Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Then don't use self scans. I refuse to do so on

> the basis that I am not being given a discount on

> my purchase because I am doing the job that the

> store staff should be doing.



Thanks for the advice, it might not have occurred to me not to use them otherwise......I find that kind of advanced level problem solving difficult to do for myself ;-)

There's no need to be sarcastic, binkylilyput (what kind of name is that, for gawd's sake?). The trouble is that too few people take a similar attitude, in contrast to people in other countries such as the USA who expect a bit of service from the shops that they use.
Saying that the I was in the US in the summer and they had self service kiosks at the pharmacy and grocery store. So times are changing everywhere. Its sad to see independents being pushed out by the giants, but who would open a convenience store especially with high rents, rates and having to open from 8am till 11pm.

I've spoken to the guys in the shop and they said they expect to be employed by Sainsbury's - which is a good thing at least. Some of them have worked in there for many years and I like them.

I agree it's a shame - Shepherds is expensive but for basics like bread and milk not much more so than other small grocers and as someone else has pointed out it does have an eclectic range.

I doubt the newsagents will survive but that's not really a problem 'cos it's pretty crap and not an independent so who cares other than for job losses.

The village - for all its haters - is a great space to live near to and IMO Sainsbury's is totally wrong for its vibe.

Not much we can do about it tho I suspect

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> There's no need to be sarcastic, binkylilyput

> (what kind of name is that, for gawd's sake?). The

> trouble is that too few people take a similar

> attitude, in contrast to people in other countries

> such as the USA who expect a bit of service from

> the shops that they use.



Um, it's my name. Problem?

It will be the single most useful thing to have happened in the village for a long time. Enough artisan this and quirky that. We have an overpriced tile shop, an overpriced wine shop, seventeen places to buy croissant in the morning (overpriced, natch) and no pub. Yes, it's dull but groceries are a pretty dull part of life. As for Shepherds - I don't need a tube of chestnut puree all that often and, when I do, I'm prepared to travel. Their poor staff work with decrepit fridges that pump out heat and all they have is a gazillion fans to circulate the hot air. The stuff in them is often out of date or downright mouldy and the electricity bills must be huge! It's not an independent, it's part of Londis and, according to the staff, "head office" couldn't care less. Independents stopped being able to afford the rents in Dulwich Village a long time ago. As long as Sainsbury's employ them and keep their shop front something less than neon, I, for one, welcome our new Sainsbury's overlords.

Take a look at the attached. Won't this fit in beautifully.


After all:

What distinguishes Dulwich from its environs is the preservation of the character of the area - the appearance of individual properties is in harmony with that of neighbouring buildings, maintaining the integrity of streetscapes


Not my words - extract from the Dulwich Estate?s entry on the Charity Commission website............

Well that's a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance. Have you seen the hideous new developments at the village end of court lane or the plans for the Audi garage? The Scheme of Management aside, the objectives of the Dulwich Estate are to maximise income for its beneficiaries i.e. the foundation schools, chapel and almshouses. It cannot (and does not) compromise that for the benefit or convenience of residents. In other words, it doesn't have to give a stuff about the locals. The frontage of the proposed Sainsbury's is no more or less offensive than the ridiculously generic (and largely empty) Caf? Rouge or ten-a-penny Pizza Express. I spoke to the staff again this evening and they seem more than happy about it. Shepherd's is literally a waste of space and, given that it should remain a grocery store and no smaller company could afford it, the Estate has, for once, approved something which is of some use to the people who actually live here.

Sainsburys seem to be able to be flexible about making the shop facade sympathetic with a local environment.

Beyond that they seem to push past other concerns by claiming the greater good for local shoppers and business.


http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/about-us/property/convenience/case-studies/


A bottle of 'Taste the Difference' will be in ready and cheap supply for all who use this route. Will the age limit be 18 or 25? What good news for the local schools and locals....

Will no one think of the children?! Honestly, you seriously think that having a Sainsbury's will mean drunk school children rampaging round the streets of leafy Dulwich in their uniforms? C'mon. The young people round here seem to have better things to do and I'm still hopeful (triumph over experience though that is) that we will one day have a pub again and the kids can go back to doing their under age drinking in there in the time honoured tradition. Sainsbury's has a Think 25 policy which means that, although you can legally buy alcohol at 18, they won't sell it to you unless you can prove it or you look over 25. Shepherds, as far as I know, has no such policy, is also open late and sells booze but it's proper dodgy and ridiculously overpriced. Alternatively, there's the pretensions of Dulwich Vintners which is merely overpriced. As a grown-up, I'll be more than happy to nip out for a reasonably priced bottle of red of a gloomy Wednesday evening.


I'm beginning to suspect that the people who object to this have alternatives in the "just popping out", walking distance shop but would prefer Dulwich Village to keep Shepherds so they can nip in once a year and gush over how quaint and eclectic it is.


Anyhow, delightful though this badinage is, it's a done deal. The estate has done what it always does and maximised its profits. We are getting a Sainsbury's local, opening in January. Hurrah!

