Jump to content

Recommended Posts

First Mate


I absolutely agree with your posting. There is still of lot of (dog) shit around and I am always looking down as I walk so as not to tread in it. I have heard of quite a few dog walkers, some professional, who have been fined for not picking up their dog's mess on Peckham Rye. Good!

About two years ago (maybe three) there was a piece of paper delivered through my door asking my opinion on the Green, the fence etc. I remember seeing the questionnaire in the gym, the library and notices on the fence of the Green too. It just seems to be a couple of you that didn't know about it which is a shame as I know they did try and get as many opinions in as possible. Since then FoGG has been set up so you can stay abreast of what's happening.


nancysmum , sorry I don't know what the community wardens "area" is, pop in their office and ask them.


The removal of the fence was not initiated by members of FoGG, they all have different opinions about what should happen to the fence but they all have the Green's best interest at heart.

I have looked at the questionnaire that you describe if it is this one and it seems to say nothing at all about a possible outcome being removal of the fence. This matters - if you say "do you think it is worth spending ?40K on removing the fence which could be spent on other improvement to the park/local area" you will get a different answer to "what is your view on the fence from 1 - 5". Unless there was another consultation.

She'llsurvive of course you would get different answers as they're different questions. I think they should have asked "if we see someone not pick up their dog's poo should we rub their nose in it?" I'm sure that'll reduce the amount in the area if it was a punishment that could be actioned.


[edited once]

I received this response from Mr Sheaff at the Council - it would seem they have already made the decision that reinstating the fence after the 6-month trial period is highly unlikely 'under any circumstances':


'The Council has resolved to remove the fence from its current position for a trial period of six months. These works are in the hands of colleagues and I am pressing them to advise me of a date. As soon as I have this, I will advise all interested parties. During the trial period, we will assess the affect of the removal of the fence on the site and those using it. If at the end of the period, it is resolved that some sort of separation of people and dogs should be effected on the site, we will proceed to bring this about (physically and in law). I think I can say with some certainty that the existing fence will not be reinstated under any circumstances (because several people have remarked on the inappropriateness of its style) and I think it unlikely that any fence will be put back in this position (because of its effect of bifurcating the site).

I trust that this sets out the Council's position but please come back to me if you require any further information'.


I have responded explaining that the trial period does appear to be simply a tick box exercise, with the decision to not reinstate any fence having already been made. I am really disappointed about the way in which this so-called consultation has been run - I have been involved with setting up consultations many times in the past and this smacks of at best ineffective/naive consultation, at worst - selective consultation to provide the justification for a pre-determined solution. I do feel that not enough members of the community have been alerted to the consultation in good time, I can only assume it will be just as useless during and after the 6-month 'trial'.

Here here, Kristymac. Also, if a decision has been made and there has been all this furore as a result, surely the appropriate action would be to hold the meeting again, invite a much wider audience and get the vote cast again. I understand that decisions need to be made, but they can be changed and indeed they should be if the wrong decision has been made (as so many of us feel). removing a fence for its aesthetics is ridiculous!


If we were to start a "save the goose green fence" campaign, I wonder if they would listen? I think that they are not going to tell us when the fence is coming down as they don't want enraged mums and dads chaining themselves to it.

Why not put a fence* straight across the Green (alongside the other path) so the dogs can run in the area at the roundabout end? Then there would be a larger dog free area that would be split by just a path and not a fence.


*a nice fence, similar to the one running round the edge.

KM, I read that post as not, not reinstating a fence, just not the current one.


It is ill-designed for its purpose - large dogs can easily clear it and small dogs can run through the sides. Also, not everyone closes the gate behind them so a self-closing hinge would be better.


Just my interpretation.

Thanks PGC, you may very well be right in your interpretation, I hope you are. I'm still not sure about the validity and inclusivity of the consultation, if and when the Council consult with local residents, I'd be grateful for a posting on here so those of us not local enough (ie don't live on the Green it would seem) to have a flyer put through the door can contribute our thoughts and ideas. Of course now that I have had communication with the Council on the subject, hopefully I will be considered an 'interested party'.......

