Rockets

Surely a very simple: "how much does the council receive from the organisers of the Gala festival for payment for use of Peckham Rye" would smoke out a response. The "commercial sensitivity" could be because the council are giving it away or it could be because Gala don't want others to know how much they are paying - it is really tough to make money from any type of festival these days and Wide Awake in Brockwell, for example, sent out a plea for people to buy tickets via a reduced price "Tell a Friend" special offer because (they said much of it linked to the problems Lambeth were having with the High Court) things were entering "squeaky bum time" and they were struggling to hit their break-even point. It does make me wonder whether expansion is baked-in to the agreements the council has with the organisers for events like Gala as the organisers have to be able to scale the size of the event each year to try to make money. I do also how much of the "revenue" from these events might be swallowed up by the provision of the "free community" event element of them. The comment piece in the Guardian sums it up quite nicely: The heart of this issue seems to be how cash-strapped councils are becoming increasingly beholden to commercial interests to the detriment of the public. A weekend festival that welcomes 50,000 people can expect to raise about £500,000 for local authorities. Councils argue that this money goes back in the public purse, allowing them to continue funding free community events such as Lambeth’s beloved Country Show, though there doesn’t seem to be much transparency over exactly how much cash is raised or where it is allocated. The issue for councils may well be that if people found out how much was actually being raised by these events that the community would say the disruption is not worth it and I do wonder how much of the revenue is being swallowed up by the provision of the "free event" using the same infrastructure. Any time a council doesn't want to share something openly very much suggests that it is because they think constituents won't like the answer.

I think you have to question to whom it is "commercially sensitive" - the council or the Gala organisers? That rational for not sharing the detail can very easily be construed as a bit of a smokescreen for someone.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/24/music-festivals-parks-brockwell-london-debate

Other local constituents are likely to be less keen on having an increase in noise pollution. Must be a change in wind direction but Brockwell sounds even louder today on the village side of Lordship Lane.

@melbournemarcus are you feeling parking pressure on that part of Melbourne Grove, do you have challenges parking your car and did those problems get worse when the council imposed the other CPZs in the vicinity?

I can assure you I am neither a DJ or toff but have always referred to it as Glasto...do you have an issue with that? In fact I was doing Glasto long before the toffs started going but haven't done it in a while because the last one I went to felt all a bit Coachella (which is by far the worst "festival" I have ever had the pleasure of attending). The point remains that festivals have no place in densely populated urban areas and I do worry that the monetisation of our public spaces means we can expect more and more in future and our councils ignoring the input of local residents and they go chasing the filthy lucre!

But that's the point isn't it Mal, if you go to Glastonbury you are with a hundred thousand other people in the wilds of the country and you cannot complain about noise disruption - you can be selective about where you camp of course. The Glasto organisers and local council go out of their way to keep the locals onside - friends of mine used to live in a village some miles from Worthy Farm and would be offered free tickets. But there are a lot of people in Dulwich and Herne Hill and Brixton who have huge amounts of disruption thrust upon them because this is, after all, a densely populated urban area and not deepest Somerset. Councils want to monetise our public spaces as much as they can but this is often in conflict with the needs and wants of their constituents who live nearby. What is happening in Brockwell is a warning as Southwark will want to try and monetise Peckham Rye to the same extent if they can.

You can hear the Brockwell one really loudly in the Dulwich Park area already - and this is before the volume ramps for the headliners. A friend of ours lives much closer to Brockwell Park and says the noise there is unbearable. It seems like this weekend at least Dulwich is at the epi-centre of battling sound systems - like that awful spot in a festival field where you are getting the reverb from one stage interfering with the sound from the one you are trying to watch!

I think it demonstrates the lengths councils will go to to appease commercial stakeholders and prioritise them over local residents and their own constituents. Councils appear to become very myopic once revenue is involved....

I suspect Lambeth's legal team have decided that it is far better to potentially upset a High Court judge (maybe beg for forgiveness) than face the wrath of the legal teams of event organisers, promoters, service providers who would come after them for a lot of money if the event had to be cancelled. Clearly the original error was on the part of the council so I suspect that would make them liable for any losses/reputation damage incurred due cancellation/disruption.

Mal, it is related to this issue and if you scroll back a few pages you will see that Brockwell was brought up in relation to this (not by me I hasten to add). Do you not think it seems perfectly reasonable for people to be able to reference a neighbouring event - one that is having a number of challenges not too dissimilar to the ones Gala is having? These sentences from the BrixtonBuzz article I linked seem very pertinent too: The concern, they argue, is not just about permits, but about the Council’s repeated failure to follow proper planning processes and its habit of acting in the interests of commercial promoters rather than the local community. And this: The group is now calling on residents to write to their local MP and councillors, accusing the Council of using legal mechanisms to avoid scrutiny.

