Dear Editor
I writing to share our bitter disappointment in Brent Council’s decision to instruct dog owners to keep their dogs on a lead in Paddington Old Cemetery (POC) and our belief that Brent is acting in an opaque and undemocratic manner, justifying their decisions with 'fake news’.
The consultation was a fiasco from the outset, with biased questions including options like ‘do you agree/disagree that dogs should be allowed to defecate on graves?’
We engaged with the process and contributed to the consultation, but it has been ignored, and POC’s PSOP exemption allowing off lead walking has now been removed.
Brent claim that:
- Complaints have increased to 74 last year but they refuse to tell us how many individuals this includes. For example, through an FOI request we know that when there were 65 complaints, in November 2024, 11 were individual complainants making multiple complaints
- They claim they are working for the community yet even in their own consultation, the majority of respondents wanted to keep off-lead walking (61% vs not 39% see chart below) and they have ignored the survey evidence that we make POC safer because of the daily, year-round, rain or shine, presence of dog walkers. We were supported by the local school (Salusbury Primary School whose green space is in POC) because a thriving dog walking community has made the space safer for children. We have also shown that women walking alone feel safer because it’s alway busy with people enjoying the space from the local community (unlike all the other cemeteries in Brent where there are hardly any people walking around).
- They are also ignoring the fact that people will be forced to drive to other places to exercise their dogs. Their two alternatives are not realistic - Tiverton Green is very small with multiple open gates, and Paddington Recreation Ground is already busy enough.
- They have rejected the idea that the poo on graves could possibly be from foxes on the basis that there is ‘no evidence’ for that despite it being more in keeping with fox behaviour to poo on an actual grave.
Brent is offering to consult on a fenced off off-lead walking area, but this could cause more problems for the homeowners on Tennyson Road where they are thinking of doing this. And could have more negative impacts on dog behaviour. They are also offering to set up a 'Paddington Old Cemetery Liaison Committee' which will include DOPOC (Dogs of Paddington old Cemetery). We have been asking for engagement from the very beginning and they have ignored us. That’s why we think this might be performative.
They are simply not being honest with the community. Peter Gadsdon (Head of Cemeteries) who has just retired took control of POC in 2022 when it was taken away from ‘Parks’ with a ‘dig baby dig’ plan agreed with Mo Butt.
There is no more than c.125 available burial sites left at POC so the only way they can achieve this is by building multiple new mounds even though they have many other cemeteries in Brent which do not serve the wider community and the local school like POC. These are traditional cemeteries with few visitors beyond funerals and a handful of mourners a week. Is this Brent's real pan for POC?
In doing so they are taking away a valuable green community space in a very built-up area. They simply do not see the community and environmental value in all this. They have never understood POC or care that by destroying this precious green space it will have an enormous negative impact on the whole community - not dogs.
Chair, DOPOC (Dogs of Paddington Old Cemetery)
20 comments:
Dear Editor,
It is baffling that in the midst of an accelerating climate catastrophe, we are still debating whether dogs should be given free rein in our dwindling green spaces. Brent Council’s decision to require leads in Paddington Old Cemetery (POC) is, if anything, too little too late. The real environmental crisis here is not the loss of an off lead area, it is the unchecked ecological destruction caused by dogs themselves.
Let’s talk facts. The carbon footprint of a single medium sized dog rivals that of an SUV, thanks to their meat based diets. Dogs, as carnivores, require an industrial scale of animal agriculture to feed them, an industry that drives deforestation, excessive water consumption, and the destruction of ecosystems. The vast demand for animal products to supply the pet food market directly contributes to the loss of animal life and biodiversity, all so that we can continue keeping non-vegan predators as companions. The scale of this industry, with its vast land use and intensive farming practices, is a staggering environmental burden we can no longer ignore.
Their waste, both solid and liquid, is a toxic pollutant. Dog faeces release harmful bacteria and nitrogen into the soil, while their urine burns grass and poisons plant life. And let’s not forget methane, every playful romp is accompanied by emissions that contribute to global warming.
