fishboy

A quick update - my InPost parcels are being accepted sporadically at Barry's, but only one at a time and every few days, after many refusals - one was refused SEVEN times over about ten days - and several phone calls. As a comparison, I had a message from Yodel that a parcel that was going to Barry's is being delivered to another nearby store, which is interesting...

The "Community Benefits" are documented on P12-16 of the Consultation Document. Basically unsubstantiated estimates that it benefits local businesses, claims that it provides "opportunities" for local food traders, businesses & people (the term "opportunities" being meaningless - I have opportunities to win the lottery) without any details, facts or figures, and discounted tickets for local residents (which unsurprisingly seldom sell out). The only direct financial benefit to the Park is a £1000 "Biodiversity Fund" and an undisclosed amount for an "Environmental Impact Fee" - looking at how it was spent this year (flower beds in the playground & Sexby garden) I suspect it would be a similarly small figure. The actual site hire fee - claimed as "commercially sensitive" and therefore undisclosed - is spent on: • Funding the council’s free events programme and Cultural Celebrations Fund • Subsidised fees for community events in the borough • Off-setting the running costs of the Events service, which supports the delivery of the free community events programme Again, no details given, just vague concepts - can anyone name any of these free & subsidised community events? Or what the "Cultural Celebrations Fund" is or does? It doesn't really sound like any of it is worth the disturbance, restrictions, noise, litter, environmental damage and negative impact on wildlife in our Park.

Ok, latest news! Went into Barry's yesterday, spoke to a staff member (possibly manager) who seemed knowledgeable, he said that they DO refuse parcels from InPost / Yodel because they haven't got the space for the ~300 parcels the van turns up with! So the tracking info IS correct when it shows refused. He said he would call me when the van arrived so I could quickly go there and try to get my parcels. He didn't, but I did get a notification at 4.34pm that ONE of my parcels had arrived (the oldest one). When I went to collect it, that staff member wasn't there, and the others just shrugged their shoulders when I asked why they hadn't called me, and why the other parcels hasn't been accepted. I then had a notification for another delivered parcel at 8.39pm. I've just been to collect it, but it's not there, and not on their system as being delivered. More shrugging of shoulders. I've just called InPost (tbf, at least they have a phone service and staff that are semi helpful) who confirmed that the parcel had been refused again, put the notification down to a mis-update, and that delivery will be attempted again today. Interestingly, they also said that the shop could only refuse TWICE, after which they MUST take delivery, but this doesn't seem to mean much in practice. What's not clear is whether, without me calling InPost, these refused parcels would be returned to the sender after X attempts. I've requested that mine are attempted until they are delivered, and apparently InPost have requested that mine are definitely accepted on the next attempt. We'll see later today. But the main thing for me is that I seem to have gained clarity, that stores ARE refusing deliveries due to space restrictions (especially with the increased number of parcels at this time of year), and it would appear that most of the lockers are also full, so probably also causing refusals. I'll be paying the small extra premium for home delivery from now on...

I called InPost when I saw the first parcel had been refused twice, they said it was because the shop didn't have capacity / space. I went to the shop and they basically said that was BS, that they had plenty of space and showed me the parcels from that day's InPost delivery - they even went through all the parcels to see if mine was there. I called them again a couple of days later after the tracking showed the first parcel had been refused twice more, and two others had also been refused. They said they'd investigate and would send me an email (nope) and to contact Vinted. I called them again today after further refusals, again they said they'd investigate and for me to contact Vinted - they seemed to intimate that they could only do something if Vinted contacted them, despite me trying to explain that it is impossible to contact anyone at Vinted, let alone get them to chase up parcels. Tbh I don't believe the tracking updates are based on actual events, it stinks of lost parcels that they just don't want to admit to, so just keep pretending they're trying to deliver them and update the tracking info. I can't think of any other reason this would happen. Although very odd if it is this, as all the parcels were sent from different places and at different times.

Over the last week or so I've had the tracking info on a succession of Vinted / InPost parcels show "Parcel was refused" at Barry's Food Store. InPost initially said it was an issue with the store, but I visited the store and they said there was no issue, and they had received InPost parcels that day - I'll also highlight that I've never had a problem with picking up parcels there, which is why I always use them. I've contacted InPost three times now as I have four parcels which are apparently making a daily trip from a depot in Dartford and then back again after another "refusal". They just say they'll contact the depot, raise an investigation, etc etc etc and that I have to contact Vinted to get them to chase it up, which is basically impossible because Vinted have zero customer service. Just wondering if I'm the only one with this issue, or is it a wider problem?

