Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If dogs are allowed in the fenced off bit in Goose Green? I know it says dog free area on it, but there is a sign saying the fence is coming down and I read all the stuff about the dog free bit not being enforceable on a previous sign....


And no-one from the council seems to be able to answer the question...


Anyone got any inside info?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3570-goose-green-dog-free-area/
Share on other sites

have a read of this thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,129755,page=1 it may help. Also have a look at the minutes for the Friends of Goose Green public meeting Word Document:


"Councils can only enforce dog exercise areas with a by-law which does not exist at present within Southwark. It is therefore not currently legal to put up signage to try to enforce a dog-free area. In the absence of a by-law, the Council will need a Dog Control Order (per Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005)."


[edited once]

But why would you want to walk you dog in a dog-free area? I like that I can take my kids in there to play and know that (hopefully)there won't be any dog poo. I will miss the fence when it's gone and hope that they do decide to put it back up. Makes life so much easier when the children are running about not to have dogs running up to them and jumping up at them because they get overexcited with running children.

And seeing as the council will probably not be getting an enforced dog-controlled order the whole park will be over-run with dogs. And the funny thing is.. you cant tell any dog owner to move as there is no such thing as a dog-free area.

I just hope the dog fouling twits are caught by those community wardens and slapped with a nice fine.

I agree with Bellenden Jo. It's nice to have separate areas for dog's and children, and it seems to work quite well at the moment.


By putting up a fence, marking one of the areas as dog free, and relying on the goodwill of responsible dog owners to use the dog walking area of the park, seems to have resulted in a park that meets the needs of both dog walkers and families with young children over the last two years.


I don't see why it needs to change.

Majority respect the dog free area but I think the sign should say 'No dogs beyond this point/in here' people only' or something really really clear. 'Dog free area' seems to spell 'free your dogs' to some of the bull terrier twilight barking contingency. Dumbing down I know, but necessary.
I was attacked by a dog on Goose Green a couple of years ago (before they put that fence in). I was running (moving target) and a rottweiler-like dog clamped its jaw on my arm and wouldn't let go until her owner pulled her off. I was wearing long sleeves, fortunately, but you could still see tooth marks on my arm. I'm much more worried about a dog attacking my baby than the poo issue, though of course the poo is serious too. Having said that, the fence does kind of split the green in two so maybe the dog-free area could be in a different place (away from the traffic) and a different shape?
I think that's all for grabs. Once the fence is removed there is supposed to be a 6 months trial period during which complaints, dog fouling etc will be monitored and maybe there will be another consultation on the issue. At the end there could be no division at all or a new fence at the same position or a new fence for a different bit. The council - due to pressure by anti-fence and pro-dog residents - has decided to remove the fence and then monitor/consult. I've written several times to council officers and members on the issue and attended Friends of Goose Green meetings in support of the dog free zone, but they seem set on this approach now. I just hope they don't remove the fence until later in the year so we have another Summer with a - relatively - dog free zone.

I've written on this issue several times before and - the whole thing was initiated by a vocal, anti fence lobby who responded in force to the consultation. I responded to the consultation as well but not enough of the people who were happy with the split between the space now did so the council went with the most vocal voices. I even spoke to the counsellors about it when they came round to do their door to door thing and they said there is nothing they can do as the consultation found in favour of removing the fence. Typical.


As I've said and others have said - now people who don't feel comfortable with dogs can enjoy the space in the (relatively) dog free area. When the fence comes down, the whole place will be one big dog run and we won't see people pinicking and relaxing in the area. Just people exercising dogs.

This is getting ridiculous:


Nunhead has a small area of our small green sectioned off into a dog exercise area. Goose green is not really flooded with dogs. Why don't they designate a smaller area in part of the green, and re-use the existing fence to do this ?


Surely this is much better, accommodates everyone, keeps the cost down and removes what is basically a horrendous design flaw from the park. Splitting it in half was way to ambitious and effects the overall balance of the green. OK maybe a mistake was made, but in good faith, so lets spend a bit more money and sort it.

A good suggestion from AllforNun.


My own preference would be to spend nothing and leave things as they are - the most cost effective approach. The current arrangement has worked fine for the last couple of years.


Personally, I have no objection to the Green being divided as it is at present, and quite like the fence. I know there are those that don't.


If the alternative were the proposal from AllforNun, I'd be more than happy. Spend some money, reposition the fence to keep those that find it unattractive happy, and reduce the size of the dog walking area.

The council after a consultation did put forward a proposal to fence off the area closest to the roundabout for dog use but it was subsequently rejected by dog walkers as there was not enough space.


Anyway, I was walking through through the Green last night about 9:30 there were two blokes with their dogs in the "dog free" area. I saw one of the dogs have a sh*t and, although both men saw the dog do this, neither of them cleared it up. It reminded me of the bloke I saw earlier in the day park his car in the bus lane, in front of a bus and then stroll casually into the newsagent i.e. they don't care about inconvenience they cause others even if there are rules in place.


I do see other people with their dogs in the dog free area from time to time and fence or no fence they'll go in there. Personally I would prefer to have no fence and a couple of pleasant signs saying "please try and keep dogs in a certain area", the majority of dog walkers will do so as they respect other users of the green and those that don't don't.

I suggested it too initially and was happy with the plans that were drawn up but the views and opinions came in and it was decided, on weight of the dog walkers' opinions, that it would be too small an area especially when there were quite a few dogs and walkers around and especially when there were aggressive ones around.
The point Mark makes about aggressive dogs underlines the need for a fence to divide the dog-walking and non-dog areas of Goose Green. Parents with young children need more reassurance than the good-will of the dog-walkers to provide peace of mind that the Green is a safe and friendly place for their kids to play. In my experience, the great majority of dog walkers use the park responsibly, but on a couple of occasions I've spoken to dog walkers who were walking their dog in the non-dog area, and their reason for doing so was that aggressive dogs scared their own dogs, and they were consequently using the non-dog area for the well-being of their dog. If dog owners are reluctant to share a space with aggressive dogs, then children certainly shouldn't be expected to. The worried dog owners will have to take their chances in the dog-walking area. But keep the fence (or at least, keep some of physical speparation - 'nicer' fence, hedge, or whatever)

Five minutes ago and probably still as I write, there is a man with two husky type dogs plus an alsation in the dog free area. That's a lot of potential poo.

My dog got freaked out straight away as one of the huskies ran towards him (he is a bit of a drama queen) and he left the park at full speed into adys road. Luckily a brave passer by grabbed him.

I did shout 'you are in the dog free area' .

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...