Just to add, I'd hate to think the fence will be removed/not reinstated for aesthetics - well argued, practical reasons I can stomach, but if enormous sums of money are wasted on aesthetics (which are entirely subjective), I'd be a pretty cheesed off Council Tax payer.

I'm a council tax payer too and I would be delighted for council money to be spent (not "wasted") on making things I have to look at locally aesthetically pleasing - I agree they're to some extent subjective, but not "entirely" subjective, surely?


That fence across Goose Green makes me wince every time I look at it, never mind the practicalities :)

I've just come home with shit on my shoes from playing in the 'dog free' area.


I think the fence should stay - it's not horrendous, it's not wince-worthy, and having an area where we can read the paper on a fine winter day, picnic in the summer and play safely with children surely is a necessity in an area where there are so many families?


It's just a shame that there appear to be small-minded people who insist on letting their dogs walk in this area when the other side is perfectly feasible.

I seriously think the Council should revisit their decision. The Council should avoid unnecessarily spending Council Taxpayer money and leave Goose Green as it is. The current arrangement works well for both sections of the community (those that walk dogs on the Green and those that want an area free of faeces for outdoor recreation). If this forum is representative of community feeling, and it generally is, there are at least as many that want to keep the fence as there are that want it removed. I'd suggest that there are probably more that want to keep it. The Council talk about public consultation that took place prior to the public meeting on Goose Green. I haven't seen the output from the consultation, but this forum seems to be an effective avenue for eliciting views from the community. I think the views expressed here should be given at least as much weight as the unpublished consultations undertaken by the Council.

right on p-in-ed. however i think anything we say will fall on deaf ears. maybe we need to do something more visible. for example, maybe everyone who wanted the fence to stay should tie a coloured ribbon onto the fence. or we could have our own rally one saturday afternoon, with fun activities for children etc so that kids can enjoy the space before it gets completely covered in dog crap.


Do you know if any of the local papers know about this?

nancysmum Wrote:

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

> Sue, if the fence makes you wince, how do you

> think we feel when we see our children with

> dogshit on their hands, shoes, etc?


xxxxxx


I'm not sure that the two things are related - I was responding to a point about aesthetics :-S


Dog-free areas can be provided which look nice, as in the park by Sainsbury's.


I have grandchildren, of course I don't want them (or me) getting dogshit on them.

I am a designer and have taught for many years on the Goldsmiths Eco Design degree (now combined with the Design BA).


One of the key issues for design today, and for the future, is sustainability. For me the problem of the fence is not its purpose (keeping dogs and children in two discrete areas, though this, of course is also open to debate), but the lack of understand of good design.


Among many demands, good design must, at least, address function, form and use of materials. The fence is BAD design on all counts...

1. The fence uses an unnecessarily large quantity of material, ie metal which a non renewable resource.

2. The overly weighty use of this material is not just an issues in terms of quantity, it also causes a visual problem - it is so solid looking that it blocks the view though the park and creates an unnatural divide to the space.

3. The aesthetic of the fence does not enhance park, or sit well with the old railings around the park, which use far less materials and do not block the view... in fact the ?right? railing design was already sitting there in front of their eyes... LESS IS MORE!!!!.

Hi charliecharlie


if the fence uses an unnecessarily large quantity of material, ie metal which a non renewable resource, surely it is better to leave the one in place where it is, rather than take it out and replace it with something else, which would most probably also be metal 9which is a non-renewable resource).


Re your point re less is more...you are absolutely right. less fence equals more dog shit.

Lets be honest, in terms of aesthetics, there are probably 10% of people who don't like it, 10% of people who do like it and the remaining 80% who aren't in the least bit fussed. Aesthetics are not a valid reason for removing (or not replacing) the fence. The issue is about whether the fence and its position make the Green a more useable space for all members of the community, which IMO it does.

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...