Jump to content

Recommended Posts

just seen this thread and am baffled. the playground in peckham rye park is one of the nicest in the area. whereas goose green has elephants that don't work and slides boarded up. even st francis' park is in better condition.


sunray gardens got i think 25K from cleaner greener safer a couple of years ago which made a big difference.

What area are you talking about?


They only cut back the trees around the play area 16 months ago, bloody scary place before that. The equipment must be at least 13 years old 4 swings and metal 2 small climbing frames, christ !


I have jogged round this park for 10 years and until about 2004/5 it was virtualy deserted


At least Goose Green did not have a Fire ravaged plastic duck with a sign that said "provided by southwark council" ! this thing sat by the old pool area for 5years !


As for the boarded up slide in ED- the local Liberal Mums probably smashed it themselves to get some more money for the ever fat Goose of the Green (joke)

in the summer the tree cover is wonderful as the children can play without overheating and getting sunburnt. in the winter it provides wind cover. there is a wooden climbing frame with fab tunnel, a large climbing frame in good condition and some rocking devices as well as swings. it's not huge, but there's also the pergola, the gardens and the lake for running around. ive' been going for over 16 months and i've never felt scared. then again i am from east dulwich and i have my liberal convictions to protect me.
I like the playground bit too. It certainly isn't as bad as some playgrounds we've visited. Plus I'd rather have the council money going to the One O'Clock club, which gives the kids a place to go when it rains. It could be a really nice meeting place for local families; I hope their funding has gone through.

Rewind selector ! not angry at all, how come when I say play area people go "oh you must mean the entire park !" The park as i have stated numerous times is looking great, finally, and well done to all involved. However the play area, is not all that great and is actually far too small in relation to the size of the park, and the local children who could actually use it. You can barely get 25 children in Peckham Rye Park play area and I know plenty of people who feel the same, maybe someone should do a real survey and actually go beyond the parks borders. I think it barely registers on most people's radar.


Also ...and this is totally unscientific....but I have recognised so many kids and parents from Peckham/Nunhead and the fringes of ED using the park in the Village.....obviously all taking cars.....maybe it would be better if such a facility was provided in the RYE?


I know that the children that I look after are not all that interested in the swings at the Rye. And several years back I was aware of a few nannies who did not like to take the children in their care to that area, due to the fact that there were never many people around and that it felt quite isolated.


And Ganapti the point is Money should have gone into the 1'oclock clubs years and years ago - it should not be a case of dividing scraps. Look at the implosion of facilities in Dulwich Park since 99. Peckham Rye more than deserves to be taken seriously by the local council.


Years ago I spoke to some (trained) contractors at DV park who were installing new fences,. several several years later in PRP I spoke to a group of guys who were doing some work to the metal fences around the park, turned out that they were all doing community service....mmmm I thought...funny that!

I agree the One O'Clock club should have been fixed ages ago, but the point is unless community members speak up themselves it gets ignored. We can't wait for the council to float down benevolently and think it needs fixing. Too MUCH needs fixing. They've obviously got to prioritise and I for one would rather see their first priority be the One O Clock club not the playground, which is fine. Seriously, what would you like to see there? My daughter and her friends seem to like the playground area just fine. And as for the adventure park, what's going on with that?

Absolutely right. The problem is what voice do the community members actually have? the Nunhead Community Forum is still just a tool for the council to manage things, why do you think the Nunhead Regeneration Area been criminally stagnating for years.


The council need to find the money and some of labours big guns need to support some form of lottery / heritage proposal like they did over in the Village. Just a word in the right ears and whatch how quickly things begin to move.


But first the pressure need to get ramped up, it's the only thing that the council seems to react to.


It is not that would like to see anything imparticular it's just that it is about time more options were on the table for the RYE and more money made availible to be spent. The Rye has suffered form a chronic lack of funding for years. You can not make the kind of changes to the DVP and do barely nothing for the RYE it is simply outragous and sends completely the wrong message to the Children who are growing up in this area

  • 2 weeks later...

I too have just stumbled on this thread and completely baffled by Alfor Nun's comments - but alfor never seems to let any facts get in the way of a good anti-council Dulwich bias rant.


I live on the Nunhead side and have two young children who use the playground most days. I know lots of other parents in the area all of whom use it regularly. The facilities are similar in range to Goose green and much less busy, which is the attraction. The kids also love the park element - open spaces to run, ducks to look at, trees to climb which Goose green does not offer.


By Peckham Rye Park standards the playground is in one of the busier spots right by the pond, near the school entrance and looking out over the open playing fields - if you jog round it regularly you may have noticed it is a quiet park. Again for many of us this is a huge attraction, especially when compared with Dulwich park, for example.

And yes people from our side of the park with children sometimes go to Goose Green, Dulwich Park, Telegraph hill and even Brockwell Park to meet other friends or go somewhere different.

boosboss Wrote:

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

> Great news for the One O'Clock Club! They've just

> been awarded ?70k from the Cleaner, Greener, Safer

> fund! So, improvements are on their way!



Cool! Well done to those who submitted the Cleaner Greener Safer application! I think the CGS scheme is fab, allowing much more direct involvement of and ownership by the public.

Sorry alm just following your logic do you mean.....


That you like shopping at the Elephant and Castle centre because it's virtually empty of people or shops, but never go to Bluewater because it's busy and full of shops.


Its a bit like the play area, your trying to say that because it is so in need of updating, therefore barely registers on the wider communities radar that this is a good thing. It's kind of like saying lets keep it small and private?


As for rant and facts you yourself make the comparison between the Rye and the Greedy goose and used the word similar?


Goose: 8 toddlers swings 8 older swings - 16 in all

Rye: 2 toddlers 2 older - 4 in all


Goose 4 large climbing frames, well spaced and lots of area to run.

Rye 2 Small climbing frames close together in small cramped/bijous space.


So please help me to unbaffle myself....

  • 3 weeks later...

I like the park. The refurb is beautiful and the little play area is fine. I stopped going to the one o clock club because the staff were invariably rude and officious. For example, telling me off in a really aggressive way because when retrieving my toddler from the inside part, my older son, who is mildly autistic, followed me in holding a sandwich. You'd have thought it was semtex from the way they carried on lecturing me!

The One O Clock club on Telegraph Hill is lovely, with kind, cheerful staff.

Emily Wrote:

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

> I like the park. The refurb is beautiful and the

> little play area is fine. I stopped going to the

> one o clock club because the staff were invariably

> rude and officious.


They used to be, but a couple left about 18m ago and I find the ones there now much nicer

just an opinion but I quite like the play area. its less busy and more shady than the Dulwich version.


Not withstanding that I thought it worth pointing out that the skate park right next door is new and the adventure playground is also being re-done so there has been effort to provide a mix of different facilities for different ages and interests.

Sorry when you say you like it does this infer that you have been actually using it ?


The play area is actually very small and rather secluded, this may offer a clue as to why it is less busy ? Do you think it is adequate for the catchment area that it should be catering for ? Instead of just defending a position go into the community and have a chat to people. Nunhead, is just the other side of the Rye !


Anyway nice to see you coming on line.

erm, the two people on this thread who have slagged off the playground both admit they haven't taken children there, the greater number of people who say they have taken children there seem happy with it. whose views exactly should the cllr be listening to?!

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...