Goose Green - Fence to be removed

[Sue]

May cancel me out, but you aren't 10% of the ED population and neither am I :)

[kristymac1]

And therein proves my point, for every person that hates it, there'll be someone who likes it and 8 more people who aren't fussed either way.

[p_in_ed]

I'm with kristymac1; in between 'not fussed' and 'really liking it'. I felt quite postive about the design when they first installed it.

Interesting to read charliecharlie's informed views on design, but in this case I think I come down on the side of function rather than form.

Also not sure where I'll end up being catagorized with regard to AllforNun's 'Liberal Aesthetic'. I have to say, it doesn't sound like a good thing to have, but given that I don't like the blue half of the mural but do like the fence, hopefully I don't quite fit.

All I do know is that I think the way the Green is organised at the moment seems to work very well for all concerned. I think we should leave it as it is.

[Sue]

kristymac1 Wrote:

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

> And therein proves my point, for every person that

> hates it, there'll be someone who likes it and 8

> more people who aren't fussed either way.

xxxxx

Erm, I don't think you can quote any such figures unless you've actually done a proper survey :)

[kristymac1]

Ok, fine, you win, you hate it more than I like it.

Now back to the important issue regarding the fence and the purpose it serves.

[Sue]

kristymac1 Wrote:

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

> Ok, fine, you win, you hate it more than I like

> it.

> xxxxx

Eh? That's not my point at all :)

But yes, the aesthetic issue is something of a side issue - though not unimportant, less important than issues of health and safety

[Moos]

p_in_ed Wrote:

> All I do know is that I think the way the Green is

> organised at the moment seems to work very well

> for all concerned. I think we should leave it as

> it is.

I'm not really fussed, but would prefer a fence that matched the outside fence.

But I really can't agree - and quite a few posts on this thread would suggest that I'm not alone - that the Green works well as it is. There are too many irresponsible dog owners who ignore the 'no dogs' section, or allow their dogs to jump the fence. In other words, the current fence falls down both aesthetically and practically.

[nancysmum]

it only falls down Moos as the council let it be known that the fence was going to come down anyway so the dog owners i have spoken to have said words to the like: "if it's coming down, I can use it". If the council decided to stop using taxpayers money over stupid things like this (put the fence up, have a consultation, have a consultation over the consultation, take the fence down, have a consultation, possibly put the fence up etc etc) and say that the dog free area is exactly that and that will be enforced, then it would serve its purpose.

It would be very interesting to see just how much the council has spent on this issue and what they intend to spend to resolve it. Not just the cost of the fence, the removal and replacement of it, but all the administrative costs (proportionate salaries of those councillors involved in this issue, the cost of running consultations, etc). Does anyone have such figures?

I don't think goose green should be dog free - there are some dog owners like the man with his jack russells who will happily keep to the 'dogs allowed' section. It's just a few selfish people who insist on using the other half even though there are no dogs / children in the dogs allowed section. I agree that dogs should be allowed to run free, but also so should children. this fence, and the enforcement of the dog free area, would allow that.

As for what the fence looks like, i think it's fine. So, Sue, if you are keeping a tally of who likes it and who doesn't, put me down as one of the former.

[Sue]

Of course I'm not keeping a tally, that would be completely pointless :)

As if the whole of ED is reading this thread :) or could be bothered to post on it even if they were :)

[kristymac1]

why don't they erect a 20 ft high fence right down the middle, in the same style as the outside of course. They could place shooters on either side should any of those pesky dogs (or kids) try to clear the fence into forbidden territory.

All that is required is cooperation from all concerned. Nothing will work 100% because there will always be a small minority who refuse to play by the rules, either that or the Green will have to be a dog or family free zone. I honestly believe that the current situation fits the needs of the majority of responsible users better than any of the other suggestions. For those who are irresponsible (both with dogs and children) then its likely they'll continue to be so what-ever the final solution.

