Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just a warning that workers turned up this morning on Marmora Road to start digging it up. They claim that warning letters were sent out, but we received nothing and, from the fact that no one seemed to have moved their car, I don't think my neighbours had either. They are putting cars on to lorries, and being pretty charmless about the whole thing. I have no idea where the cars will end up. Anyone had any warning of this?
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/9609-roadworks-on-marmora-road/
Share on other sites

I have done lots of chasing, including an unbelievably unhelpful and uninformative call to Southwark Council (who didn't have contact details either for the contractors or their own highway department), and spoken to HM Conways, the contractors. Both the council and contractors have had 'several' calls on this so far today. Conways claim warning letters went out, but are investigating why this seems to have failed to reach everyone. They also say warning signs and cones were up, but again, not true.


Anyway, if you do live in the area, and come home tonight to find your car missing, you need to call 020 7737 3333 to find out where it's gone. Presumably during business hours.

I've contacted the councillors about this asking that they raise it with the council.


Conways are the contractor on Ivydale Road where there was a string of problems before Christmas with communicating what was happening with residents.


They also seemed to be moving cars with lorries on Fernholme and Rosenthorpe last week when they did resurfacing there - I don't know if letters went out to residents or not but the signs that went up are those that look that planning application notices so relatively easy to miss.

I've also emailed them. The rudeness of staff and Conways complete failure to communicate are unacceptable. I've also found out that the work was due to start on 13 January but postponed owing to the weather. So any warning letters received will have been pointless in any case, as the commencement date is wrong.

I raised the Ivydale scheme at the October Community Council meeting but also asked what the process was for disseminating information about impending works and how the council follows up with residents who have been consulted about any scheme.


The response I got at the December meeting was really quite unhelpful as it referred only to the Ivydale scheme and simply said that a letter drop had been done and that work had started on so-and-so date in November. In fact, many residents hadn't got the letter and the start date stated was inaccurate. But more importantly the wider point wasn't answered.


I missed the start of the December meeting so wasn't able to query the response. However I promised Nunhead Forum readers that I would follow this up at the next meeting on 8 Feb. Happy to mention the Marmora Rd stuff as well or would be great if others came and raised this too.

We were warned that works would commence on 11 Jan - but it was a surprise to see Conway's in action at 7.15 this morning. Fortunately I had parked on Scutari anyway.


While we have a Marmora Road audience - can anyone identify the new non pooper scooper? It seems to go in cycles - a few poop free weeks than a newcomer arrives, or someone loses the will to clean up after their dog.


If you own a dog - scoop the mess.

I've complained to the councillors, who have passed it on to the complaints team at the council.


I'm glad you got some sort of warning, Marmora Man. We have searched all our post and none of us received anything at all, so maybe the letters only made it halfway up the road.

I was lucky to be at home to move my car. Poor guy next door works nights and got his car taken away. They knocked on the flat doors but he lives in the basement flat and didn't knock - I got there just in time to warn him.


I actually spoke to two of the men and they blatantly said that no notification was sent out of the revised works, nor was there any signs on the road of planned works to move our cars. So they admit this has been poorly planned.


Another guy was effin and blining and his choice of words were along the lines of no one having a scooby of what's going on.


Not impressed with their actions - I belive the letter of the original works has a feedback form attached. I'll be telling them what I think.

No connection at all as far as I know. Just a happy coincidence. I had a really good reply to my complaint from the highways people-it's on my work email but I'll post it when I get the chance. Basically it was an apology on all counts. Conways had been asked to do the letter drop-council's check the morning of the work revealed 3 of the 16 people in at that time hadn't had any letters and of course no one had correct date-council will do own drops in future and have someone on site at the start of all works ( although presumably whoever was doing the survey could have helped out?).


Apologies for rudeness of staff-Conways will investigate. Apologies for crapness of service centre-sounds like things went seriously wrong there and inquiries are being made.

  • 2 weeks later...

Just an update from Community Council last night. I raised both this scheme and the ongoing problems on Ivydale Road at the meeting. Cllr Fiona Colley (Nunhead ward) also spoke about the problems she's had finding out what was going on on Ivydale Road and with how Conways have been communicating with residents.


Rather than going into the specific details of the problems with any particular set of works, what we've asked council officers to look at is:

- How residents are contacted about proposed works - is it a notice, a letter drop, notification in the Southwark News, something on the Southwark website? If the works are the result of a consultation, could the consultation document detail this?

- Could there be a bit of consistency so that we all know what to look out for?

- Who is responsible for contacting residents - the council or the contractor?

- If it's the cntractor (which I think it is/was for both Ivydale and Marmara) how is the council monitoring that it's being done/what's the come back if it isn't?


There were traffic/transport council officers there who I think got a fair idea of what I and others are asking for so hopefully we'll get a decent response at the next meeting and hopefully a few suggestions to improve communications in the future. One of these could be a promise of someone on site at the start of all works as simonethebeaver mentions above.


Victoria.

Peckham Rye Labour

Sad to see that Conways screwed up telling people that works were due to start. I can understand the delay for a week with all the snowy weather but delivering another letter would'nt have taken long.


Amazed at report that Nunhead ward Cllr Colley finding it hard to find out what is going on with Ivydale/Marmora. The council publishes all its centrally funded highways renovations early in the financial year. Every councillor is emailed about the decision going to be taken, then all cllrs emailed later that the decision has been taken. Cllr Colley is the chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and is meant to lead on scrutinising all such decisions. Equally each community council should know how its spending its highway renovations money and when making those decisions officers point out the centrally funded plans for the community council and tell councillors roughly when they'll take place.

