacity of vehicles perspective. So a more honest consultation would be welcome.


A diagonal crossing is something we've long asked for - currently this is how the crossing is used but designing this into the crossing should make it safer.


So please everyone response to the scheme. I've stated I oppose it because of the banned Townley Road banned right turn but overall would like to support it. Hope that makes sense.


Adding a post hear WILL NOT AFFECT THE CONSULTATION OUTCOME so please complete the public consultation ASAP.


It also isn't clear if the Dulwich Community Council will be invited to formally comment. I'll ask that it is which means a public meeting will take place to discuss the proposed changes.

I'm another that's definitely not in favour of the no right turn from Townley. Can I also suggest that as this junction falls in Village Ward that you email your opposition to the ward councillors as well as completing the feedback form.


[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

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...