This is fascinating about how Lambeth are thought to be getting around the High Court ruling to allow the Brockwell events to proceed.....seems a risky legal strategy if true...and not sure I would want to be the council planning legal person who signs this off..... https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/05/protect-brockwell-park-fires-fresh-warning-as-lambeth-council-doubles-down-on-disputed-festival-plan/ Worth reading the whole piece for context but this section stands out: Despite this, Brockwell Live has submitted a new certificate application — one which they admit still covers more than 28 days, and is therefore not materially different from the version the court already struck down. It looks like instead of going to the Court of Appeal — where they’d surely lose — Brockwell Live is now asking Lambeth Planning to second-guess the High Court and decide whether the judge was right. Despite the clarity of the court’s decision, Lambeth appears to be doubling down, relying on a legal interpretation that’s already been rejected by a judge — and now asking its own planning department to endorse a position the judiciary has ruled unlawful.

...and we will make sure we do this by manipulating consultations so that we empower communities to make the decisions we want........:-)

Which are oh so familiar to the tactics used by Southwark in their consultations. Remember, the judge, although critical of many of the ways Lambeth consulted, said they did not reach the high-water mark required for that element to be considered unlawful. But many suspect that they were starting to get close - now there are other high-court challenges in play elsewhere around the country and this case is landmark not only that it found, on one count, the LTN to be unlawful but it also focuses other challengers' minds on where the Achilles heal of consultations are. Unfortunately for councils, as much as their supporters would like, time does not rewrite history and it doesn't matter if it is 1 or 5 years later - what they did, how they did and who did it will always remain.

@pebs you are absolutely right - this is what so many people are angry about. The problem is there are people locally who refuse to acknowledge the council did anything wrong - ideological apologists - those who will happily turn a blind eye and surround and defend the council because it suits their agenda to do so. Just look at a lot of the posts on this forum - people defending the indefensible. The galling thing is we all know that if it was another political party doing this or an issue they did not wholeheartedly support they would be first out with the accountability pitchforks screaming about injustices. There is irrefutable evidence that the consultations and consultation processes were massively flawed and skewed to give the council the result they do desired. Anyone who suggests otherwise clearly has a vested interest and for those interested in seeing the similarities between the consultation flaws between West Dulwich and Dulwich Village/East Dulwich just scroll to section 100 of the Judge's summary during the High Court case...https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/West-Dulwich-Action-Group-v-London-Borough-of-Lambeth.pdf Council level manipulation of context there @Earl Aelfheah! Congrats 😉

But the definition of a consultation is that they are to engage and garner input from constituents BEFORE a decision is made. You're trying to bend the definitions to suit your agenda and claim that a consultation is a means to validate a council's decision. That's not how it is supposed to work. Look at it this way: Southwark went out of their way to ensure there was no mechanism to say no on consultations that were a series of multiple choice response questions. Why on earth would they do that because surely in a representative democracy they could add it, get a load of "no" responses and say...hey folks this is a representative democracy and we have decided for you? I tell you why they did not add it because they knew they were not going to get a majority in support - so they manipulated the response mechanism to avoid a no response because in any democracy if you get an overwhelming no it's hard to swim against the tide of public opinion. Then they got told off for doing that and in the CPZ consultation got a overwhelming negative feedback - funny how in light of that your claims of a representative democracy did not hold any weight and they had to do a u-turn. You can't pick and choose when a representative democracy is in play or not. Southwark manipulated the consultation/s process. Simple as. I love how you have defaulted to the 5 year narrative again....time does not heal all wounds....it took up to 25 years for the Post Office scandal to come to light given the efforts of so many to suppress the story. One day someone will be held accountable for the wilful manipulation of the process; West Dulwich have exposed much of the Lambeth shenanigans and the next High Court cases will be fascinating... if not only to confirm that all of the usual suspect councils were up to the same tricks. You rail against the "One" groups but imagine if there was an almost identical pattern of behaviour amongst Labour run councils - we have already seen striking similarities between Lambeth and Southwark - one wonders if you will be so keen to call them out for their "shadowy cabal" behaviour.....perhaps only time will tell.

Ha ha....we're not...we are fighting our battles as these are areas in which we live. No-one is suggesting the East or West Dulwich LTNs will be scrapped but councils have to be held accountable for their actions and more and more people are realising the underhand and manipulative tactics they have been using to force change onto their constituents. And if you are really worried about Reform I am sure you will be imploring councils not to behave in ways which alienate the electorate from main-stream political parties - for parties like Reform are getting momentum because people are tired of the way mainstream political parties are treating the public - it's the very definition of populism and we should all be terrified that the mainstream parties seem incapable of countering it and, in fact, the Tories seem to be keen to jump on the bandwagon. In two weeks, Lambeth council has lost two High Court battles against members of their own constituencies - that speaks volumes and if that isn't ringing alarm bells for some then it might be time for a rethink.

