first mate

I wonder if you also had multiple cold calls by the organisation called ADT, same people, same evening. Odd. How many times do a group of people have to be told you are not interested in their product? Why would they keep calling round on the same night? Why does it need four of them? Does anyone know if ADT are legit?

Not across the research and figures so purely a perception but it seems to me and a few others I have spoken to that the planes are louder or lower or something is different. I am not bothered by plane noise one bit and it does not keep me awake, so wonder how to explain the sense that something has changed. One thing that does get momentraily affected is tv signal, and picture fragments as plane flies over- usually the ones that sound to be loudest????

Sue, As I said before I would like to see compulsory training -owners first, dogs second :)- for those that let their dogs behave inappropriately. I sincerely hope though that you will give us dog owners another chance and not join the ranks of those that would like to see all dogs on leads all the time in any public place. I rather hope that the omwr of the dog who was rude to you might have had a chance to think things through too. You never know she might be a reader here. Just one more point, jumping up is a normal dog behaviour, they want to get close to your face to greet you. Each and every dog owner has to train their dog not to do this. Teenage dogs, like teenage humans, are often the worst offenders and the effects of hormone surges and general joie de vivre can cause a formerly well behaved pup to suddenly go through a kevin stage. I am not for one minute defending this dog's behaviour but you might feel less nervous in future if you see the dog for what it probably is, an OTT, ill-mannered teenager. Believe it or not, it was most likely a really clumsy way of trying to greet you and get you to notice him/her, it almost certainly would not have wanted to harm you. A dog that wanted to harm you would not have stopped. Sometimes standing still, drawing yourself up to your full height, with a very stern face, and putting your hand out in a police-style stop signal at the dog, is enough to stop a dog in its tracks. Finally, dogs that randomly attack people out of the blue in a public place are really rare, by that I mean leaving the safety of their owner and actively going after someone. People mostly get attacked by dogs in public places when they try to intervene in a dog fight and that is because the dogs are in such a high state of arousal that they are not thinking about what they are doing. If dogs are fearful of people to the point they are highly aggressive it would have to be a very odd owner that just let them off in the park to run around- though idiots exist for sure. A dog that is highly fearful of people is more likely to avoid rather than charge you. Most dog on human attacks happen in the home or around the territory of the home, or where a highly fearful dog is appraoched by a human without being able to escape. I only say this to put your mind at rest. Anyway, I hope that helps.

SueOrr0103, Given that you say the dog leapt at you and there was contact then I can understand your fear and your anger. I very much doubt that the dog was behaving agressively, it sounds as though it was rambunctious. If the owner had apologised there and then and immediately put her dog on a lead, something most of us here would have done, I don't suppose you would have felt the need to complain. It stands to reason that if you don't much like dogs and would prefer them to be at a distance from you that you are probably not adept at reading their body language and knowing what is aggressive and what is playful, though very inappropriate. I understand that you felt attacked but hope you might agree that in reality the dog was badly behaved and the owner was inappropriate in her reaction to your fear. Having reread your first post I do see that you state that you had a terrible walk because you feared all the time that a dog would come charging at you. Prior to this you state that usually you don't mind dogs offlead, because they don't come charging at you. It is the case that dogs are allowed to be off the lead in certain sections of the park and although I think it is unlikely that you will be jumped on again that will not assuage your fear around dogs that are not on a lead. I think this is a dilemma for you and I don't think there is an easy solution. That aside, I hope you appreciate that the majority of dog owners are considerate of others but that sometimes dogs and owners can fail to be as well behaved as they should be. There are those in the council who would like to see all dogs on leads all the time and that would not only remove the pleasure of dog ownership but also impact on the welfare of the dogs. In general dogs are good for people and for children and bring many positives to our lives. Only today two toddlers stopped with their parents and asked if they could stroke my dog, which of course I let them do. The delight on the faces of those children was plain to see.