As for dogs being able to clear the inner fence - the owners of these dogs seem to be perfectly able to keep their dogs from clearing the outer fence into oncoming traffic - why does the inner fence pose such a problem for dogs jumping over?

[Sue]

kristymac1 Wrote:

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

> > As for dogs being able to clear the inner fence -

> the owners of these dogs seem to be perfectly able

> to keep their dogs from clearing the outer fence

> into oncoming traffic - why does the inner fence

> pose such a problem for dogs jumping over?

xxxxxx

Because it's lower? (If it isn't, I apologise - have only winced at it from a distance)

Edited to say: And maybe green grass is more attractive to dogs than a load of cars and buses in the jumping-over stakes

[kristymac1]

There is very little difference between the heights of the fences.

Sue, I'd be genuinely interested to hear what your solution would be.

Edited for spelling and probably still not got it right

[Sue]

I think I'd keep the dog/non-dog sections, though possibly not in the way they are presently divided.

I'd replace the existing fence with one which is in the style of the perimeter fence, and which would not appear to be such a visual barrier dividing the two sections. This works and looks good in the park next to Sainsbury's.

I'd spend some additional money on enforcement for a period of time and come down hard with maximum fines on dog owners who were not adhering to the rules, in the hope that a few short sharp shocks to the pocket may have the desired long-term effect.

However I don't know what this would cost so it might not be viable.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

One of the dogs I walk has indeed jumped over the outer fence, but the function of the outer fence is not to keep dogs in or out. The fence down the middle path is to separate dog and dog-free areas - if it can be cleared easily, it is obviously not 'fit for purpose' (hate that phrase but it works here).

[Sue]

Islington Council, for whom (grammar) I work, has a dog fouling campaign, accompanied by spot fines, which has had a lot of publicity and so far as I know has been very successful.

If anybody would like me to find out more about this, particularly the spot fines, I will.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

There are three young chaps who persistently walk their three dogs in the family section at 7 am most mornings. I fear I lack the courage to tackle them. To whom does one tip the wink in officialdom?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Can you imagine if fines were implemented Sue? We'll have people posting on here saying "I can't believe my tax money is being wasted on 57 plastic police telling me and my Poppsy off for his morning whoopsies"

Or in the case of PGC's encounter it would be more like "Ere, some faakin Kant* only tried to give me a fine this morning "

* him being a gent of a philosophical bent no doubt

;-)

[boosboss]

Fixed penalty notices are already being issued in parks by the Park Wardens (only 12 of them for the borough rather than 57) at ?80 a pop. Or should that be poop?

PGC contact the Park Wardens with your concerns and ask them to do an early morning campaign.

[Sue]

:))SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Can you imagine if fines were implemented Sue?

> We'll have people posting on here saying "I can't

> believe my tax money is being wasted on 57 plastic

> police telling me and my Poppsy off for his

> morning whoopsies"

>

> Or in the case of PGC's encounter it would be more

> like "Ere, some faakin Kant* only tried to give me

> a fine this morning "

>

> * him being a gent of a philosophical bent no

> doubt

>

> ;-)

xxxxxx

:)) :)):))

[Sue]

Boosboss, are you saying Southwark are 45 park wardens short?

That's terrible :-S How come? Budget cuts??

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I do think it was Jack Bertrand Russells being walked.

[boosboss]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Boosboss, are you saying Southwark are 45 park

> wardens short?

>> That's terrible :-S How come? Budget cuts??

No the 57 was from another quote. I can't remember the amount promised in 'Best Value' when it was introduced, but there seems to be some sort of combined park/street warden service now, with only 12 dedicated to the boroughs parks.

[Sue]

Seems to be a London-wide problem, I was at a meeting today and one borough apparently had only one park warden left :-S

[nancysmum]

did anyone see the 'flagging up' of the dog poo on goose green at the weekend? there was quite a show of little white flags in the non-dog side!

[p_in_ed]

Didn't see the flagging up exercise at the weekend, nancysmum. What was it all about and who organised it?