@exdulwicher sorry I think you are manipulating what the point of a consultation is - which is (per the LGA): Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set. What Southwark have been doing by not offering a mechanism to say no is to say: you're getting pizza, what flavour do you want. The council have made the decision BEFORE the consultation - that's not in the spirit of consultations at all and the LGA guidance is clear that councils have to listen to people BEFORE decisions are made. But they did not did they? Think back to the CPZs. No options just what time do you want them to run and then they were forced to run it again with a yes/no response mechanism and lo and behold what happened.... The continued defence of the council by some is laughable and the way folks are trying to twist and distort what actually happened is quite shocking.

Ha ha, of course.....representative democracy is all about forcing people how to answer....honestly, you could not make it up....

Who have repeatedly used consultation mechanisms where you cannot say "no" to their plans.....long live democracy hey!!!! 😉 #makesyouthink

@first mate you're absolutely right because there was zero mention of anything to do with LTNs in any materials distributed by Labour in the run-up to the election - they seemed to be very focused of ensuring that votes were garnered not on local issues but national issues. They were leaning in very heavily on the a vote of us is a vote against the Tories. And when I read people trying to lean-in on the "it's been in for years, move on" narrative I do laugh to myself because that always seems to be the message of people who know there is something to hide...... Yes but you do realise don't you that the consistent accusation against Labour councillors in both Lambeth and Southwark (in relation to Brockwell Park and LTNs etc) is that constituents were left with legal recourse as the only path open to them as the council refused to engage with them - is that co-incidence or, as was presented to the High Court, was there an amount of prejudice applied to those who challenged the councils? I mean there's a huge amount of prejudice on here to anyone who dares challenge the council's way of thinking but if the council are doing it as well that is hardly democratic is it?

Under democratic powers for people to have the right to challenge the powers that be. You, clearly, think that is a bad thing. That's your prerogative but this notion that somehow once elected a council or government can do whatever they want and the public/electorate/constituents have no democratic recourse is beyond nonsensical. Just think of all of the scandals that governments would have been happy to sweep under the carpet but people kept fighting to expose their wrong-doings. It's called accountability. Some clearly want none if it involves a subject/action they are passionate about - that's fine. Some others aren't happy turning a blind eye.

But they were not given a mandate to manipulate process and you can't use it as a free pass. The catch-all of "we have/they have a mandate" is often used by politicians, councils and councillors to cover a multitude of sins and lest we not remind ourselves they, very deliberately, did not dare mention LTNs or any of these plans in their election hustings or materials..... And I would disagree with you - people hold councils to account during a term. You may be happy to turn a blind eye but be thankful someone is looking out for standing up for parts of the electorate. If some on here had their way there would be no opposition at all and the council would be given free reign to do what they want.

I think this is your hope. I very much suspect that actually the problem you have with OneDulwich is that they are holding the council, and those pulling the council's strings, to account and shining a light on the manipulation that has been in play for some time. There are clearly a group of supporters of the council who hate the fact there is any opposition to these measures and are going out of their way to try and demonise anyone who dares challenge them. And then they claim to have the democratic moral high-ground - it's actually laughable but very reflective of the way some people behave nowadays, happy to scream about supposed shadowy funding sources but no actual argument to the points OneDulwich raise. Clearly OneDulwich is doing a brilliant job. Let's be honest, if there were no groups like OneDulwich or the West Dulwich Group then none of this would have ever come to light and the council/s would have got away with. It seems some people would be happy if that were the case - I am glad I am on the right side of the democratic process in this case.

I think the point you're missing is that our local authorities are happy to siphon off the amenities we pay for for commercial gain at the cost of local residents. Both Peckham Rye (and Brockwell Park more so) become partly unusable because of said events and it seems both are ignoring the input of locals who have to live with the disruption/post event damage. And it is not clear where any revenue generated from these events is going to or if they are actually generating any revenue for the council at all. As someone who uses Brockwell Park a lot I can tell you the disruption to that park was awful last year so much of it is closed off. And as Fishboy points out you lament the old free festivals but these are supposed to be being funded by this type of event - but where are they? Dulwich Park festival was massively curtailed this year so how come it's fine for the council to roll over for commercial festivals but community run events are suffering? Do the councils not have their priorities a bit mixed up? Anyway, I have always hated inner-city "festivals". Give me a proper in the wilds of the countryside miles from anywhere festival any day of the week....