Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Please sign this petition and help us raise awareness:


https://www.change.org/p/the-dulwich-estate-sg-smith-child-safety-before-profit


More information below.... thanks very much - Andy


___________


Current plans to redevelop the SG Smith (Audi) garage in the centre of Dulwich Village include a 5,000 cubic metre basement to create underground snugs, utility rooms and parking for 12 new homes.


The works will involve over 2,000 multi-axle HGV journeys: tipper trucks to remove the soil and aggregate lorries to supply the concrete. And that's just to create the proposed basement.


That's ONE HGV, EVERY 10 MINUTES FOR TWO MONTHS, right into the centre of the village, on local, residential roads that are already dangerously congested.


There are 14 schools with 7,000 pupils within 10 minutes walk of the proposed construction site as well as 40 pre-school nurseries.


Parents and children walk, cycle and scoot to school every day and their routes take many of them straight through Dulwich Village.


As well as local residents, school children walk straight past the site throughout the day - to and from lunch, and on local outings.


Petitioning the Dulwich Estate (land owner) and SG Smith (their co-developer):


We believe that the scale of the proposed HGV movements poses an enormous risk to our community: of the 20 cycle deaths in London last year over half involved tipper trucks and skip lorries.

We urge you to consider a scheme that excludes any basement excavation. This would significantly reduce the associated HGV traffic.

We believe that the safety of our children and local residents should be prioritised, rather than maximising the scale of the development and your financial returns.

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

Crikey, those houses look ghastly.


Upland Road in ED is virtually a no go area because of developments happening simultaneously right opposite each other. The pavement has been taken away completely on one side and then you have all manner of large trucks and lorries parked up either side, leaving little room for motorists and even less for pedestrians, and yes it isvery unsafe and I fell sure there will be an accident soon. The larger developer has hoardings up boasting how community mindde and 'caring' they are...not (they are pretty rude actually).


I really feel for the parade of shop owners who must be suffering and hope the devlopers have to compensate them for loss of earning..plus the houses to be built look awful as well.


Then of course we have the police station to be converted into Harris. The mind boggles what disruption that will bring to the Lane. One also wonders why huge efforts are being made at this time to reduce parking and generally produce queues of traffic everywhere. Bizarre. Perhaps it is so Southwark can lease out parking for works on most of the roads to developers and builders??


Anyhow, I support your objection in Dulwich, developers seem to be able to make massive impositions on the local area giving nothing in return but securing vast profits for themselves.

I am sympathetic to the argument but I can't see the point of petitioning the Dulwich Estate, who presumably made their minds up when they put in the planning application. The application is still open for comments so better to voice concerns there, i would have thought. I note that the head teachers of the local primary schools have submitted comments very much reflecting the concerns above, so let's hope they are taken account of.

Quite like the houses. It's a moderate sized development that seems to be in keeping with the area.


The objections strike me as classic nimbyism. "Won't someone please think of the children" is a rather weak, manipulative argument, as is tacking on recent cyclist deaths on major city roads. The disruption won't last forevever.

Hi Jeremy you are absolutely right, and the local schools are making that exact point. However in this case we have the Dulwich Village Infants' School, which is split-site, who take their kids back and forth for lunch straight past this site. Add to this the pre-school care and after school clubs and you have a very narrow window. Thanks for your comment.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> How about requesting that site related deliveries

> and removals are done during school hours? Then

> safety of children is no longer an issue.


Good idea, I'd go with this.

Thanks DaveR. Yep absolutely the schools (and us lot) are making formal representations. However the whole planning consultation process really does feel like a silent vortex sometimes with zero feedback. So the objective here is to add to the official efforts and to make sure our decision-taking councillors are able to hear some grass-roots opinion.
I support the development of new housing in the area, but the basement excavation seems unnecessary and will certainly cause a massive amount of disruption, noise, pollution and safety concerns. I've signed the petition for these reasons. Thanks to the organisers of the petition for raising it and creating the opportunity to comment.