Caz, sorry, where are the signs that clearly say 'dog exercise area'? As you can see the sign that was photographed by the OP is at the beginning of the very track you speak about, and this states that dogs should be kept on a short lead. It is during the late spring and summer months that the joggers begin to appear and some do get upset when dogs are on the track and, as they see it, in their way. In the winter months, dog owners tend to be the most frequent users of the park and therefore make use of much of it because there are not that many other people about, especially when it rains. I like to be in an open space with my dog, with a view of other people and other dogs, this is not always possible in the wooded areas. Additionally, a number of dogs have been startled when joggers/cyclists burst out of the undergrowth and some dogs have reacted out of fear at being startled, also leading to complaints. Other joggers, ones that dislike dogs, have complained about dogs being too near to them and on a few occasions joggers have tried to kick dogs away from them. This is imply to indicate that there is no universal acceptance that dogs should be exercised off lead around what is known, but not officially demarcated, as the dog walk. I think their is confusion about where dogs can go and I don't think that the ill placed signage by the council/parks authorities help.

I've checked and it states that dogs on lead areas are central areas and sports pitches. I would take it that the central area means the gardens, cafe, ponds etc... Clearly sports pitches are defined by chalk markings, so it can be interpreted that any field area outside of the markings is okay. in the winter months and on rainy days when sport is not played I guess the bylaw becomes redundant. there are no designated exercise areas mentioned in the bylaws- only areas where dogs are prohibited and where they should be kept on lead. The notion of the dog walk therefore seems to be erroneous. Aside from that, you may be aware that in the summer months the outer area of the park is used by joggers and some cyclists practising their mountain biking skills, who can become irate at finding dogs off lead. I think there just has to be a little give and take.

Chuff, I am not aware of any regulation that requires owners to keep dogs on lead on the open fields???unless of course people are playing football or similar. The way you seem to describe it the only place one could let a dog off lead would be right around the edge of the park.

Sue, if you were on the circular road when the dog jumped at you then I can understand why you might be hacked off. However, I think your use of the word attacked leaves you open to the charge of exaggeration. I am sure that you can see that if you report this incident to the park in those terms and using that word then it can be used to skew figures on dangerous dogs incidents in the park. I am still curious as to how close the dog got to you when it jumped and did it make contact with you? I have asked you this a few times and you have not answered. All dog owners should teach their dogs as young pups not to jump up at people- that is basic dog obedience. perhaps those with ill-mannered or poorly trained dogs should be sent on a compulsory dog training course.

taper, given that the park should be for all I think it is fair that there are areas where people are asked to keep their dog on a lead. It is common sense really. For instance, I would not let my dog run around offlead where people are playing football or having a picnic (unless I knew he would recall on command every time without fail as well as walk to heel)nor do I let him offlead around the cafe areas, or on the hard paved areas or indeed in and by the children's playground. Once would hope that people don't have to be asked to do this. If everyone adopted these simple and straightforward guidelines I think we would all be a lot happier. I agree that demanding that all dogs be kept on a lead everywhere and at all times is unreasonable and draconian, it would also affect the welfare of the dogs. I think that if people are scared of dogs it would be nicer for them if they could visit areas of the park where they know people will keep their dogs on a lead.

Hearing the kind of rent being asked for it seems that the doors are being opened for more chains/intensive developments.

Steve, where is the dog exercise area clearly marked? There are no dedicated dog exercise areas. There is a request that people should exercise their dogs on around the periphery of the park/and on the fields and should keep them on a lead elsewhere but there is nothing to indicate a specific area on which to exercise dogs. I would add that use of the word 'attacked' where there has been no display of aggression and no physical contact is a little more than 'loose language'. Of course, if the OP replies and says that the dog growled or snarled at her, bared its teeth while lunging at her with aggressive intent, or indeed bit her, then I will retract that statement.

Sue, not meaning to split hairs but how close to you did the dog get and what happened when you screamed? From what you say it sounds as though the dog stopped or came no closer?

The area photographed by the OP and which includes the sign is at the periphery of the park and is known by many as the dog walk. It seems almost deliberately confusing on the part of the council. The signage was actively challenged a number if years ago and the council backed down.