Hi


Interesting to see what happened at the Community Council - thanks for letting us know. I've been meaning to post the whole of the quite helpful response I got:


Firstly I would like to personally apologise for the obvious aggravation caused to you on the morning of the 19th due to our carriageway resurfacing activities in Marmora Rd.


In the Streetcare team we are very much aware of the potential that roadworks have in disrupting residents' lives and have established procedures aimed at minimising such disruption. However in this case it appears that these process went badly wrong and then compounded by your difficulties in contacting the appropriate Council officers via the call centre.


We have investigated the issues you raised and while it may be of small recompense changes in our procedures have been made to ensure that the difficulties you encountered last Tuesday are not repeated.


Prior notification to residents:


It is normal procedure to advise residents by mail providing warning of the impending works and request their co-operation regarding parking. In the case of the Marmora Rd scheme we were in a period of uncertain of weather and having to make decisions on a daily basis on whether to proceed with projects. It was decided therefore for the contractor, FM Conway to handle the prior notification via letter drops as a means of shortening the communication chain. Also at that time available officers were occupied with gritting / salting activities


It appears that although prior notification letters dated 11th Jan were sent out (but not all received) these were not followed up by advising that the work had been delayed due to bad weather. On Wednesday 09:00 -10:00 we carried out a survey of 42 properties in Marmora Rd. As may be expected most people had left for work. Of those we able to interview 13 confirmed receipt of letters and 3 had not. It would appear that you were not alone in not receiving letters.


In future we will retain control of the distribution prior notification letters to residents. Two letters will be issued at 2 weeks and 5 days prior to the planned commencement of works and supplemented by signs providing contact details. We will also ensure that a Council representative is available at the commencement of activities to address any issues that may arise on the day



Difficulties in accessing the appropriate officer / unit via the call centre:


This very disappointing since we have recently provided updated lists of work area, names and telephone contacts. We are in discussion with colleagues in the call centre to rectify this problem.


In future we will supply details our imminent schemes, names of roads and contact details to the call centre. By naming the road we hope that the appropriate officer can be immediately recognised



Attitude of site operatives:


I have spoken to Conways management regarding the altercation with your builders and they are investigating the matter. They are keen to identify the person who apparently requested ?70 for the relocation of the building materials from the carriageway to the footway. I am happy to act as a middleman between your builder and our contractor if this is preferable.



We will endeavour to ensure that the remaining works are handled smoothly but should any issues arise please contact me

Hi James - not sure I quite follow what you mean about Ivydale? It's been the delivery rather than the decisions that have been problematic.


I have to say that I've lost track of exactly when things were going to happen but, very roughly, residents were consulted over a year ago and the work was initially planned for June or July. This has been pushed back on numerous ocassions with the works only starting in November though not on the dates set out on the final letter drop. The works on the Peckham Rye end of Ivydale are still to start but I'm assured that Conways will give us 7 days notice by letter drop and that the re-routing of the 343 and 484 will be well-publicised in advance...


Fiona has done a great job of chasing council officers and Conways throughout the process. This included getting us a letter with a clear and updated timetable in December. Nunheaders lurking on here can find info on www.nunheadforum.co.uk


But all this aside, hopefully something will come out of the Community Council query so that we're all a little bit more clued up on what we should be looking for and the council/contractors get a little better at telling us what's going on.


Victoria.

Peckham Rye Labour

Goodness James! Did you get out of the wrong side of bed yesterday?;-)


I'm afraid you don't quite understand the situation here.


Actually the Ivydale scheme isn't a renovation scheme it's a major traffic calming scheme and I was in no way suggesting at community council that I didn't know about the proposals which had indeed been discussed at community council and which I had blogged about repeatedly. Indeed due to my interventions the plans were altered to include a zebra crossing by Ivydale Primary School and measures around Limesford Rd.


The big problem with the scheme has been with the communications to residents about the final plans, the road closures and bus diversions. I wasn't consulted about the comms at all and had to spend a considerable amount of time in December after the works had started trying to extract full details from highways officers about the implementation plans and to get them to send clear and complete information out to residents in the area.


Anyway it seems that the comms have been delegated to the contractor Conways and my conclusion was that on a scheme as large and complex as the Ivydale Rd/Linden Grove pinch point scheme that this isn't the best way to do things. Conways have done a good job with the repaving and resurfacing etc, but communications is clearly not their area of expertise.


In contrast I've been impressed with the TfL/Lewisham communications with residents regarding the Kender Rd Triangle works (inc work on the Nunhead/Lewisham boundary of Pomeroy St) starting this month where there are proper plans being distributed and more information is available on the website. This level of spend on comms would of course be excessive for most traffic projects, but following my recent experience with Ivydale Rd I do think that the council needs to sharpen up its act.


Hopefully the discussion we had at Community Council and the follow up questions will help to make this happen.


Fiona


Cllr Fiona Colley

Labour Member for Nunhead Ward

simonethebeaver - yep this all seems to make things less clear... If it's okay I'll sent details of your response to the council officer who was at the Community Council meeting in the hope we can get the clearest possible response at the next meeting.


Victoria

Peckham Rye Labour

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...