Goose Green - Fence to be removed

[cate]

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!

[Mark]

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.

[She'llsurvive]

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.

[Mark]

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]

[kristymac1]

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'.

[nancysmum]

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.

[Mark]

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.

[p_in_ed]

Great suggestion Mark. I'd be more than happy with that as a solution. How do we go about getting the Council to adopt this as the approach?

[Mark]

When they ask people's opinion after the 6 months that the fence has been removed, we tell them the suggestion and hope that lots of other people agree.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

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.

[kristymac1]

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.

[Sue]

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 :)

[nancysmum]

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?

[backup]

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.

[p_in_ed]

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.

[backup]

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?

[Sue]

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.

[charliecharlie]

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!!!!.

[Sue]

Completely agree, charliecharlie

[AllforNun]

Absolute bingo !

Maybe there is a Liberal Aesthetic that we are just not tuned into, what with the half blue mural and the fence.

[backup]

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.

[Sue]

Surely metal can be recycled, otherwise how come so many railings were removed in the war to make things related to the war effort?

And "less fence equals more dog shit" surely depends on your definition of "less" and how the fence is constructed?

[kristymac1]

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.

[Sue]

The 10% of people who like the look of the fence, stand up and be counted :)

[kristymac1]

I honestly dont mind it - so would put myself in between the 'not fussed' and 'really liking it' categories - does that cancel out your really not liking it Sue? :)