first mate

I wonder if there is a compromise in that all those attending wear headphones with a special code so they can bluetooth with a central device that streams the music to them, so residents do not have to hear it? there are 'silent' club events I believe. It would not mitigate the weeks of build and deconstruction but is there a case to be made that if you want the privilege of attending this event outside and 'nestled' in the park then the compromise is to have it on phones. This way you show you care for the nesting birds and the environment.

Now come on Earl, you know full well that until people were literally forced out of their cars by the council closing off roads, many were always popping out just a minute down the road to get a latte. This was a regular line used by some on here;) There used to be quite of lot of parking in DV, actually.

Indeed and I am sure many will go for the music, which I also like. But, for me, at least, none of that makes up for or justifies the wider impact on the park, on the flora and fauna, on the parks' regular users, and on those living near by that are distressed by the noise- the next three days will not be Lover's Rock. In terms of overall impact, we are also talking weeks and months, with the aftermath always problematic with the main area so damaged it has to be reseeded each year and is rendered unusable the rest of summer. My biggest fear is that they will start to grow and add to this event, each year.

I agree Peckham Rose and this extra freebie day does not make up for the event's disruption and imposition onto more and more of the park. Now they have significantly enlarged the footprint of the event space it really dominates and changes the character of the park. I personally do not mind the music aspect, but do not live right beside it so very easy for me to say and agree that in every way this event should be moved to a suitable site, which this small London Park is not. The amount of barriers they have installed is just crazy and the signage expressing sudden concern about nesting birds cravenly hypocritical considering the barrage of sound, low bass and light pollution they will be exposing them to.

Yes it is devious and it feels not dissimilar to Maga shenanigans over the pond, putting a bill through in the middle of the night. The weather forecast does not look great for Gala- light rain forecast. Hoping the forecast is accurate and rainfall is not heavier ( thinking about the impact at Brockwell, last year).

That's a shame. Will the tapas bar be part of a chain? It does seem to contradict the idea that the imposition of the Sq would increase visitors to shops and 'create' a much needed, new, social hub in the area (council's rationale, not mine). As for West Dulwich LTN, it will be interesting to see next steps, all round.

No, nothing as yet. I very much hope I am wrong but my expectation is for the council to announce they have 'listened' and 'considered' but decided that all the area should be fully CPZ. This decision will be based on 'greening' the environment and 'fairness'.

Problem is, you and others keep arguing Labour was mandated to make these changes. Yet, in the manifesto, under one of the leading sections called "Our guarantee to you", they state: " Labour will put residents at the heart of everything we do. We will empower communities to shape the places they live in and make decisions about issues which affect their lives. We will work with you to design the services we provide..." Given this was a manifesto pledge, a guarantee, I think to argue that 'technically' they can do as they have, so that's okay then. They have not followed through on a manifesto pledge, but instead used process to achieve an agenda they kept under wraps, until they knew they could get away with it.

I had thought school traffic, as in cars, were contributors to traffic congestion and parking issues?

I hate to think that some on here may view the electorate as toddlers but suspect it may be true.

I checked the last Southwark Labour manifesto. No mention of borough-wide CPZ or new LTNs, nothing at all. But they bang on and on about how they will work with communities, placing residents at 'the heart' of decisions that affect their lives, working with them to effect and design any changes to their local area. It sounds great and so credible, except they have not done any of it. Instead, they have repeatedly ignored resident opinion on major changes that will impact them. Had they run on headlines about imposing more LTNs and plans for a borough-wide CPZ, that would be different, but they did not flag these major changes and hugely expensive plans at all, instead they made consultative and participatory governance a central plank of their manifesto. They were not transparent and they have not been honest.

@ Earl, who said "By the way, I think you massively overestimate how many people want to see the square ripped out and returned to a queue of idling cars. I suspect the majority of locals would be extremely upset were it ever to happen. Just because there are a number of very loud objectors does not mean they are the majority" But, whatever you 'suspect' people may think is just your view, it is not evidenced in any way whatsoever. The consultation indicates a great deal of local dissatisfaction with events leading up to, if not the end result. You reject the results one way or another, but they are real voices, unlike the other voices you 'suspect' are all in favour ( which, according to the consultation, are in the minority).

I really do not believe there is evidence to support the notion that everyone that voted Southwark Labour were doing so because they supported a local LTN and CPZ, to suggest that is misleading, especially when the subject of LTN' and CPZ' were avoided in the manifesto headlines and key messages. In the same way, any of us voting Southwark Labour in were not greenlighting what they are doing with GALA and Peckham Rye.

So, the majority of those consulted on the various local CPZ' and LTN' are all actually One Dulwich 'assets'? Why can't the pro lobby just accept that many locals are simply fed up with the endless meddling and profligacy with no mandate. Council actions are also contradictory. No point trumpeting your green credentials by closing off and digging up roads to plant trees, if at the same time you are selling off and destroying the local parks, moving in massive HGV,s heavy duty equipment, impacting the health and wellbeing of local residents for weeks and even months on end.

This is the point, this is an increasingly large scale event in the wrong location.

I loved those Horniman events. But the musicians turned up, people listened, they had a good time and then went home, it was a short-lived event. The difference with Gala is the level of disruption for weeks beforehand and after; it is not about the music but everything else. I hate seeing a huge section of park barricaded off, turned into a giant building site, with large vehicles and fencing everywhere, and security standing or sitting at all the entrances- it feels weird and it affects the vibe of the park.

Thanks Taper, we can assume this was a mistake, thank goodness.

I had a quick look and no revelations, just the same old lines.

Well they still have to plant up the rain drains, so perhaps the notice will be done at the same time. I just hope the garden drains do not become large 'bins'. The seating nearby was strewn with and surrounded by various discarded food takeout packaging, when I passed the other day.

Went to check it again today and it had disappeared...which suggests it was put up mistakenly, thank goodness.

Has anyone else noticed a small notice, midway on the green, metal barricade, that is flagging another event in September? It seems to be another event organiser has been granted a licence to operate in the same area of the park? Does anyone know more? If Cllr Hamvas is around, perhaps she could shed some light on this and any other plans for further commercial exploitation of our precious park, by this council.

I suppose car clubs operate outside of London but it sounds like it requires quite a lot of forward planning. Not sure how helpful if you need to make a last minute journey out of London and are unclear when you will travel back.

Not sure. Perhaps it is part of a new trend towards making the delineation between pedestrian and space for other usage much more ambiguous. Outside M&S, is is footpath, cycle scooter storage or a drop off/loading zone...perhaps all three, on a kinda first come first served basis. Over at Dulwich Sq, is it for pedestrians, for cyclists, or to increase covers for the local cafes?

Well if you add in the bit that says, 'taking over the new, multimillion pound expanded space considered vital for pedestrians to be able to move around safely:) A lovely free gift for the cafe owners though and, I guess, pedestrians can just walk on the cycleway. I wonder if something similar will happen in Melbourne Grove? Will we see recently expanded pavements, deemed essential to ensure the safety of hordes of ambulating commuters, suddenly re-purposed by the local wine bars and cafes.

Earl said re Dulwich Sq "At some point Rocks, you are going to have to accept that Dulwich now has a nice pedestrian area where the used to be a line of traffic. It's literally been years since the layout was changed. It's actually a nice space, you should go and have a sit there and enjoy the sun." Actually, having walked through Duwlich Sq just now, people are sitting at tables provided by the cafes, eating and drinking wine. However, the 'pedestrian' area from the route past Gilkes Crescent is all but blocked by those sitting out eating and drinking- the cycleway is of course free. I wonder if Southwark have given over pedestrian space to be used in this way to bring the local business' onside?