Would you fill in this pond?

Davesnave

LannieDuck wrote: »

(I have young kids and have just moved house - anywhere with a pond / swimming pool / river at the bottom of the garden didn't even get looked at.)

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

It's now a nice neutral garden that should aid the sale.

However, I'd just like to note that I grew up in a house with a garden pond (as did several of my friends in the same street of late 70s new-builds) and think it's a shame if parents now view them as some sort of guaranteed death trap. I loved feeding the fish and looking out for tadpoles, frogs and dragonflies and wondering how pondskaters managed it. My mum can't swim, but brought us up to respect water.

Couldn't agree more.

Posts like the one above prove what a powerful negative reaction ponds can produce, hence the sense of doing something like the OP has done.

There has been a well-meaning trend towards 'protecting' children, which is good in one sense, but quite likely self-defeating.

The chances are that many of today's youngsters will get into bother in the future through failing to assess danger correctly, or perhaps because they have stayed indoors and exercised so little that parts of their bodies, like the heart, don't develop to full potential.

When I think back to my 50s childhood, I can see there were many instances when I was placed unnecessarily in danger, so things were certainly not perfect then either.

At some time, we hit a better balance, which might well have been in the 70s/80s (appalling regulation of children's homes excepted!)

DRP

Davesnave wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

Posts like the one above prove what a powerful negative reaction ponds can produce, hence the sense of doing something like the OP has done.

There has been a well-meaning trend towards 'protecting' children, which is good in one sense, but quite likely self-defeating.

The chances are that many of today's youngsters will get into bother in the future through failing to assess danger correctly, or perhaps because they have stayed indoors and exercised so little that parts of their bodies, like the heart, don't develop to full potential.

When I think back to my 50s childhood, I can see there were many instances when I was placed unnecessarily in danger, so things were certainly not perfect then either.

At some time, we hit the a better balance, which might well have been in the 70s/80s (appalling regulation of children's homes excepted!)

I'm not sure where I'd place the 'sweet spot' where the balance between over-protection and freedom resides as the gains have been so impressive...
Deaths due to unintentional injuries, birth - 14 years England and Wales 1979-2011

DaftyDuck

Speaking as someone working on the edge of medical statistics, a problem withh that graph - one of many - is it ignores the benefits gained by the approximately 12,000,000 children who don't die from unintentional injuries - which will include health benefits that may (almost certainly do) dwarf that death rate, even in the same age group.

That's easy for childless-me to say, of course.

Mind you, adults can have problems with ponds. My surveyor fell in the overgrown one here, when I was buying it. At least he saw the funny side, and stated it was "knee deep"

Davesnave

DRP wrote: »

I'm not sure where I'd place the 'sweet spot' where the balance between over-protection and freedom resides as the gains have been so impressive...
Deaths due to unintentional injuries, birth - 14 years England and Wales 1979-2011

The graph only tells one side of the story, though, as it records data that's relatively easy to measure.

What won't be so quickly quantifiable, is stuff like how much heart disease and obesity in the future is attributable to the sedentary lives of many children today, or how many people drowned because they were not taught swimming at school, etc.because that's another thing which has suffered in recent times.

I'm not suggesting that elf n'safety is a bad thing, just that wrapping kids in cotton wool may be counter-productive.

DRP

DaftyDuck wrote: »

Speaking as someone working on the edge of medical statistics, a problem withh that graph - one of many - is it ignores the benefits gained by the approximately 12,000,000 children who don't die from unintentional injuries - which will include health benefits that may (almost certainly do) dwarf that death rate, even in the same age group.

That's easy for childless-me to say, of course.

Mind you, adults can have problems with ponds. My surveyor fell in the overgrown one here, when I was buying it. At least he saw the funny side, and stated it was "knee deep"

I guess the importance of reducing deaths by accidents, is that they are so 'easy' to reduce, versus disease.

Anatidaephobia

Davesnave wrote: »

Posts like the one above prove what a powerful negative reaction ponds can produce, hence the sense of doing something like the OP has done.

There has been a well-meaning trend towards 'protecting' children, which is good in one sense, but quite likely self-defeating.

I don't have children but the OP's pond would've massively put me off buying that house too. My reasons would be different from some of the other posters in this thread but my reaction (and the end result) would be ultimately the same.

That's not to say that there's anything wrong with a pond and there are also plenty of people who would be happy to buy a house with a pond, but when selling you have to aim to appeal to as many people as possible - so that rules the pond out, and not just for families with young children.

Kynthia

Wow the garden looks fab! Did you jet wash the paving as it looks so much brighter? Also you've convinced me that painting our shed is worth doing.

Grenage

I think that's just residual plaster just and the vigorous brushing after some mortar raking and repair!