Dog watering holes in Peckham Rye Park

[Lee Scoresby]

One of the pleasures of walking dogs in Peckham Rye park is the chance to let them have a drink and a splash in stream. In fact, it's often a necessity, given Southwark's long-long failure to set up the half-dozen or so pipe stands and drinking troughs that should be located round the park and rye.

Lower down it gets very muddy so the best 3 sites are upstream: by the two bridges, and, most loved of all, at the location shown in the attached photo, near the kid's playground.

And now look at it: half-filled with building slurry and clay which covers the clean sandy bottom; bricks and other builders' rubbish strewn about; and an outlet pouring dirty water into it.

How typical. A huge ugly carbuncle crammed into what had been one of the nicest corners of the park, its real purpose to please a private interest: the dodgy 'academy' empire of Harris-the-Carpet-King. Large budget - nice little earner for the contractor. But for the people who actually own and use the park? Southwark Council isn't listening and couldn't care less. What we do get is the pathetic, everlasting Southwark War on Dogs.

Ask yourself how much Southwark has spent on this and the other large projects. In absolute contrast, any of these watering holes could be quickly, usefully and beautifully transformed - by steps and platforms down to the water, most of all - at the cost of a few worker-hours and a few hundred quid. At the least - AT THE VERY LEAST! - the mooks should have required the contractor to clean up after themselves there.

Ah yes, Neilcott the contractor. Did you see their fatuous, self-congratulatory sign? They follow the Code of Considerate Practice. They 'Care about Appearance'. They 'Respect the Community'. They 'Protect the Environment.' Hilarious! Well, easy to put a sign up. Box ticked, eh Neilcott?

What an absolute disgrace.

Lee Scoresby

[Abe_froeman]

1. Some people with children but not dogs also own and use the park

2. There is dog drinking trough by the public loos which is more than adequate provision.

[sunbob]

I thought the new building was changing rooms for the football clubs which use the park and a long awaited new 1o'clock club playroom?

[first mate]

That said, agree with Lee, pretty poor show to see bricks and what not discarded into that stream, whatever happened to

cracking down on anti social littering in the borough's nature and beauty spots, especially by a council funded contractor. Agree, disgraceful, why aren't the park wardens on top of this?

[Nigello]

A letter to the people responsible would help you get a response and even a result. Good luck

[Lee Scoresby]

Oh dear, oh dear, Abe, I'm afraid your nasty agenda really leaks out like toxic waste. Where to start:

I did not make what would be a ridiculous claim that the park is only for dog owners.

Why try to set parents and dog owners against each other? Some people are both. It's bogus and highly insulting to imply, as you surely are, Abe, that the presence of dogs is somehow inimical to children being in the park. Making the stream more accessible would be good for supervised kids too - why not? (There are dozens of other nice, no- or low-cost improvements which could be made if, as I've posted before, it wasn't all in the hands of arrogant people who couldn't find Peckham Rye with a satnav.)

One trough is "more than adequate" - according to whom? You? Do you walk a dog Abe? I suspect not. 'More than' - you mean it's too much, Abe? They're spoiling us rotten, are they? Maybe it shouldn't be there at all?

Oh dear, Abe.

Sunbob, several issues there: Why could the kid's club not be in the conveniently central location it has been up until now, instead of up in one corner? Why for Southwark Parks Management is it all just about football? (I've posted on that - the answer is partly money, partly lifestyle cleansing.) Oh yes, footballers. Over years I've pointed out the carpets of trash these people leave, week in, week out, and Southwark's failure to deal with it.

But the real answer to a lot of this is Harris. That's why the building is where it is. Note to anyone reading this: keep an eye on so-called 'Grasslands East', the field in front of the new changing rooms. My suspicion - it's only that, and I'll be delighted if I'm wrong - is that in some redacted clause of some 'commercially confidential' agreement (hoho) Southwark has agreed to give Harris priority (maybe sometimes exclusive) use of that area.

Think this is unlikely? Why the late-night electrical works going on? What's to hide? What's the rush? The workmen have been told to say it's a powerpoint for 'eco' ice-cream vans . . . Yeah, right, lol. What I think is, it's a power point all right - for flood-lights, a sound system and all the paraphernalia of a sports event. And being installed at Harris's behest. Watch out for any sort of linear structure that could be used to fence off that area.

First mate, I don't think 'park wardens' exist. Over the years I've watched these bozos 'manage' this park, the arrangement even for so simple, repetitive a task as locking the gates has changed wildly, week by week. So: There are the nameless-faceless senior officers back at Southwark HQ. There are little chaps tapping away on their computers all day inside the park office. And there are the lycra stormtroopers, community whatevers, whizzing about, hassling dog owners rather a lot. No wardens that I can see. Proper park wardens? That'd be great.

LS

[first mate]

Lee, yes think you make good points. I have wondered for some time if the anti dog agenda was related in some way to slow encroachment of Harris onto PR. The new imminent PSPOS state that dogs will not be allowed into children's playing areas, so note your comment about Grasslands East and the 'possibility' of a long game with a view to acquisition of parts of PR?

[rendelharris]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> 1. Some people with children but not dogs also own

> and use the park

> 2. There is dog drinking trough by the public loos

> which is more than adequate provision.

Abe, in what way would it impose upon people with children but not dogs to ask the contractors not to dump their waste in the stream? I genuinely don't understand your first point.

[civilservant]

the stream used to be clear and clean at that place - dogs really enjoyed the water especially since access is easier than at the bridges

it is one of the few places in the park where dogs don't have to compete with other park users, so a real pity that these contractors are using this as a dumping ground, possibly on account of it not being as visible as other parts of the park

are the park keepers taking any notice?

[tiddles]

I texted the site manager and the park warden about the possible pollution of the stream

When it was discussed previously but no one responded.

Talking to one of the lovely gardeners - he thought it was nothing suspicious

Rather sand and chalk from within the soil.

[Take Note]

perhaps Abe would like all the dogs to form an orderly queue by the 'more than adequate' water provision thereby blocking the way in to the loos. What a silly post.