And yet, instead of addressing these undeniable environmental harms, we have groups like DOPOC who insist that dogs are a public good. They argue that off lead dogs make the space “safer” and more “community friendly.” Safer for whom? Not for the wildlife displaced by barking, chasing, and territorial marking. Not for the delicate soil and plant life, damaged by thousands of paws trampling through it. And certainly not for the environment, when dog owners, by their own admission, will now drive elsewhere to let their pets run free, further increasing emissions.
The claim that foxes, not dogs, are to blame for waste on graves is laughable. Who brings more biological waste into public spaces, native wildlife trying to survive or an army of domestic carnivores bred into existence purely for human companionship? The real issue is not foxes, it is the growing number of dogs in our cities, an environmental burden we refuse to acknowledge.
Brent Council’s decision is a rare moment of ecological responsibility in an otherwise pet obsessed society. If anything, it should go further, restricting not just off lead access but questioning the unchecked rise of pet ownership itself. In a time when we should be fighting for every patch of green space, we should not be prioritising the recreational desires of methane emitting, resource intensive companion animals over the health of our planet.
Sincerely,
GASP (Green Alliance for Sustainable Parks)
Climate Advocate
I agree with most things here. Very good response!
What about mopeds speeding through our local parks unchallenged???
What about drinkers gathering in our local parks littering and urinating???
None of that’s related to this though is it? You need to stop commenting on everything in a scatter gun way. You bring nothing helpful to the table.
Councillor Dixon's comments about sunlight levels just shows why she should not be allowed on the Planning Committee. She asked if there was, or could be a lower limits on what light levels would be acceptable. I'm sorry Cllr Dixon, that is set by the policy and is the lowest level that should be allowed. We all know from listening to you at planning, that you do not understand why we have these policy limits. Please resign and let someone more capable take your place.
It is related!!!
You want to stop dogs urinating in a cemetery but what about all the humans urinating in our local parks???
You want to stop dogs running wild in a cemetary but what about the mopeds speeding through our parks???
The ultimate issue is here is that Brent is not taking the green space away from dog walkers, but from the whole community. What Brent wants to do is to convert POC into a full cemetery (now only 1% is used for new burials). The council tried to chop all the trees last year but was stopped, now they are trying to get rid of dog walkers so to have less witnesses to what they want to do. it is a despicable behaviour from a a labour council that is supposed to fight for a better air etc. Especially when we consider that POC is in Kilburn, which has virtually no green areas.
Dogs are omnivores. At least get the facts straight. The attempt to blame dogs for deforestation, etc. is just ludicrous. It should not even be in the conversation considering the endless demand for meat in countries like US and China.
The fact that you are even asking “safer for whom?” shows that you do not live near POC. If you did, you would have realised the completely out of control drug dealing and taking problem that Kilburn has and that Brent does absolutely nothing about. We have people smoking crack or god knows what in broad daylight on our street multiple times a week (presumably that can’t be good for the ozone layer?). Drug dealers do not even attempt to hide what they are doing anymore (idling their cars for ours nightly is also not great for the ozone layer and the air pollution). Brent just handed them a 24-acre space to do whatever they want in. Drug dealing and taking is also subject to the PSPO but of course Brent can’t be bothered to enforce that, dogs off lead at POC is the real issue for people in the area. You would rather POC be covered in needles and human waste (because our street already are)? Your long-winded, idealistic response is very hard to take seriously when we live with streets covered in litter, broken glass, gas canisters and drug users constantly looking for houses to break into and things to steal, and our only SAFE haven is POC. So what’s your solution, should we just get rid of our dogs? The way you are talking about dogs like they are just things that pollute is deeply offensive. Our dogs are our family, and for some it is the only family they have.
The person who made this appalling decision is a unelected civil servant who made it right before he retired, clearly seeing that the public view was against it but he didn’t care. And no, he did not care for the environment (and neither does Brent), it’s all about money. Brent’s most likely plan is to build more mounds at POC to allow for more burials, and yes that would 100% involve cutting down a lot of trees and destroying the existing ecosystem. They couldn’t do it whilst dog walkers were the most frequent daily visitors. The mound that they built in 2010s contained asbestos, which they had to spend £300k to treat (not great for the environment, is it?).
