Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"How would you respond to Penguin68's point regarding how these areas would be maintained safely in the future should they be left as they are?"


The areas that are wooded do not need much maintenance in my view. The areas that are currently in use as cemetery could continue that way as far as I am concerned. That these may be better left to nature, I would not dispute, but I agree that in order to do so then there would need to be a management plan for this if only to safeguard against development. Separate issue really - the first priority is to get the council to do some proper due diligence.


"Climate change? Although 'every little helps', I doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Though even this would be offset anyway if more were planted (as is promised), as growing trees take up more CO2 than mature ones."


100 trees today, another 100 tomorrow. Where does one stop? It is the unsustainable nature of this that I find maddening.

Can I point out (again) that the 'wooded' areas being addressed by Southwark Council at the moment account for 6% of the cemeteries' area. The vast majority of the area is already managed graveyard - including, as I have said, hay meadow in the summer - which is a varied and interesting habitat already. HopOne has said The areas that are currently in use as cemetery could continue that way as far as I am concerned. - this is not the position of the ssw pressure group - which wants the whole area of both cemeteries wilded. I think such a minimalist approach would have got far more traction. There are issues of tumbling monuments and gaping graves which need addressing in this area (otherwise it will be even more unsafe than it is) and the land contamination, but a better and more supportable case could have been made if the demands had been as modest as this.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Climate change? Although 'every little helps', I

> doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in

> the grand scheme of things. Though even this

> would be offset anyway if more were planted (as is

> promised), as growing trees take up more CO2 than

> mature ones.


The offsetting issue is actually the key point. Attitudes such as "I doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in the grand scheme of things" have allowed for piecemeal deterioration of our urban and rural environment in all sorts of ways. Small changes in each of our lives can mean big changes for everyone's lives ? for good or ill.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> > Climate change? Although 'every little helps',

> > I doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in

> > the grand scheme of things. Though even this

> > would be offset anyway if more were planted (as is

> > promised), as growing trees take up more CO2 than

> > mature ones.

>

> The offsetting issue is actually the key point.

> Attitudes such as "I doubt 100 or so trees will

> make a difference in the grand scheme of things"

> have allowed for piecemeal deterioration of our

> urban and rural environment in all sorts of ways.

> Small changes in each of our lives can mean big

> changes for everyone's lives ? for good or ill.


But, as I said, surely the planting of new tree will offset (perhaps more than offset) the ones lost?

Hi Loz,


> But, as I said, surely the planting of new tree will offset (perhaps more than offset) the ones lost?


Southwark are proposing to plant less tress than they are removing.

Removing mature trees and replacing them with fewer less mature trees.


I'm struggling to understand how this can in any way 'perhaps more than offset' the removal of mature established trees.


This will result in a net loss, and a reduction in the benefits they provide, whichever way you look at it.


I am still looking into the costs eventually provided to me (which on first analysis are not complete, why am I not surprised) but I still question the sanity and expense of replacing existing trees.

Also, I'm still studying the documentation, but it appears to me that some of the trees marked for removal are not dangerous or diseased. They are just in the way of their efforts to squeeze as many graves into the area as possible. This is just one of the details that makes me against these plans.

Dear all,

I'm grateful to the administrator of the east Dulwich Forum for registering me on here. I am part of the Save Southwark Woods campaign team that has been working to protect and preserve the woods and graves of the Camberwell Cemeteries for the future.


I would like support Penguin68, HopOne and Panda Boy's proposals that this thread keep to the topic. I hope we can have a respectful and productive discussion and look forward to sharing information as it occurs, and in relation to this topic.


Last Thursday 18th February, the Diocese of Southwark wrote to Southwark Council's Parks Officer Rebecca Towers (cc me) to remind her that the Council has no permission from the Church for works to Area Z at Camberwell Old Cemetery.


In the letter, the Diocesan Registrar Paul Morris reminded Ms Towers that a hearing by the Diocesan Consistory Court will be held to decide whether to give Southwark Council permission or not for works [which are already underway].


Until the hearing Southwark Council has no permission from the Church and works must be at 'their own risk'.