I'm presuming you're not a regular visitor to the park, if you need to read a report rather than just know what wildlife is in the park. All those trees to the East of the site, which is the direction most of the stages blast towards, have many nesting / resident birds in May. I've seen Woodpeckers and hear owls regularly. Did you also read the 'bat' survey for the 2025 event, which confirmed many species of foraging bats in the area which WOULD be affected by loud noise & bright lights? And I'm guessing it's no coincidence that I haven't seen a Stag beetle for several years now, which I used to see regularly around May / June in the SW corner of the park. Plenty of biodiversity, all of which is clearly disturbed massively by this event, in what is a PUBLIC park. I'd be very interested to know where it says that the park was "designed" for massive festivals? And it's not "1-2 weekends" , it's just shy of four weeks that the site is unavailable to the public, plus many months of reinstatement that effectively turn it into a (re) construction site throughout the summer, just when the younger generations i.e. children would like to enjoy it...

My understanding is that the "Community engagement sessions" aren't technically part of the consultation per se, and are not a necessity. They are basically PR / tick box exercises held by Gala to give the impression that they have 'reached out' to the local community, rather than a required action by the council - hence why there was (I presume?) no council representation on them. And as Gala don't like awkward questions, confrontation or home truths, of course they won't make it easy for people to attend...! The 'consultation' is the online recording of local residents views / objections by the council (which is a required action), so that they too can tick a box and then grant a licence anyway, irrespective of those overwhelming objections (as they've done for the past two years). The bit I can't understand is how a valid consultation can be carried out when the details of the event are unknown. Even whether the first Sunday is going to be a "concert" or a "festival" is "TBC"! How can anyone be expected to make informed comments on something they have no information on? @Blah BlahIf I can help with some kind of action I will, but tbh after spending a lot of time and effort over the last few years battling Gala & the council events team just for them carry on regardless, I am slightly out of motivation...

A letter, you say - we haven't had one of those (again...). Has anyone seen any blue notices on the park railings? Or an advert in a 'local paper'? All things that Gala are supposed to be doing as part of their application, according to the consultation document. And will there be any penalties if they don't? 😖 Is there any update from those who attended either the online or physical PR tick box events? Such ridiculous times and location, why not hybrid & local?

A reminder that this is the post-festival litter I collected a week or so after the Council had signed off Gala's litter picking activity and reopened the park to the public. For clarity this was a result of just wandering around the stage, tent & toilet areas in the south of the site for about an hour. Not difficult to see, far from a focused, professional 'pick', and not comprehensive - there will have been loads more spread over the rest of the site, which is probably still there now. Apart from being unpleasant, there's a safety aspect here - kids & dogs picking up bits of glitter balls, shards of plastic cups, baggies containing white powder?? I collected a similar amount the previous year. I contacted Charlie Simm (Events Team) for her reaction (cc'd Renata Hamvas & Victoria Mills, Peckham Rye councillors) and received no response. When VM thankfully followed up as to all why the litter picking wasn't satisfactory, and what actions were planned to remedy this, CS just escalated it as an official complaint. This complaint was dismissed a few months later with the comment that, apart from the cable ties, there was no proof that the litter had come from the festival. RH has remained silent throughout all my correspondence. I've considered doing a comprehensive litter survey before & after the event to categorically guage the impact of the festival, using metre squares and approved methodology, maybe even inviting relevant students as a project, but I feel whatever the results, they would just be ignored by the council - completely pointless.

It struck me last year that any dialogue with Gala themselves e.g. at the box-ticking "Community Engagement Sessions" is completely pointless, as they are just a business trying to do whatever is necessary to hold their event; the park is just a venue to them, a necessary facility, and they'll say anything to secure it. They don't care about it's welfare or upkeep, over and above making sure there's no complaints big enough to prevent them using it again. I've found that discussing issues with them has just led to them using that info to counteract that issue - effectively helping them strengthen their position. What I find frustrating is that the council, despite being the body that decides on this, and should be representing local residents, takes no active part in any discussions or presentations, so there's no way to engage with them apart from an online consultation which is clearly also a box ticking exercise, bearing in mind for the last two years the overwhelming majority (97% of respondents) objected to the event. Why are Gala running the community meetings? Why do Gala run the issue hotline? If the council really care about the park and the surrounding community, and still allow this type of event, they should be way more hands on with taking responsibility for it's running, not just handing it all over to a profit making company. Sorry, probably tldr but so sad about the repeated negative impact on our (once beautiful & peaceful) park and just exasperated that there's so little that can be done to halt it. This is just the start, it WILL turn into another Brockwell Park, and Gala & the council just don't care.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/26/cardiff-blackweir-festival-bute-park-dispute?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Another example of a badly sited festival, and a council bending over for the cash. What amazes me is the similarity in every way to Gala - large areas annexed but the council trying to convince everyone it's only a tiny part of the park. Claiming that the flora & fauna is being protected when the reality is a tick-box environmental survey that's not worth the paper it's written on. All very depressing.