NormalForNorfolk Wrote:

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

> Well that's a custom more honoured in the breach

> than the observance. Have you seen the hideous new

> developments at the village end of court lane or

> the plans for the Audi garage? The Scheme of

> Management aside, the objectives of the Dulwich

> Estate are to maximise income for its

> beneficiaries i.e. the foundation schools, chapel

> and almshouses. It cannot (and does not)

> compromise that for the benefit or convenience of

> residents. In other words, it doesn't have to give

> a stuff about the locals. The frontage of the

> proposed Sainsbury's is no more or less offensive

> than the ridiculously generic (and largely empty)

> Caf? Rouge or ten-a-penny Pizza Express. I spoke

> to the staff again this evening and they seem more

> than happy about it. Shepherd's is literally a

> waste of space and, given that it should remain a

> grocery store and no smaller company could afford

> it, the Estate has, for once, approved something

> which is of some use to the people who actually

> live here.


The line that the Dulwich Estate peddle is that they have 'no choice' in their decisions when it comes to maximising their income. They patronisingly referred to it in their latest PR accompanying their Scheme of Management invoice demands. Whatever the 'hue and cry'( their quote) of local residents ( err.... a 600 strong petition opposed to their activities around the SG Smith development and a demonstration), their hands were tied in their actions to put profit above everything.However, talking to charity professionals, this simply isn't true. The Charity Commission allow a certain amount of leeway to take in other, wider factors into consideration as to how a charity conducts it's business.


Irrespective of this, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of their brief - on the one hand taking cash off us to preserve the area, and telling us we can't put a dish up or touch a tree without their consent (for which there will be a fee), and on the other having licence to wreck the area with dubious development schemes. They are both gamekeeper and poacher at the same time - nice work, if you can get it. I think they are fundamentally discredited as an organisation that should have any kind of pretext of authority to conserve Dulwich, as is the Dulwich Society, with whom they have close links. The Estate should have no input into local affairs, and should be seen for what they are - a money making machine subsidising predominately the local private schools, for whom local residents don't have any more status than serfs.


On a more fundamental level, the Estate's charity model doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. The original will which Edward Alleyn left to educate '12 poor scholars' and educate poor local children got subverted by an Act of Parliament in less enlightened times to translate into subsidising the big local private schools - their input into state schools in minimal. I think it is time that Act of Parliament was revisited.

http://www.dulwichsociety.com/journal-archive/72-summer-2011/646-chairmans-comment196 Off topic but this is amusing on the madness of the Dulwich Estate and why we now have the Crossing to Nowhere at the roundabout. It's worth noting that the "land" in question is a triangular bit of grass barely big enough to graze a couple of sheep on.

NormalForNorfolk Wrote:

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

......... various above



Yes, correct. East Dulwich has a variety of options, as has H Hill and I'm not on the doorstep of the Village, so I am not worried about direct impact. But I do value Dulwich Village as a unique place and one that attracts people to live and visit. And these changes can happen in the blink of an eye if locals don't have a view and rely on the Dulwich Est.


The majority of kids are not spending their money at the Dog now (well for sure as its closed) - unless coming from the well funded pockets of those fortunate enough to live locally. No, they and most under age drinkers will use the cheaper supermarkets and stock up for a night out. The odd top up at the Dog is neither here nor there and the kids that indulge locally at present have not been an issue as far as I am aware. Access to cheaper alcohol will be attractive to a wider range of kids, local or otherwise. But hey, it's not the main point nor the only one about the change of licence.


As you will see from the link of case studies that I posted, Sainsburys are used to interacting with the community when they set up new stores and there are a fairly consistent set of issues raised - particularly about impacts on the streetscape and community.


Maybe miracles will happen and the extent of Sainsburys branding and its lorry deliveries won't matter a jot. The convenience of the shop will override any downsides. But I don't think I am prepared to leave it to chance while there is time to comment. And I don't live on the doorstep.

Well said @Woodwarde. I don't live on the doorstep either, but I do care about what the middle of Dulwich Village looks like, because I don't want the whole of London to look exactly the same. AND I care about how and when deliveries will be made AND I don't want the new store open 24/7.


Since the S. G. Smith planning application was pushed through despite very vocal opposition to ever more huge and expensive houses (which the area does NOT need), I don't have any faith in the Dulwich Estate caring about anything other than maximising profits for its beneficiaries i.e. the already well-off independent schools. (It SHOULD care about the impact on the local community of its decisions, but it doesn't, and it's probably time we all got together and forced it to.) So I think it's up to us all, regardless of what the Dulwich Estate thinks, to say to Sainsbury's what we want and don't want in the middle of Dulwich Village. Which is worth looking after, for everyone's sake,

http://www.dulwichsociety.com/news/1229-sainsburys It won't be. It will be open one half an hour earlier in the morning and one hour later in the evening than Shepherd's. Shepherd's also has deliveries - supplies of American cup cake frosting don't get dropped by fairies. The shop will be the same size as at present and serve the same purpose. Deliveries will pale into insignificance compared with the traffic about to be inflicted on us by S.G. Smith development which, for the record, I opposed very vocally because I don't trust the Dulwich Estate further than I can spit. I care very much about the community I live in but thriving communities also need decent services and infrastructure - they don't thrive by being preserved in aspic. I too will examine the planning application carefully when it arrives but think this one will turn out to be a non-issue. Also, for the record. I was joking about under-age drinking in the Dog but didn't think I'd need to spell that out.

It's funny how things change.


I just remember walking home from Kingsdale with my sisters and friends through the village to get to the sweet shop just past where Shepards is now. There were two ladies serving. The queue went out of the doorway. Don't know what Shepards was then and the old sweet shop is long gone somewhere along the row of shops there.

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...