The letter from the Paul Morris, Diocese of Southwark, to Rebecca Towers, Southwark Council, is here:

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/no-church-permission-for-works


If anyone would like any information at all about the Save Southwark Woods campaign, please do email me, I'm always happy to discuss it. [email protected] or call me 07731 304 966


We also hold meetings every Tuesday 7.30pm at the Herne Tavern - all welcome.


Blanche Cameron

For Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966

[email protected]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods

Facebook: Save Southwark Woods

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

the Council has no permission from the Church for works to Area Z at Camberwell Old Cemetery.


That would be permission required as a Faculty from the Diocese for 'substantial alterations' - which would include disturbance or removal of remains or grave furniture, creation of new paths or roadways - all referring to work on consecrated land in a municipal cemetery (NB these are NOT church lands in any way). Types of work not counted as 'substantial alterations' as described do not require such a Faculty.


As I understand it the work now underway is not considered by the council to fall under the description of 'substantial alterations' which would require a Faculty from the Diocese, and I would assume, unless clear evidence can be provided, that they would not undertake work which would require such a Faculty without gaining one.


Can I also point out that the Diocese (as is the Church of England) looks and is likely to continue to look kindly at proposals to re-use cemeteries for Christian burial (other faith burials or no faith burials are not their remit) - which they consider an appropriate use of land set-aside for that use, on the assurance that work is carried out sensitively and under appropriate Faculties.

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Dear all,

> I'm grateful to the administrator of the east

> Dulwich Forum for registering me on here. I am

> part of the Save Southwark Woods campaign team

> that has been working to protect and preserve the

> woods and graves of the Camberwell Cemeteries for

> the future.


Do you disown "Lewis Schaffer" and all his false statements?


John K

Hello John, good to meet you on here.


What false statements have been made?


Southwark is currently clearing 2.5 acres of land in Camberwell Old Cemetery including cutting down dozens of trees as part of its strategy to cut down 12 acres of woods, mound over the public graves of tens of thousands of Londoners and then excavate all private graves over 75 years old.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3046/cemetery_strategies


Here is a video showing the most recent works by Southwark Council



If you find anything that says the Council aren't going ahead with this project, please let us know. That would be great news.


Sincerely,


Blanche


Blanche Cameron

For Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966

[email protected]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods

Facebook: Save Southwark Woods

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

Penguin68 Wrote:

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


> The story so far:

>

> Southwark Council, who manages these two municipal

> cemeteries, created in the latter half of the 19th

> century from pastoral (meadow) lands bought from

> farmers, plans to extend their use for burials by

> starting to bury in areas not previously used and

> (eventually) re-using grave space, as allowed by

> law. Their proposals cover only those areas which

> form designated parts of the two cemeteries,

> although bits of these have not been used

> previously for burial.

>

> Their initial focus is on areas which have been

> allowed to run wild (following a period when the

> council abrogated its responsibilities to look

> after the cemeteries properly) or which have been

> taken out of use (concreting). This work initially

> involves clearing scrub growth (and some older,

> intentionally planted trees) and areas of

> contamination following fly-tipping. Some of this

> work takes place over 19th century graves, both

> private and ?public? (formally known as paupers

> graves).

>

> For private graves (the majority of recent

> burials) the law requires that no grave be

> disturbed (other than for new family burials) for

> re-use in less than 75 years after the last

> burial. Where private graves are re-used the

> normal rules are for ?lift and deepen? where the

> original occupants are buried lower down (but in

> the same spot), with new occupants buried above.

> In other London cemeteries it is common to ?turn?

> the grave marker so that the original inscriptions

> now are on the back of the gravestone.

>

> Some of the land is ?consecrated? (particularly

> public grave areas) ? the Diocese of Southwark

> must give a ?Faculty? for consecrated areas to

> allow what is described as ?substantial

> alterations? ? which includes the removal of any

> remains for re-interment in consecrated ground

> (which is their current policy regarding public

> graves), the disturbance of grave furniture and

> the creation of new paths or roadways. Some

> actions (in practical terms ?gardening? and tree

> management) do not require such a Faculty, nor

> would clearance of contamination and fly-tipping

> residue where this did not disturb graves or grave

> markers.

