first mate

I must say that Goose Green is such a small area that it is probably common sense not to have dogs offlead- given the Rye is just down the road. On the Rye itself there is, of course, a large children only area. It is fenced off and is a great safe area for toddlers to learn to take their first steps in peace.

Neil, Guess you think all other animals don't defecate/piss too - rats, foxes, squirrels, birds.....oh and humans occasionally. By far the stinkiest widdle I have ever smelt on the odd street corner is from human males. But hey, I guess dreams are always less than rational.

James, You know as well I that the level of usage is key to the concerns. High usage is a very different proposition to low usage. It is the proximity of Harris to the park that suggests high usage would soon be the order of the day. I cannot seem to pin you down on that detail. It's likely you do not know but surely, even you must agree, it is fairly important to be clear on usage otherwise we do not know what exactly you are proposing?

James, I'd have thought in your position, given your involvement at planning, and with such strong views, you'd be more on top of the detail. Current usage by schools is only light, is it not? You need to be clear about what you are suggesting for Harris- what sports would be played, how much time would the school take up on the Rye each day? What changes would have to take place to make the Rye fit for dedicated sports use by a school, if that is what you are suggesting? I feel you must have thought some of this stuff through already? I'm not sure anyone has said that parks are not for schools. Any member of any school has the right to use a park. Just about everyone has said they do not object to light or occasional use by schools- the issue is whether a section of the park is turned into a dedicated playing field. There is also a fear that if Harris were to have light/occasional use of the park this would soon change to heavy/ constant use.

Well, let us see if James will answer this one. 2 schools or 3? If 2 would Harris usage exceed that of the school before, if so by how much? What sort of sports are we talking about?

DJK, Helpful, informed observations. Just for the record, I'd like James Barber to clarify his position. I know it's the detail but, as we know, that's where the devil lurks.

Narnia, In a nutshell a park is designed to be a park not a playing field. It is already clear that even the sports pitches, meant for community use, not as dedicated school playing fields, cannot is their current state sustain repeated use over time. If the school funds changes to the sports area enabling dedicated use by the various schools that have been mentioned (one of which is a sports academy) I can forsee those sections of the park become slowly unavailable to the rest of the community for much of the time, not least because of the needs of schools re health and safety, it also gives the school massive leverage in terms of how those sections of the park would be managed and used. I fear such a move would also irrevocably change the character of the park and who knows, once some sections are taken, who is to say more would not be used in future? James Barber is talking up the "madness" of the current situation where another school (not, I believe, a sports academy?) is busing children to the Rye, whilst Harris does not use it, in part owing to assurances to that effect, given at the planning stage with which James Barber was involved. I want to know, therefore, if given the problems I and others have briefly outlined, James Barber is proposing that three schools use the sports facilities instead of two, or that Harris takes over the current usage of another school and whether that level of use would be enough for a boys academy?

James, why not say what you think should happen? You are not speaking for the school, as you have made clear. You clearly feel very strongly about it so, I ask again, do you think both school boys' schools should use PR or just one?

James, Are you suggesting that both schools use the pitches or that Harris takes over St Thomas Apostle' slot and they bus their children to a new venue? Would the Harris level of use be the same or more?

In an earlier post James Barber was suggesting that in return for use of their changing rooms and conducting drainage work on the Rye sports fields, Harris Boys could use the Rye for sports, given that they have no suitable space on the school site. James was involved at the planning stage for the school. Please read the post by Muttley from 2008, below. post by Muttley on 3/7/08: I was at the meeting. At times it got quite heated and emotional (at least, among the members of the public). The whole case seems to be founded on the fact that, in order to be viable, there has to be a five class intake, i.e. 150 per year group. This seems to be the conventional wisdom for schools these days. Personally I find it hard to believe that a school can't offer a great curriculum with just a four class intake, which would have brought the numbers down to under 800. I'd happily trade a more limited curriculum for more space. If you look at the building plan, there is almost NO outdoor space for the boys to play during breaks. The second fundamental driver for the 950 total was that the school needs a sixth form to provide mentors for younger pupils. I can see the argument for this, though where Year 7s will get to see these sixth formers (other than along crammed corridors) is unclear. It was reported that Tessa Jowell's own survey had revealed a majority of locals in favour of the school. I'm extremely cynical about this. The only fair way to assess local opinion would have been to hold a representative survey, asking specifically if people were in favour of a school for 950 (with pictures so that they could see what it will be like). I'm not aware of such a survey. Of course East Dulwich parents are in favour of a new school, but I suspect most people will be shocked when they discover the details. Final point of note: it was clear from the meeting that there will be NO use of Peckham Rye for sport by the school (except perhaps for the odd special case). Boys will be mini-bused to other sports venues, including South Bank University (is that Burbage Road?) and the velodrome. The latter will offer 'exciting' opportunities for bike activities, apparently. I don't think we've heard the end of this.