Splat

Stamp

I think there's the usual number this year -15-20 - screeching around high & low, zooming between the houses and generally being awesome. The back gardens between Colyton, Dovedale, Mundania & Shelbury always seem to have a colony in the summer - no idea where their nests are though. There's also what appears to be a solitary bat that zooms back & forth along the front gardens of Colyton, unless it is several but you never see two at once!

* Big, sick & tired sigh * Ok, so here is this year's small selection of Gala litter that has been left behind. I have to emphasise, it is only a small part of what is still there, collected on Tuesday from a relatively small area in the south of the ex-site. I also have to emphasise this only took about an hour of slow wandering, using only my eyes & hands - no specialist equipment, and I'm not a paid employee of a specialist waste management company. And to confirm, this is after "The site was checked at the end of GALA’s tenancy and found to be clear of event-related litter" by the Council / Parks Dept. There's 488 items there, many of which would be potentially hazardous to children, pets & wildlife. Not least the small bag in the bottom left corner, still containing a suspicious white substance. I'm hoping to pass this on to the police for testing, ensuring it is recorded for the purposes of next year's licence consideration. Please - before anyone posts any comments defending this, denying it is festival related, insulting me, whatever - just go and have a close look yourself, particularly where the tents, stages & toilets were sited. It's obviously from the festival, and there's still loads of it there, all over our park. It is literally being trashed, year after year, despite repeated assurances from the organisers. I'm sick of it, it's just so depressing.

These statements were in the Consultation Findings report published (later than promised) just before the licence was granted: "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the delivery of the council’s Events service, which supports the delivery of up to 100 free-to-attend community events per year – please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" I've drafted an email to request some more details of these "free-to-attend" events, as "up to" is a fairly meaningless description - could be 100, could be none? - and therefore doesn't help anyone to decide whether it is actually a benefit to the community or not. Even if it is 100, I'm not sure I could name even one of them? "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the provision of a grants fund – the Cultural Celebrations programme - please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" A similarly meaningless statement in terms of gauging whether, or how much, this is a benefit to the local community. What is it, what does it do, how much of the fee goes to it? And how can the fee go "directly" to two different things? Surely, "directly" means without deviation, straight to, without being changed or reduced?? Again, I'll be asking all these questions to the events dept. I find it outrageous & insulting that a public body can try to justify such an intrusive & disruptive event with such flimsy and opaque "benefits", with zero figures or details to quantify them. They may as well not bother with a consultation, just say "Look, we can't be arsed to justify our decision, it's happening so just deal with it".

Paste

Sorry for dragging this back on topic, but earlier I had a discussion with Luca the site manager who was also singing the praises of the 'new' waste management team. He invited me on to the ground to the east of the 'parkrun start' path to check out how well they'd done. Within 20 paces I'd picked up (and given to him) 2 cellophane filter tip wrappers, 3 fag butts, a 2" screw, assorted scraps of plastic wrappers....! He awkwardly then said they were still onsite, and sent 1 guy out to litter pick. He also made the statement that it's "an impossible task". I will be over there tomorrow to find, collect and document all the remaining litter, to assist with next year's consultation. I think it's important to pass on that type of information?

They are. We are back to the same construction racket 8am-8pm every day for the whole of this week. The wall is one of the last things to come down, probably on Saturday. Then we can see how much of a mess they've made, especially the quantity of non-biodegradeable litter trampled into the earth. GALA 2025 - Production Schedule.pdf