>

> The council?s plans include plans for replanting

> trees (though these will tend to be saplings

> rather than mature trees). Over time they suggest

> any net tree loss will be minimal, though this

> probably ignores removal of current spindly

> sapling growth. It is inevitable that some wild

> habitats will be removed or substantially altered,

> although it should be noted that different

> habitats will consequently arrive. Last year, for

> instance, in the existing managed areas of

> Camberwell Old Cemetery a substantial portion was

> allowed to grow into mature hay meadow during the

> summer. The existing areas which have been let run

> wild in the cemeteries are limited (i.e. most of

> the cemeteries are already fully managed).

>

> Camberwell Old Cemetery is 11.62 hectares,

> Camberwell New, 12.2 or 58.86 acres together. The

> council?s current plans for removal of trees and

> scrub growth etc. cover 3.12 acres in the Old

> Cemetery (not all of which is tree covered) and

> 0.54 acres in the New Cemetery. Combined that is

> 6% of the total area of both cemeteries.

>

> There will, of course, over time, be substantial

> re-use of burial space within the existing

> properly managed cemetery areas, this being

> achieved by a combination of re-interment for

> public burials and what is called ?mounding?

> (raising the soil levels to allow new burial) as

> well as lift and deepen for private graves. This

> work (in existing managed areas) will not, over

> time, have significant effect on changing

> habitat.

>

> A pressure group (calling itself ?Save Southwark

> Woods? ? although there has never been an entity

> or area actually called ?Southwark Woods?) is

> committed to attempt (a) to stop council works in

> reclaiming areas of the cemetery not properly

> maintained (b) to stop all future burials in

> Southwark and © to allow the whole cemetery

> areas (Old and New Cemetery) to become wilded and

> overgrown. They claim this will create a ?nature

> reserve? ? although who will run it and how it

> would be funded has never been made clear. There

> is already a Nature Reserve in part of One Tree

> Hill (which is adjacent to the New Cemetery);

> Nunhead cemetery, now ?closed? for burials, is

> treated as a Nature Reserve ? so we already have

> two of these locally; and there are many other

> local areas of woodland and park. Both Old and New

> cemeteries are already classified (in their

> entirety, being mainly managed areas) by the

> Council as Sites of Importance for Nature

> Conservation (SINCs). The Council claims (and it

> is in their gift) that SINC status would be

> maintained following the proposed developments.

>

> Arguments the protesters have used (over and above

> the ?loss of habitat? ? which is accurate but

> perhaps has been disproportionate ? as only 6% of

> the land is involved with that) include biological

> contamination from burials and flooding ? as well

> as ?disrespect? towards the existing dead. Their

> main belief appears to be that if their views

> prevail the areas will become new parkland for

> them to enjoy (although the area is already well

> provided for green spaces of different types). How

> this parkland would be managed, by whom and at

> whose cost has not been discussed by them, nor are

> any proposals made for this.

>

> The Council?s responses to the protest so far can

> be seen here:-

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_fun

> erals_and_cremations/2231/the_future_of_southwarks

> _cemeteries/6

>

> The 2013 Guidance on reuse of cemeteries in London

> (a .pdf) can be downloaded from here:-

> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&

> source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiLltON5fnKAhWLWhQKHYAdB

> MUQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2

> Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F11857%2Flednet_report

> &usg=AFQjCNFAByQf3HUb8islnvImdlc-c_A-JA&bvm=bv.114

> 195076,d.d24&cad=rja

>

> (NB ? Summary written by someone who, living very

> close to one of the cemeteries, broadly supports

> the Council?s policy, on the assumption that it is

> carried through as promised and sensitively).

John K


> Do you disown "Lewis Schaffer" and all his false

> statements?

>

> John K


Considering this thread was started to focus on the cemetery issues and move away from the previous one that somewhat degenerated away from the point and was subsequently moved to the lounge, how do you think your comment, and it's repetition adds to the debate?


Welcome to the forum Blanche, and good luck.

panda boy Wrote:

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

> John K

>

> > Do you disown "Lewis Schaffer" and all his

> false

> > statements?

> >

> > John K

>

> Considering this thread was started to focus on

> the cemetery issues and move away from the

> previous one that somewhat degenerated away from

> the point and was subsequently moved to the

> lounge, how do you think your comment, and it's

> repetition adds to the debate?

>

> Welcome to the forum Blanche, and good luck.



Surely it is a fair question since he is a prominent figure in the same organisation and until recently was posting on here on behalf of that organisation?