Sue, sorry, need a little clarity here. Were you attacked, that is did the dog behave aggressively and physically touch you, or was the dog aggressive and close to you or did the dog simply run towards you but make no contact with you? I completely understand that you might dislike be nervous of dogs and so not want to be close to one but the word 'attack' has a very different implication. If you were attacked you would have recourse under the Dangerous Dog Act and that owner might be required by law to always have their dog on lead in a public area. If it is the case that the dog was running around within yards of you and you felt uncomfortable with that then it is a somewhat different scenario. I do agree that on tarmaced areas and areas around caf?s and so forth it would be reasonable to expect people to have dogs under greater control and unless they are highly obedience trained this probably means a 6 ft lead.

Sue, no currently dogs do not have to be kept on a short lead in the area you have photographed which is where people are asked to exercise their dogs off lead. How close did the dog in question get to you? While I have every sympathy with you it is quite difficult to avoid proximity to dogs off lead in the areas where they are exercised off lead. Those notices were installed by the council some years ago but are not enforceable. Given that the notice you show is placed at the beginning of the area where dog owners are asked to exercise their dogs off lead it makes for confusing information for both sides of the equation. That is possibly why the dog owner reacted in the way they did. I blame the council for giving out confusing messages.

I was advised by the same doctor in very jocular tones "if you are in your 50's I would hope you would have arthritis". no harm intended but slightly odd approach.

The problem is there are problems with this application, not least access and servicing. The current application is simply a resubmission of the last rejected application, with a few tiny tweaks.

Louisa, You are right. I think also that it was anticipated in some quarters that the freeholder/developer/applicant would keep re-submitting until any objectors gave up or rolled over, as you say, without making any real changes to the original proposal.

Let's not forget that detail was also late going up on the council website. It is impossible to comment in an application without the detail. The council has wittingly or unwittingly failed to adhere to process and put locals who might object at a disadvantage......this might be read as weighing the process in favour of the developer.

Anyone living in the local area has a right to comment I don't have any issue with that. My interest was that I thought that it was one of the 124 who have had letters sent out, in that they had received theirs. Cannot understand why if letters were sent out on 7th they have nit yet arrived. Also if consultation began on 28 Jan why were letters not sent until 7th and why nothing up on website...... Just seems a slapdash approach to a proposed development that has been so contentious.

Strae, that's interesting, I looked and could not find the comment in support, can you link to it?

KK, Not a thing. How odd and yet the planning clock ticks away. James had said he would speak to the Chief Planning Officer, I wonder if he did?

Most of the professional dog walkers are known and easily identified. I am sure the Park Warden will be able to put you in touch with the relevant person. They will be covered by insurance for loss or damage in the course of their work- this is a requirement for professional dog walkers. I would imagine they would want to cover the cost of replacing the damaged/lost glove. Perhaps they could leave a cheque for the amount with the Park Warden who can forward it to you. As an earlier poster stated, accidents do happen though that does not excuse the apparent negligence of the dog walker.

Tomk, if the car park is not known about then signpost it and encourage store visitors to use it, that would ameliorate parking stress as well as leaving more room for deliveries. You stated earlier that you did not feel those visiting in cars would increase significantly, have you had a rethink?

Dave R, I was waiting for the inevitable snipe about nimbyism. The line in the sand was in reference to the inference that because there has been a store long-term therefore any size store, with any associated changes/problems, is to be anticipated and accepted. I'm not persuaded by the argument that residents and employes will not use cars, but I am happy to be proved wrong- as I said though, once the decision is made there is no going back. rahrahrah, there has been no suggestion by anyone objecting to the application of an automatic right to a parking space infront of one's house. tomk, there is another 'desirable' retailer apparently ready to take on the site as is without increasing the footprint of the building, so your point about empty offices does not hold. LondonMix, absolutely agree, access and servicing details are of great concern. A visit to the site will show that a huge bollard erected to protect other properties is damaged and bent. There is a history of damage by articulated delivery lorries to property in the street because there is so little room to manouevre. If I recall planning commented last that they could not be sure what had caused that damage and so dismissed it as 'evidence' of a problem. Everyone around the area knows what caused the damage. The current proposal advocates increasing the size of the building, reducing the land in which to manoeuvre, maximising and stepping up deliveries. Factor in the car wash traffic, which frequently blocks both path and street and you get the picture.