I fully support this petition, however it will need to be shared far & wide to be effective. Also there is always a huge amount of interest / objection during the festival, but not so much when they start consulting for the next one, usually around January. It's crucial that everyone that has been impacted makes their voice heard then. A couple of points which may be good to include in the wording (if it is still possible to amend?) - The total tickets sold are way more than 3000. The licence allows a capacity of up to 9,999, but this may include staff & performers etc. The published attendance for 2024 was: Friday – 8,999 / Saturday – 9,512 / Sunday – 9,422 So that's c.28,000 people trampling & littering our park over three days - people who have no need or desire to take any care or consideration of our park. - Gala claim for 2024 that "62% of all ticket holders were from Southeast London and 18% of these were from hyper-local postcode areas SE15 and SE22." So a bit of maths shows that means that around 89% of attendees were not what most people would term 'local'... - Gala have ambitions / plans to extend the number of event days to 6, over two weekends. They applied for a licence for this in 2024, but then withdrew it. Instead they added a "free" event, billed as a community day, to the existing 3 day festival, thereby increasing the event days to 4. This would appear to be an attempt to set a precedent for increasing the number of event days, and it's inevitable that they will attempt to secure the 6 days they desire for 2026, to increase their profits further. Two weekends in a row of noise, disturbance & disruption would be unacceptable, plus another c.28,000 trampling & littering the park - so 56,000 in total!!! - The site size has been increased. The claim is that it is to compensate for lost storage space due to recent flood alleviation works, but the area has increased by more than the area lost, and appears to have been used for attendee activity rather than site storage. Gala have often stated that the festival can only be located in the park because the footprint has been designed specifically for that area, and yet this year the footprint had been amended & extended without any apparent issues. Surely this proves that it could be relocated? Apologies, I just can't help going into rant mode on this issue, but hopefully some of the above may be helpful in increasing the argument presented by the petition?

If you're finding Stag Beetles then please be really cautious if you have any piles of dead wood, as the larvae live & feed in them for around 7 years before emerging as beetles. Hence why they are endangered, as many people get rid of this kind of stuff when clearing overgrown gardens & land. We regularly used to see them walking across the path in the park near Colyton Road, but not a single one since that area was cleared & mulched by the park staff a few years back...

My understanding is the "free event" is 100% Gala, nothing to do with the council. Obviously Gala will still make money from the food & drink that they are trying to coerce punters into buying on their social media posts. Their costs will be negligible due to already having the infrastructure in place for Gala. So Gala are trying to appear community minded by providing this "free event" - which surely no one could possibly object to?!? - but the real goal is clearly to set a precedent for a fourth day's festival in preparation for applying (again) for two three-day festivals spread over two weekends. It's only another two days, right, and the site & equipment is already there, so why would anyone object?!? More money for the council, much more money for Gala, win-win right? But yet another week of our park taken away from us, too, and another 18,000 people trampling & littering the park, and another week of disturbance for the native birds & wildlife...

Tease

There are many negative aspects to the Gala festival, those that I am most concerned about include the residual litter & damage to the park and the impact on wildlife. The latter is supposedly absolved by the "Wildlife Survey" which is carried of each year, but has a sadly limited scope purely to tick a box, rather than actually investigate the effects to wildlife in the park as a whole. The survey document is available on the council website, but this summary from it is a good indication of the level of consideration Gala really have: "The 2025 pre-show nesting bird survey found no evidence of active bird nests within the designated event footprint, and therefore no additional mitigation is required within the working area." This clearly shows that all they are bothered about is whether there are nests onsite, which would prevent them from their construction activities, nothing more. The impact of 24/7 lighting, flashing lights, construction noise, loud music on wildlife outside of the site is of zero interest to them. Here's a map from the survey, showing nests onsite, and possible nests outside the site, and yet it makes no difference to their activities. Crack on, nothing onsite, don't care about anything else? PS I've just noticed that this map references the site footprint from 2022, yet is from the latest 2025 survey. And this is supposed to be a survey from a professional body?? PPS I've just noticed a bat survey on the council website by the same company, which states: "To minimise potential disturbances to local bat populations during the festival, it is recommended to limit artificial lighting and reduce noise levels starting at least 20 minutes before sunset throughout the event period in May 2025." So which part of this did Gala adhere to?!?

I think we're probably closest - about 50m from one of the tents - and to be honest it's not that bad. The bass is making the windows vibrate but it's not 'noisy' I've always said the loud music is the least of the issues to me. It's the construction for two weeks before / one week after, the imposing steel wall, the trodden in non-decomposing litter (fag butts, cable ties, vapes, bottle tops, ring pulls) which will cover the entire site forever, the compaction & damage to the grass which takes months to recover, the impact on birds, bats & wildlife of 24/7 lights, the anti social behaviour of so many attendees (p***ing on the streets and in the bushes) and this year the blatant extending of the site footprint, despite previously giving the reason they can't move it is because it's been designed for that location. And hopefully everyone can see this for what it really is - an attempt to win over the local community and set a precedent for four festival days, so that they have a stronger argument when they put in an application for six days again next year. Southwark state that the money from Gala goes directly to supporting their Events dept, who support "up to 100 free events every year". So what are these free events, and why do we need another?