James, well then, if I've got it all wrong I apologise. I'll watch this space. As you know, I have no objection to the school just use of the Rye for sports, on anything more than an occasional basis.

Narnia, I agree, that is why I prefaced my comments with a "does make it look". I may be on completely the wrong track but, to me, it feels as though a plan is afoot to get use of the Rye one way or another. It does occur to me that in these cash strapped times the council might prefer to offload the upkeep of sections of the park, such an arrangement with Harris might be useful for them in that sense.

James, your mantra: that the school would not dream of asking for use of Peckham Rye but that this does not stop you, as a politician stating how silly that position is, does makes it look as though you and the school had a plan all along- them being good cop and you doing the dirty work. It is this sort of dishonesty that gives politicians a bad name. As I have said, promises were made and they should be honoured. If you did not agree with kids being bussed in and out then you should have ensured that a more appropriate site was found, one with enough space to meet the needs of the students.

Hi, I found some keys on Peckham Rye today. They have been handed in to the Peckham Rye Park manager. She is to be found in the green building attached to the toilet block (entrance to park behind cafe).

dbboy, the point about the school, in its current incarnation, being a positive thing all round is moot. My point is that some debate was aired about the use of PR prior to the school being built, because of local disquiet about that promises were made that use of PR would not be sought by the school. If PR is to be used it needs to be done with the full support of all in the community. As it is feelings are clearly mixed. The concern is that there was always an intention to use PR and certain promises were made to get the planning permissions pushed through with a view to slowly getting the use of PR once the school was built. I do not feel comfortable with the park being used as an extension of the school. If the school starts to use the park for regular sports sessions then how is that managed in terms of health and safety etc..? If Lord Harris begins to fund areas of the park on a quid pro quo basis then who does the park really belong to and who will have the final say on its use? Right now its common land, I fail to see how that could continue if a school starts to utilise it for regular sports sessions.

James, Thanks for your reply. It does sound as though there will now be attempts to drum up support for the use of PR by the school, on the basis that it is silly not to use land so close by. This does seem incredibly disingenuous when one of the main objections to the school, at the earliest planning stage, was that it did not have the necessary land/outdoor facilities to service the volume of pupils. As you know, many locals were worried that a later attempt would be made to begin to utilise PR for school sports, despite assurances that this would not happen. I refer to this post by Muttley on 3/7/08: I was at the meeting. At times it got quite heated and emotional (at least, among the members of the public). The whole case seems to be founded on the fact that, in order to be viable, there has to be a five class intake, i.e. 150 per year group. This seems to be the conventional wisdom for schools these days. Personally I find it hard to believe that a school can't offer a great curriculum with just a four class intake, which would have brought the numbers down to under 800. I'd happily trade a more limited curriculum for more space. If you look at the building plan, there is almost NO outdoor space for the boys to play during breaks. The second fundamental driver for the 950 total was that the school needs a sixth form to provide mentors for younger pupils. I can see the argument for this, though where Year 7s will get to see these sixth formers (other than along crammed corridors) is unclear. It was reported that Tessa Jowell's own survey had revealed a majority of locals in favour of the school. I'm extremely cynical about this. The only fair way to assess local opinion would have been to hold a representative survey, asking specifically if people were in favour of a school for 950 (with pictures so that they could see what it will be like). I'm not aware of such a survey. Of course East Dulwich parents are in favour of a new school, but I suspect most people will be shocked when they discover the details. Final point of note: it was clear from the meeting that there will be NO use of Peckham Rye for sport by the school (except perhaps for the odd special case). Boys will be mini-bused to other sports venues, including South Bank University (is that Burbage Road?) and the velodrome. The latter will offer 'exciting' opportunities for bike activities, apparently. I don't think we've heard the end of this. Edited to answer Phillyboy's question: This Academy will be linked to the Girls Academy on the other side of Peckham Rye. The sixth form will be joint, so some girls will occasionally go to the boys' site for certain subjects and vice versa. I note the velodrome is under threat. Since this was quoted as one are the school would be using perhaps Lord Harris could fun the facility?

marie, so many dog owners seem to have a blind spot when it comes to lead etiquette. If a dog is on the lead in a park it is for a good reason and other dog owners need to ensure their own dog is kept at bay. Unfortunately some dog owners, like some parents, want to take their charge out to run around freely while they chat on their mobile or to other dog owners, oblivious to what is going on around them. I also do wish that certain people would not let their in- season bitches run around the park offlead- simply bonkers and so irresponsible. Whinge over.