Mo Butt did not see an issue with someone on the verge of retirement making a decision affecting hundreds of people and animals that goes against the results of the consultation. Shambolic and very poor management - income generation over everything. You think you cannot be any more disappointed by how badly Brent is run and then they go and prove you wrong. Disgrace. Brent has just created a small army of very committed people who will work very hard not only overturn this decision but also vote them out next year.
RE: Anonymous14 March 2025 at 16:43
Dear Editor,
The above response to my letter was not just deflection and misinformation but a deeply troubling display of environmental denialism, pet exceptionalism, and outright stigmatisation of vulnerable people. The fact that some are more outraged about dogs being asked to wear leads than about systemic environmental destruction and social injustice is a perfect example of the entitlement that has led us into climate collapse in the first place.
Let’s be clear. The pet industry IS an ecological disaster. Claiming that dogs are "omnivores" does nothing to change the fact that they are fed billions of pounds of meat every year, fuelling deforestation, water shortages, and biodiversity loss. Entire ecosystems are being destroyed to produce the food, accessories, and medical products demanded by a growing culture of pet ownership that refuses to acknowledge its impact. The idea that we should exclude this from the conversation simply because other sources of meat consumption exist is the same weak logic used by oil companies… point the finger elsewhere and hope no one questions your own footprint.
But what is even more DISTURBING DISAPOINTING AND DISGUSTING is the blatant demonisation of people with addictions and those experiencing homelessness. the idea that off lead dogs were somehow “protecting” Paddington Old Cemetery from drug users is a deeply harmful, classist, and stigmatising argument. People struggling with addiction are not a threat to be policed by dog owners, nor are they a problem to be pushed elsewhere for the comfort of a select few. Addiction is a health issue, and the fact that some would rather rage against Brent Council than advocate for proper social services, housing, and rehabilitation speaks volumes about their priorities.
The claim that “safety” is at risk because dogs must now be on leads ignores the reality that marginalised groups, including women, LGBTQ+ people, and racialised communities, are often the first to be excluded from spaces when the loudest voices in the room dictate who belongs. And here is the truth… uncontrolled dogs in public spaces are an accessibility issue. Many people, including those with disabilities, phobias, or religious considerations, cannot comfortably share public space with off lead animals. The idea that dogs have a greater right to these spaces than human beings is peak privilege.
And no, no one is calling for people to “get rid of” their dogs. What we are calling for is accountability. Just as we have had to reckon with the impact of cars, plastic waste, and industrial farming, it is time to address the uncomfortable reality that pet ownership, in its current form, is not sustainable. If we truly care about nature, public health, and justice, we must move past self interest and recognise that our way of life… including our relationship with animals… has to change.
Sincerely,
GASP (Green Alliance for Sustainable Parks)
Climate Advocate
PS you say “dogs are our family” - to avert climate catastrophe all our families need to get smaller.
Wow, I bet you’re fun at parties (to the GASP contributor).
Anon 16:43, in LAWS (Labour Animal Welfare Society) we have had real talks in the animal rights wing of Labour about the need to start phasing out dog ownership. Not in some mad overnight ban way, but like Starmer’s smoking plan - gradual, fair, and giving people time to adjust.
The idea is simple. Each year, the minimum age for getting a new dog goes up by one year. So if it starts in 2026, no one under 15 could get a new dog. In 2027, no one under 16. The year after, 17, and so on. If you already have a dog, you keep it. But over time, we move away from this idea that every household needs to own a pet dog,
This isn’t even some new radical idea. Plenty of cultures have understood for centuries that keeping dogs in the home is not the way. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “Whoever keeps a dog, a qirat (a portion) of his reward is reduced every day, except for a dog used for farming or herding.” Even back then, people recognised that dogs are not just neutral little companions - they come with real consequences.
