Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thanks for following that up James. This really is crackers - on what planet is that a reasonable situation to endorse as OK?


The pavement was blocked again today with collections from the Old Police station site, and my family and I were nearly hit the other day by a car reversing quickly away after being blocked by the forklift (my take was that the driver got frustrated and didn't think to check behind him before accelerating).


Grr

James,

Could you post in here the emails where Councillors say they are "happy" for the road to be intermittantly blocked on a regular basis, and large swathes of oath, both sides, to be blocked almost permanently? Are Councillors also "happy" about the real health and safety risks the developers pose to road and path users as well as the impact on residents and shop owners?

In fairness to James Barber, he did state "officers", and this refers to employees of council's.


Councillors are known as "members" of a council. As they are elected, their names are obviously available. In my experience officers names tend not to be given out (other than executive positions) and they enjoy an almost privileged anonymity, even having their names redacted in F.O.I. requests. I suspect James B would be in breach of some rule or other should he release their names.


Agreed the situation is very bad there, though.

James Barber posted this on the other Conway thread about this junction, for those who haven't seen it:


NB. the Conway machinery left on Upland Road by Crystal Palace Road junction. Officers agree it was parked incorrectly. Conways have been told that even when they're working on private work in Southwark they have to apply by the same H&S rules as when working for Southwark Council.

Which means this inconsiderate unsafe parking shouldn't occur again.



So one of the things that does seem to work to get Southwark's attention is photos of poor/bad practice, like the one RobMiller just posted. Every time I see it at this junction, I'll be posting it here (and there's plenty of it in my experience) and would encourage others to do the same.

Problem is the front elevations of the new houses are very close to the pavement (wouldn't like to live there when built) and I don't see how they can be physically built without intruding onto the footpath during construction. I always walk on the other side now.
Pretty outrageous this got through planning,past our local Councillors and anyone else meant to have some kind of oversight. I am guessing that the pavement will be moved out more to the road otherwise people literally fall out of their front door onto the path. Was this setup in the orginal plans?

Nothing will be done . And I wonder what could be done .Apparently it's not so much a busy road junction and footpath but a building site with deliveries .


I suppose Southwark could have added conditions to the planning permissions for the sites ,but I doubt they have the manpower or will to enforce them .


At least it's so outrageous and intrusive that vehicles have no option but to take it very slowly ,thus reducing potential for motor accidents .And I guess pedestrians aren't important .Or bikes .

Sadly vehicles aren't all taking it carefully. Some frustrated drivers are racing round the corner, accelerating off quickly after being held up, and in one case reversing rapidly when they got fed up waiting for some loading to stop (nearly mowing us down in the process).


But I share the pessimism about anything being done. Although I think they should consider diverting traffic (but leaving it open to pedestrians and cycles - ref: the impact on the Upland Road businesses).


Roll on April / May 2016...

The developers on the other side (the old small glass front shop) are MYN Developments and I mentioned this on the subject "No banksman on Upland Road/ Crystal Palace Road" and how the same was happening near us on L.L. where they are building.They had in the past improvement notices from southwark council and prohibition notices from islington council.I mean this with the best possible intention but you need to let this go.We did.The big boss of this company is driven around in a blacked out windows new range rover with two big blokes driving him.Sometimes you just know and realise when to withdraw if you understand my point.i bet that this is the same with the council people and Mr. Barber who didnt do anything after the last topic.

i'm sorry I don't understand your point, Pat Lanips

are you saying that MYN http://www.mynproperties.com/index.php/contact have put the frighteners on you, on the council and on James Barber, so that they can make a public nuisance of themselves with impunity?

MYN are also developing the houses / flats at 240 Lordship Lane. This was land that Southwark agreed to sell in April 2013 (together with 236 Lordship Lane) according to council minutes on southwark.gov.uk, but details of the sale don't show up on the land registry's website house price data.

mikeb Wrote:

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

> Two interesting mentions of Southwark Council here

> - click on bottom right photo to enlarge.

>

> http://www.mynproperties.com/index.php/about-myn1


Oh what sharp eyes you have.


What does this on the MYN Properties web-site mean?


"Our partners: VAN OS Architecture [...] Southwark Building Control"

How can Southwark Building Control be a partner with a private developer? Surely building control has to be separate/independent? How can a Council Body, funded( presumably?) by taxpayer money seem to have such a close relationship with private company?


Think this is a question for Councillor James Barber and Councillor Charlie Smith.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...