Jump to content

Recommended Posts

UPDATE 16 May - Southwark Labour have ignored all three ward councillors and the 85% of the 77 responses objecting to the implementation of double yellow lines across East Dulwich.



Labour controlled Southwark Council are proposing to introduce 10 metres of double yellow lines on each side of every road from every junction across Southwark.

It appears a slavish following of the Highway Code which says you shouldn't park within 10m of junctions. But of course the Highway Code is for all roads and doesn't vary this distance based on road speeds - all our roads are meant to be 20mph.

Clearly 10m is over the top. For 20mph roads 2 or 3 metres to ensure space for people to cross roads should be fine.


The decision about this will be presented at the Dulwich Community Council tonight from 7pm at Kingswood House, Seeley Drive, SE21 8QR. Due to a work commitment I can't make this meeting so I would encourage others to attend and explain if they are for or against this proposal.


The maths is East Dulwich ward 34 junctions each with 4 branches, each branch road with two sides x 10m = 2.72km of double yellow lines.

College ward 4.4km

Village ward 2.96km


The Dulwich Community Council has 9 councillors members 5 Labour, 2 Tory and 2 Lib Dems. As this is Labour policy it is very likely to be passed tonight. Labour have no plans for a public consultation.

In fact this will be probably the last traffic change involving the community council as Labour are proposing to remove this power from community councils to be involved with moving all traffic decisions to the leader of the council.

Don't most junctions in east dulwich already have extensive double yellows and build outs preventing parking anyway? How much difference is this actually going to make?


And isn't this anti car agenda actually part of the Southwark lib dem pro cycling policy?

Probably the same local council type who in Lambeth decided to pay for adverts across the borough informing local residents that due to govt cuts they were having to make tough decisions on what to spend money on.....(the cost of advertising excluded of course....;-))

How much of this is actually 'new'? Many junctions already have some double yellows on them (not necessarily 10 metres - and that clearly is overkill for many 'slow' roads) - so how much is actually additional? I ask not because I think it's a good idea (I don't) but because if you are to make an effective case against, then actual increased (as it were) parking reduction and not a back of a fag packet calculation would offer better evidence. I suspect that most of these roads already have 5 metres of restriction (or self denial restriction) - so are we talking perhaps 4.9km additional space lost, rather than 9.81km? And what percentage is this of the overall 'parking space' available on these roads for the 3 wards?


Don't get me wrong, as I said I'm agin it - but I would like to know exactly what I'm agin.

The paperwork for tonight's meeting is available here:


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5160/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2015-Mar-2016%2019.00%20Dulwich%20Community%20Council.pdf?T=10


I would be interested to know when this was circulated to councillors.


Some interesting points to note:


*Labour do have plans for public consulation. A traffic management order is requried to imlement the proposals and public consultation is mandatory, as set out in the DCC agenda (page 68): "We are therefore recommending implementing junction protection in all streets in Southwark on a ward by ward basis, subject to the necessary statutory consultation."


*There are 34 junctions affected but 18 of them are T junctions.


*"The yellow lines are installed ... for 7.5 meters on each arm of the junction." This means just over a kilometre of new double yellows.

Whether by accident or design, I can think of parts of ED where this is going to really have an impact on parking. I guess we'll see which of the two it is when the inevitable new request for a CPZ in ED goes up and if the Council then forms the view that there's sufficient pressure on parking now to justify it. Given some of what came out during the last round of CPZ consultation in ED (which wasn't under Labour as I recall - happy to be corrected on that) I'm pretty cynical about the reasons for this approach.

Hi Abe-Froeman,

The legally required public consultation proposed is when an advertisement is placed at the back of Southwark News. Its usually only propeller heads like me that spot them.


The agenda pack for Dulwich Community Council I received at my home on Friday night. But I had been away for a couple of days through work. And I was away helping at a cub and scout camp all weekend so only last night did I get to read the pack after a parents evening.


The report is clear that almost all junctions would have double yellow lines added. And my recollection this morning is most don't have lines.


Hi P68,

IF you were correct 1000 metres of new double yellow lines / 4m per car would equate to 250 car parking spaces being removed.

I think what's propose is around 640 less car parking spaces in the East Dulwich ward alone or 2,500 across the Dulwich area.


But the rational is flawed. Yes the highway code says people shouldn't park within 10m of junctions BUT this is for any type of road with any legal speed limit. Obviously 20mph roads would need much much less than 10m.

Penguin68 Wrote:


> How much of this is actually 'new'? Many junctions already have some double yellows on them


The pack for this evening's DCC meeting shows 34 junctions in East Dulwich ward with no existing yellow lines. These are marked in red as "Proposed double yellow lines (junction protection doesn?t exist)"


So, yes, the figures Cllr Barber is quoting relates to totally new yellow lines.


There are also about 70 junctions in ED ward that already have "Existing junction protection(double yellow lines)" but I do not know if these are being reviewed to see if they meet the new criteria.


I certainly feel that parking on corners can be inconsiderate and dangerous, but I also feel that junctions should be looked at on a case by case basis using evidence and common sense rather than having this blanket approach. Presumably the big beneficiary would be our friends Conway but I don't think this is a good use of our money.


Also, I do not like the way the council is attempting to push through a massive change that could have significant effect on local residents in a pretty underhand manner with no publicity and no proper public consultation.