We have to stop pretending having dogs is normal. Like how people used to smoke indoors without a second thought, and now we look back and think, “What were we doing?” - same thing here. This is about giving the next generation a chance to live differently.
Replying to GASP: it’s interesting that you mention women and people with disabilities. DOPOC carried out a observational study interviewing all visitors to POC on 5th November 2024 and what we found was that many visitors to POC were women walking or exercising on their own (171 women on their own out of 353 people in total who visited that day). They told us that the presence of dog walkers made them feel safe and that this isn’t the case in many other local green spaces. And several people visiting with dogs (both male and female) told us that they take their dog to POC because it has toilets and they have medical conditions that means they need frequent access to a loo. We share your desire for Brent to provide better support for homeless people and those addicted to drugs. We don’t understand why they’re spending their time and money banning dogs off-leash in POC instead of dealing with the crime and destitution in the borough.
RE: Anonymous14 March 2025 at 21:49
Dear Editor,
DOPOC’s response via Anon is exactly the kind of entitled, self-serving nonsense that keeps real progress from happening. They are not fighting for public safety, disability rights, or social justice. They are fighting for their personal convenience, no matter the cost to the planet or to those who do not benefit from their dog-centred worldview.
Let’s break it down. Women feel safer in POC because of dog walkers? That is not an argument for unchecked pet ownership, it is an admission that Brent has failed to make public spaces safe. If someone said they only feel safe because there are always SUVs parked nearby, would that mean we should flood the streets with more cars? No. It means we need better street lighting, patrols, and investment in proper community safety. But instead of holding Brent accountable, DOPOC’s solution is to maintain a system where people are forced to rely on dog owners to feel safe. That is not safety… that is gatekeeping public space.
Then there’s the toilet argument. If people with medical conditions need reliable access to public toilets, that should be a right, not something they have to justify through dog ownership. Why are DOPOC not demanding Brent install more toilets for everyone? Why should a person with Crohn’s or incontinence have to own a pet just to feel like they can exist in a park without worry? Again, they are twisting a systemic issue into an excuse to keep prioritising their own interests.
… and let’s talk about their so-called concern for crime and destitution. If they genuinely cared about those issues, they would be campaigning for real solutions like housing, addiction support, community policing… not pretending that the answer is to let their dogs run off-lead in a cemetery. It is laughable that they think banning dogs from doing whatever they want is the real crisis in Brent.
the truth is, DOPOC’s entire argument is built on privilege and refusal to adapt. Society changes. We used to smoke indoors. We used to throw litter out of car windows. We used to let dogs roam the streets with no regulation. Now we know better. The future is one where we phase out unnecessary pet ownership, invest in real public safety, and create green spaces that work for everyone… not just those who feel entitled to control them.
Sincerely,
GASP (Green Alliance for Sustainable Parks)
Climate Advocates
Don't agree with Brent Council wanting to convert POC into a full cemetery but what are they supposed to do when the population in Brent is growing massively (due to all the huge housing developments) and people are still insisting on burials rather than cremations?
Re: Anonymous14 March 2025 at 15.38
I am part of the community and you do not speak for me, Brent is not taking green space away from me. You say the ultimate issue is about Brent and green spaces. Wrong. The ultimate issue is that most grave owners and visitors do not want dogs in this cemetery. I don't care about air quality, I just want to visit my family grave in peace for the time I have left. If Brent wants to convert POC into a full cemetery, I would support that, it is supposed to be a cemetery. I am a grave owner and I visit 3 or 4 times a week at the moment as I am getting older. Please do not tell me that most grave owners prefer to have dogs in the cemetery, I can tell you that most do not. I have a dog myself, I have nothing against dogs, but they should not be in a cemetery. And if you are really worried about the environment, you should tell the cars and vans that arrive with dogs to stop coming to the cemetery.
Where else will people get burried if not a cemetery?
Eventually there'll be no choice but to have cremations instead of burials, or better still turn people's remains into trees
Cemeteries are for the dead, not for dogs
Perhaps we should prioritise the living over the dead???
Post a Comment