And was the cause of the other thread's derailment from what should have been its focus of discussion?

Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact (that the two cemeteries together offer an opportunity for 100 acres of parks - when they are together just over half that size?) and personal assertions. The latter are well consigned to the lounged thread - the former are relevant to this discussion, as they help form a 'bedrock' of what I might see as arguments in fact built on sand. The initiating discussion (a long time back, now) talked about the wooded areas being 'ancient woodland' for instance, which they aren't and never could have been.


In COC all the areas now being worked on were once part of a managed graveyard, and most of the growth being removed is no more than 20-30 years old (much is less than that). There are some older trees (part of the original graveyard planting) which are also, I believe, being removed - there may well be good arboricultural reasons for this.


It would be good to know if my original summary - that the pressure group wants to stop all future burials in the two cemeteries and to let the current managed areas 'go wild' is still their position.

> Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact


Indeed, can we also broaden the horizons of the debate and include Southwark councils conduct, as this is the core of my argument and objection.


Timescale - Plans for COC have been moved forward by 6 years with no explanation why.


Costs - Still based on 2012 estimates. Council response - "please raise an FOI with the information Governance Team". I find this to be less than satisfactory and far from transparent. This is public money, shouldn't they account for it publicly without the need for an FOI request?


Projected costs of the grave plots upon completion - their response was still vague about this but "for example a plot for 50 years will cost somewhere between ?1,000 -?1,500" still making them among the most expensive in London.


Reaction to public opinion against these plans - Council response "A widely publicised consultation took place in 2011 to consider future plans for burial provision." A survey which identified there was no majority appetite for burials within the borough, and was a broad consultation without any detail of these plans.

"Also in 2015, the local community was given the opportunity to review the plans for the cemeteries and contribute any feedback." This period was when the council revealed their plans and was when public opinion started to grow against them. They have so far been unable to accurately address the fact they have and are ignoring what I believe to be significant public opinion form this point.


Potential for flooding - I have now been provided with comprehensive surveys which appear to address this. Although I am not a surveyor of any kind so reading and understanding these documents is proving time consuming. However one particular phrase has stood out:


5.1 Conclusions

5.1.1 The Stage 1 and 2 Risk Assessment undertaken of the proposed development in accordance

with the EA guidance, Pollution Potential of Cemeteries, R&D technical Report P223?, has

identified the site as having a groundwater vulnerability rating of ?very low to low?. However, as

the predicted total number of annual burials is above 100, the site falls into a ?proposal with

high risk?


As I say I am still trying to digest and understand these documents, but this phrase "proposal with high risk" is initially concerning.


I still question the sanity and cost effectiveness of removing mature trees and replacing them with fewer less mature trees, and the subsequent loss of benefits they provide.


In reference to the Councils statement that their plans "have actually been designed in conjunction with the London Wildlife Trust" I am still waiting for more detail on this, and what London Wildlife Trusts involvement has been. I know the LWT has performed a variety of habitat and wildlife studies, but I don't believe this qualifies as the plans "being designed in conjunction with".

edhistory Wrote:

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

> How are you getting on with your FOI documents?

>

> Ready to share?

>

> John K


I have received some documents from a previous FOI request. They do not detail some of the figures I would like to see, and think I am entitled to see.

So I will have to raise a new FOI request.

I assume this will take time.

Some patience may be called for.


Do you not think it odd though that the council have stated their 2012 estimates are still current working costings, yet I am invited to raise an FOI request to access more details about costs? If there are more details about the costs, why cant they share them?

Why are they hiding behind an FOI request?

Personally I find this a delaying tactic.

"Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact (that the two cemeteries together offer an opportunity for 100 acres of parks - when they are together just over half that size?) and personal assertions."


New Cemetery (68 acres) + Old Cemetery (30 acres) + One Tree Hill LNR (7 hectares = c.17.5 acres) = 115.5. You then need to take out a number of acres for the Rec. So yes, you can challenge but the total area SSW propose as a wild space would be approximately 100 acres.


Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camberwell_Cemeteries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Tree_Hill,_Honor_Oak

According to HoC documents, only 33 of the 68 acres are actually what we would call CNC so you are down to 80 acres, tops. Even then you'd have to question how much of that would be allowed to 'go wild', as any current burial areas would be out.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmenvtra/91/91m82.htm

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...