When the school was at the planning stages I thought that it had been made clear that there was never an intention that Harris Boys would use PR for sports. Many of us questioned this at the time, pondering how the school would manage with so little land of its own. At any rate, I was certainly under the impression that some kind of assurance had been given by the powers that be that PR would not be used as an extension of the school. Has this changed? I know there will be arguments both for and against but I would like to put those aside as they were aired before the school was built. All I want to know is has there been a U turn on a promise that was made?

ianr, yes, but a dog does not have to even touch a person for it to be deemed dangerous. For instance an offlead, friendly dog that bounds up to a dog phobic person might be deemed by that person as frightening and out of control. I know it is stretching a point but there have been rare cases like this. Most people know that in a park there are likely to be dogs offlead. If you are severely dog phobic I do not think it reasonable to ask or expect that all dogs be kept on a lead in that instance- dogs need to be able to run freely. In any other public place I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that all dogs are kept on a lead, all of the time and, that includes the small areas around park cafe. For those who will insist on letting their dogs wander offlead in the cafe area or, indeed, on the pavements and roads, I should point out that other dogs that are on a lead may dislike being approached by a dog offlead- it can and does cause fights. It makes sense to keep dogs on lead in all public areas except parks.

Toddinator, Toddlers unleashed at full volume can be extremely irritating. I would, however, tend to support the rights of kiddies to roam in a public area like a cafe over those of any dog- even my dog! The fact remains that while many dogs may be kind and friendly, any dog can also take a dislike to another dog and a minor dust up or snarling fest' can ensue - the anti dog brigade can then use this as evidence that dogs are unsafe. In addition, lots of modern children are seemingly scared witless by large dogs and even a friendly dog is capable of knocking a child over. I'm afraid the child versus dog argument is a non-starter and is not the way to go. I would agree heartily though that parents should return the favour when we keep our dogs on lead, by not allowing their toddlers/kiddies to run screaming around the animal, waving arms etc.. I do see this quite often, not just out and about but in pubs too! In my view and under the terms of the DDA, any dog in a public place must be under control at all times- the park being an exception to this. I think a park cafe is a public place. If your dog is offlead it is not under control. There are people on the council (and possibly on this forum) who would be very happy to instate draconian laws against the ordinary dog and its owner, ideally getting rid of dogs completely. Let's not give them the ammunition. I think keeping one's dog on lead around a cafe is a sensible and easy option.

Cate, Agree with you, one of my pet hates ('scuse bad pun) is those that let their dogs run offlead around the cafe areas, both in PR and DP. I don't care how well behaved your dog is, unless it will remain in a rock solid sit/down stay, offlead, for the duration of your time at the cafe, then get it on a lead. It does give all dog owners a bad name and is immensely irritating to other people, inlcuding other dog owners who keep their pets on lead at these times. Toddinator, indeed JR's more likely to nip/bite than a Lab, not because of their size but because they are hardwired with a much stronger prey drive, since they were made to chase and kill small game. In short they are far more reactive and much less biddable than a Lab that was developed to work to command and to retrieve game to hand, rather than kill it. Cannot completely agree with you about a Rottie. If well socialised and very well trained they are a lovely dog, but they come pre-equipped with a very strong guard instinct and this should be borne in mind by the handler. A poorly trained Rottie is in my view a liability because of its guard instinct and its size. As ever, its really about people knowing their breeds, what they were developed for and offering appropriate training and handling throughout their lives.

The muzzle all dogs argument falls flat on its face for the simple reason that the owners of vicious dogs will not muzzle them. A lawbreaker is a lawbreaker is a lawbreaker. Do those who are advocating this really think that the kind of person who lets a vicious dog roam a park offlead, on its own, is going to bother muzzling it? To quote Eddy Milliband "come off it".

rahrahrah, or should that be ruffruffruff?

Hands up, it was me wot erroneously relayed the van colour- clearly eyes, brain or both need testing. Anyhow, hope they get the WHITE van driver.

Definitely report to police and give all details. The blue van driver, if he was holding a mobile and chatting on it whilst trying to park, has committed an offence.