Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I live in Tulse Hill - be very very VERY thankful you do not have residents parking. That'll be ?115 a year please and you still won't be able to park anywhere near your house.

Resident parking will kill the shopping area. Be grateful you have so many facilities people want to use!!


Rach

The big problem with residents parking is they allow pay and display so everyone still parks there but pays to do it.

And when you want workmen to come in, you need to pay their parking costs.

We live just off Lordship Lane but don't like the idea of residents parking as we'd get no advantage from it and parking would still be as bad.


The only place you'd want resident parking is if you lived near a busy tube or train station and had commuters driving in, parking in your street then taking public transport into London. I don't think that this is the main problem with parking in ED (certainly not where we are). The main problem around here seems to be shop workers and estate agents parking people parking cars and going to the shops.


Maybe I'm wrong... Does anyone think that there's a lot of commuters parking in ED and getting the train?

Sympathies, It drives me mad too!

On our street it isn't just people visiting the shops etc that cause the parking problem,

We are surrounded by about 4 different Estate Agents who all have cars and park on our street, it's ridiculous!

Can anyone suggest how to improve parking for local residents?????

Residents parking? Money making scheme for the council and a complete pain in the arse for residents. Used to live in grenwich, cost me 100 or so quid a year. Everytime gf came round had to give her a ?3 temporary pass. Only way of getting the passes was to send off for them from the council! The whole system drove me mad.


Commuters coming to east dulwich to park does also make me mad however. When I used to live on LL it also drove me mad when I couldn't park near house due to all the shoppers.


The long term solution is to improve this city's disgraceful public transport system so that people dont feel the need to drive, or to persuade people to ditch their car for a bike, like I have done.


One last thing, people who drive to ED to get a train in the morning... where the bloody hell do they live for that to be a viable option? It 'd be quicker walking anywhere during the rush hour.

thelittlebigvoice Wrote:

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

> I am getting so p******d off by the fact I cannot

> park anywhere near my house any longer, due mainly

> to the fact so many cars from outside the area are

> parking up then catching busses into town - as its

> free.

> Please can we have residents parking !!!


Littlebigvoice - which street are you in?

It all depends on micro local circumstance whether it helps or not - what the details of the problem are - eg when the cars are there, how long for usually, and where they are comign from for what local purpose. In our street for example we are more likely to find no spaces in the evening (never been able to work out why!) when residents' parking controls would not help one bit. In other streets excessive long day commuter parking can be disrupted eg by a control of half an hour in the middle of the day.

I live just by Croydon arena and I can never park outside my house, because of the vast popularity of the arena with the local schools and sports Clubs, I get annoyed but I have learnt to live with it. My philosophy is that no matter what, when you travel into another area, you are going to park outside someones house and annoy them. Residents parking will ruin the USPs of East Dulwich.
Definetly not worth it, I lived in Islington for a year and had to pay over 100 quid for a permit but still spent up to half an hour driving around the streets trying to find a park, often ending up quite a few blocks away from my flat. I find in East Dulwich I usually find a park either on my road or just around the corner and it's free.

Afraid that I'm going to completely disgree with most of the above. We are now part of the residents parking zone in Peckham. (Previously the first street with free parking to Peckham Rye station). With a small child I used to always have a buggy in the car and make sure that all refridgerated and freezer goods were seperate so that i could leave the rest of the shoppinjg till other half came home and moved it 2-5 streets depending on how far away I'd managed to park the car). The streets surrounding us declined residents parking and now parking on our street is really easy - never more than 10 motres from our home. So yes, easy money for the council(though most coucils make parking control revenue neutral despite what their critics claim!!!). We were warned previously but went along to consultation with our neighbours and were fully listened to and our own comments were completely listened to. generally really impressed. I think ?100 a year is good value (especially as a peckham resiident we also get to park near the pulse when their parking full with no risk of tickets!). Good luck though. Most people we know were massively sceptical/negative. Ones on our street changed their minds once it was in. Sorry to burst everyone elses bubble, but on our street - this is one the best things that has happened in terms of inconvenience and quality of life for us...


For thoses sceptical about shoppers etc another suggestion would be put a two hour parking limit on ie 12-2, 11-1 etc. If residents have a permit they can park all day and those that use parking for trains/commuting won't be able to. Shoppers, once familiar with restrictions won't be affected as they will be able to aviod the times that restrictiosn apply. Thsi is used in Greenwich to prevent comuters for trains etc

JDR Wrote:

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

> Afraid that I'm going to completely disgree with

> most of the above. We are now part of the

> residents parking zone in Peckham. (Previously

> the first street with free parking to Peckham Rye

> station).


Hi JDR - sounds like we are in the same part of the Peckham area - west side of Rye Lane. I am in Nutbrook St which is 7 streets from Peckham Rye station. We are just on the edge of the CPZ and were worried that the extension to include Anstey Road would clog our street up during the day. But it hasn't. In fact our street is more full of cars in the evenings than the days most of the time. This just shows how the exact location is significant in whether a CPZ will help. So it wouldn?t at the moment in Nutbrook St, but does for you for understandable reasons as you are closer to the epicentre of town and station (can you say which street? - it would be interesting to know how close/distant you are to here). But I agree if visitor car parking really needs to be deterred one good solution is to have a short period of CPZ during the day to deter long term parkers and enable short term shoppers.

Another problem with CPZ is the fact that half if not more of the parking places are allocated to pay and display (Making more money for the council)and still leaving fewer spaces than resident vehicles. As mentioned before visitors add to the councils coffers and some repairs/building work is passed over by workman because of the hassle of the parking restriction and the chance of parking fines.

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...