A pretty rediculous request even for this forum. perhaps you'd be happier if construction was only out of school hours and through the night?


Jeremy's suggestion seems a good one.


Perhaps as well we could petition all parents, children, pedestrians, cyclists and scooter users to take some personal responsibility, obey the Highway Code, watch where they're are going and not sneak up the inside of lorries?


Just a thought.

Hi Andyskip,

I would also share your concerns about large tipper truck numbers visiting our area. They have a much much higher incidence of crashing with pedestrians and cyclists and those crashes resulting in death or signficiant life changing injuries.

Tipper truck capacity is usually 16 tonnes or 10 m3. So I'm not clear your numbers are correct but either way objecting to HOW a construction will occur is not grounds to successfully challenge a planning application. How ever unfair that may be.


You would need to object on plans grounds such as an over development. But for that to stick you've need ot assess whether more habitable rooms are being proposed than the Southwark Plan suggests for the area. Well worth speaking to THe Dulwich Scoeity who have a sub committee who will have worked those numbers for this site.


The HOW would be covered, if people were concerned, by a Construction Management Plan. Any approval could included a condition requiring such a plan to be approved by officers and I would encourage concerned objectors to ask that such a condition involve Dulwioch councillors and the Dulwich Society be consulted prior to any officer approval of such a plan.


Best way of ensuring this is to ensure the scheme is decided by a planning sub-committee. For that people need to object with at least 5 objecting OR two councillors need to call this application in. As it's in Village ward I would feel uncomfortable as an East Dulwich ward councillor (although southwark constitution doesn't make this distinction) leading on that but happy to support any of the village ward councillors if they initiate this. I will email this offer to them.


Hope this helps.

Thanks James... it's important to validate the figures. So I'll post up the calculations in a moment.


You also make a very good point about the construction management plan. The local schools have repeatedly asked for clarity from the developers and have so far heard nothing back. Zip.


A 'draft outline' CMP was written in March 2014 (attached here). It contains no figures whatsoever regarding the scale of construction, just general comments, highlighted placeholders and a promise to consult before publishing a final version.


From a safety perspective this is probably the most important document and I believe we should question whether a planning decision can be made before we are clear on the impact it will have on the local community.


Figures to follow - all the best - Andy

In the petition we estimate 2,000 ?truck journeys? i.e. journeys to and from the site.


Excavation: we?ve assumed 18 tonne trucks with 11.5 tonne load capacity, 1.7kg/m3 density -> 826 trucks.

Concrete: 1,100 m3 (slabs, internal & external walls) -> 180 trucks

Total c. 1,000 trucks overall, 2,000 truck journeys in and out of the site.


NB this only covers excavation and concrete, and only considers the basement on the basis we?re asking the developers to scale back the development and specifically reconsider whether a basement is sensible.


Whilst we can improve the above figures I believe they are ball-park right. And the 2,000 truck figure understates the total level of disruption given this just gets us back to ground level.

Hi andyskip,

Construction Management Plans are rarely useful or impressive - and often Southwark over the last few years have agreed to allowed construction works if quiet outside restricted hours of Mon-Fri 8am-6pm , Sat 8am-1pm. But those 'quiet' works are often very noisy and Southwark councils response to this usually poor.


Hence my suggestino that any condition about requiring a CMP in such a sensitive area have the provision that Dulwch councillors and the Dulwich Socieity and perhaps thetwo nearby schools are actively consulted on it. Rather than left to officers to work without any reference to any stakeholders.


And yes the figures are important to ensure the correct level of measures of H&SE wrap-around to minimise risk and disturbance. Underground parknig is a worrying precedent for Dulwich.


I've now confirmed that this scheme will go to a planning committee. Fingers crossed one I'm a member of so I get to hear all the evidence to make a decision.

Signed. Feels like they're squeezing in the maximum number of large houses in to maximise profit with no regard for either genuine housing need (for which they'd build flats) or the local environment (in which case, fewer & smaller houses more in keeping with the area, with surface parking).

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...