This meeting would have been known for sometime as the agenda would have to been agreed.


Why only now is Cllr Barber telling people on the day of the meeting? Who can just drop things and atten


Rather like the 20 mph limit slotted in at the end of the manifesto.

I's just like to gently point out that Cllr Barber has no obligation to post helpful things like this on the website, he does it, I can only imagine, to let people know so that the local community can take action if they wish! And people can be quite aggressive under cover of anonymity, which is a pity. I just thought it was a shame, Richard Tudor, that you were criticising what was actually supposed to be a helpful action. You can easily sign up to the list to attend these Community Council meetings, so maybe you could do that so you can find out in advance if there are things you're interested in, that might be less frustrating.


10 metres does seem a bit excessive, given that East Dulwich ward is mostly small offshoot streets, and the local shops rely on people being able to park. It's always a balance, it seems, between stopping parking becoming too dominant, encouraging pedestrians and cyclists, and allowing the shops to have good passing trade.

Southwark's Streetscape Design Manual Section DS114 paragraph 1.2(a) provides a very good reason as to why increased visibility may not improve safety at any particular junction:

?b. Stopping distances vary with vehicle type and speed. However, research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at.?


This needs to be considered for each individual junction.

MarkT

"It appears a slavish following of the Highway Code which says you shouldn't park within 10m of junctions. But of course the Highway Code is for all roads and doesn't vary this distance based on road speeds - all our roads are meant to be 20mph."


Key phrase there is "meant to be," James. If the police and council, working togetehr, could ensure the 20mph zones are respected, then you're probably right, people could park closer to the corners safely. However, one only has to walk or cycle down any road with the 20mph limits to see that 95%+ of car drivers ignore it. If we could rely on all drivers obeying the Highway Code and traffic laws at all times all traffic calming measures would be extraneous, but I don't see such a utopia arriving any time soon, do you?

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> This meeting would have been known for sometime as

> the agenda would have to been agreed.

>

> Why only now is Cllr Barber telling people on the

> day of the meeting? Who can just drop things and

> atten

>

> Rather like the 20 mph limit slotted in at the end

> of the manifesto.


The Community Council agendas only appear on the council website in the week of each meeting, though often the 'theme' of the evening is announced in advanced. The dates are usually announced about six weeks in advance.

I entirely disagree. Why would people want to move onto tighter, more roundabout routes which would also be 20MPH? As for being too slow, all one is doing on main roads like LL and DH is moving from one set of traffic lights, zebras etc to the next. Driving at 30MPH just gets you to the next stop point quicker so you spend longer sitting with your engine running. I observe this empirically almost every day: cycling at an average of 15mph, I can stay with cars from Denmark Hill all the way to Clapham, Tooting and beyond, if they're going my way. They shoot off into the distance at 30MPH+, but I inevitably catch up with them again at traffic lights. Driving at 30MPH on roads with frequent lights and junctions doesn't get you to your destination any quicker than driving at 20MPH, but you will be a lot less able to react effectively to emergencies and you will do a lot more damage if you have an accident; if you hit a pedestrian at 30MPH, they are seven times more likely to die than if you'd hit them at 20MPH.


Two thirds of car trips in London are for distances under three miles (a disgrace but we'll put that to one side just now); imagine the utopia (for drivers) of a completely traffic free road with no blocks in terms of lights etc: at 30MPH you'd cover three miles in six minutes, at 20MPH you'd do the trip in nine minutes. Three minutes out of your day to be seven times safer in the event of a collision, seems a pretty good exchange to me.

Other than the fact the Highway Code suggests this what reason are the council giving for the implementation of this? There is so obviously a hidden agenda at play here. Drop kerbs and drop kerb enforcement very efficiently keep junctions clear and ensure safe places for people to cross.


The anti-driving agenda is becoming tiresome and will ultimately backfire on those proposing it. Cars and traffic are an inevitable consequence of modern life and, in part, stimulated by public transport infrastructure that is not fit for purpose. Perhaps those who are empowered to manage these things should engage brain and look further than the "cars are bad" narrative and try and develop something that works for everyone.

I don't think I'm a superhero at all - I'm a slightly tubby vaguely unfit middleaged cyclist. I'm not trying to make a point about the efficacy of cycling, or only tangentially; the point is that travelling at an average of 15MPH I cover the same distance in the same time as cars travelling at 30MPH, due to the amount of time they remain stopped. So whether a road is 20MPH or 30MPH makes little odds to journey times, but a massive difference to safety.


Incidentally, the same effect can be observed on roads without bus lanes; part of one of my regular journeys goes from Clapham South, down Nightingale Lane, up Wandsworth Common, down Burntwood Road and on into Wimbledon. There isn't a bus lane in sight for around three miles, but (certainly in rush hour) I'll usually still have the same cars and lorries around me at the end as at the start.


Speed limits make a huge difference to safety, in a crowded urban environment with constant checks they make next to no difference to journey times.

Showing your anticycling bias by tarring me with the brush of your own perception of cyclist behaviour, I see. As it happens I overtake on the outside at all times unless there's a cycle lane.


Interesting though that rather than reply to anything I said you rather absurdly, knowing nothing about me, accuse me of dangerous behaviour. Still the fact remains that however I maintain my average speed, travelling at 15MPH I get there just as fast as cars which go 30MPH, two minute stop, 30MPH, two minute stop.

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...