first mate

Thankfully, in all my years of cycling I have never had a near miss or collision with a pedestrian. I have had two near misses with a car and a lorry but the most near misses have been with other cyclists, when they were cycling recklessly and at speed.

Malumbu wrote: "Myself and all the cyclists I know would be horrified to have a collision with a pedestrian, even if every near miss and the one collision I have had, is due to the pedestrian not looking" I cannot believe this was not meant as some kind of provocative joke? How many near misses with pedestrians have you had then?

Recent revelations about the Dulwich Society sub committee Chair's background also suggest possible manipulation of stakeholder input into dialogue and consultation with the council on changes to that junction.

Doing a quick search suggests that festivals may well be taking money away from other music venues. Outdoor festivals have created a different expectation of what is on offer and people would rather save to attend those than drip feed smaller or indoor venues. Whether access to parkland should be sacrificed to prop up an ailing nighttime club scene is moot but as a starting point for event justification it is the thin end of the wedge. In a city where there is so much noise and stimulation overall, the option to access quieter and calmer areas of green and nature should be heavily protected for the benefit of all. There is new research on just how vital for physical and mental health these green spaces are. If a three day event could be mounted without taking sections of the park out of use for weeks in summer and without the need for extensive remedial work to repair damage, that would be best.

And the Brockwell Park model is exactly what Southwark Council have in mind , if they can get away with it. As to the observation that festival- goers also like to have an event in 'pretty' surroundings; I am sure they do, why wouldn't they. It also arguably makes that event even more saleable/profitable. But the inherent contradiction that the event they attend then removes degrees of prettiness for others, not only during the event but for weeks afterwards, cannot be denied either.

A number of us are puzzled that the event is not held on the common, this is where events are usually mounted, leaving the more ornamental section of the park free. Again, the objection is not so much to the three day event itself but to the fact that for the sake of three days a large section of the park is taken out of use for weeks, in high summer. There is also significant damage to that section of the park, seriously limiting its use for months. If music venues are closing in London I wonder if this is because they are having to compete with myriad park festivals, of which there has been an explosion.

Does not sound as though that sub committee could by any stretch be described as apolitical. The overall impression is that a subcommittee has been harnessed as a useful stakeholder tool in helping to drive through a council agenda.

Other posters are entitled to their views and there will inevitably be opposing views, that is the beauty of the forum. The issue for many of us is that year on year we would prefer that a large and popular section of the park is not taken out of use for weeks on end, does not have to undergo significant remedial work each time or undergo unnecessary tree lopping to accommodate event structures, and does not have its ornamental aspect impacted at the height of summer, when all of us would like to enjoy it. If the impact of the event was literally only for three days, that would be different. As it is, we are talking weeks and months. There is also the question of long-term impact on substructure and wildlife, who knows... Many thanks to Peckham Rose for raising matters with the event organisers and Southwark Council events.

Sorry, I have to check, you don't mean quad bikes, motorbikes and cyclists are going into Dulwich/Sydenham Woods? I must have the wrong end of the stick...I hope.

This thread should not be in roads and traffic then.

Jazzer, is that link the right one? Edited to say you have to click in the first post in X to see all the other comments. A lot of very upset residents. I hope Southwark Council, Southwark Events and Cllr Catherine Rose, Cabinet Member in charge of parks and who has supported the Gala event come what may, have a good look at all of this and a rethink.

Thanks Peckham Rose for reminding us that Southwark Events Team are just as responsible as Gala for the damage to the park. I was not aware that Cllr Hamvas was Chair of Licensing. Isn't the Rye in her constituency? Surely, despite her role, she could object to the state the park has been left in. In fact, how can any of our local councillors ignore it?

It is something that has been raised in meetings with Gala organisers and it is claimed that the Common is not a large enough site. At least that was reported by someone who had attended one of the recent meetings with Gala, where issues were raised. If this rings a bell with any of our more informed posters, maybe they can remind us of the detail. I think the person either posted on this forum or it was raised in a recorded meeting with Gala, that I listened to. Sorry, cannot recall exactly. A further reason given, historically, is that there are not enough trees to act as sound buffers on the Common- I can imagine that is true. Have Friends of Peckham Rye commented yet? What about Cllr Renata Hamvas?

Have you visited the site or are you going by photos? The damage is bad with many areas of missing turf, not even replaced and will probably have to be overseeded. The ground is also more uneven, marred by heavy vehicle treads. In other parts the soil has been churned up and there are holes. For anyone who is a regular visitor to the park, the ornamental aspect of this area has been ruined. In summers past, people would picnic throughout this area, you couldn't do that now. The grass will grow back but unlikely to be restored until autumn and by then the summer is gone and the whole cycle begins again.

Just a few weeks ago the whole area was green and a joy, now it looks a wreck. As others have said, by all means have a party but don't leave the place in this state afterwards as it spoils it for others. The idea that it is just fine to subject the same area of land to this treatment summer after summer is crazy and hard to fathom.

I went to have a look and words fail. The park has literally been wrecked, and with the full backing of our Council.

Yes, but it is not great for those who might want to enjoy a free picnic in the park after the events have finished, with all the grass churned up and reduced to stretches of mud. That is if we are lucky enough to get any sunny days in the coming weeks.

That does not look great. Guess we'll have to wait for the barriers to come down and clean-up over before taking stock.

Okay, rather than say Council I should have said Cllr Catherine Rose - Cabinet member in charge of parks- at a Southwark Council Scrutiny session- these can be viewed online. I do not keep notes so cannot give date and timecode, but that is my source. But even if you do not accept that, I hope you agree the wider principle stands, that if we support council use of the parks as a venue for hire to raise funds, what level of accountability should be in place, what degrees of damage to the park environment are acceptable and for how long should significant parts of the park be removed from general community access, to achieve that aim?

Take a closer look, those branches are larger than one & a half inches diameter. There is a wider point here that I think a number of us are concerned about. Once we start saying it's fine to lop tree branches to accommodate metal barriers for a private event, what might be next? You may think it is ridiculous but I think this behaviour indicates we are dealing with the thin edge of the wedge and the council and event management have to be held accountable and be clear about protecting the park.

Go back to the very first post on this thread.

Point taken, all I am saying is that the demographic need cited by the council as a reason to mount the event seems different from the demographic actually attending. This is not a criticism of either demographic but of the council rationale for the event. Like Penguin I can accept a very well run three day event but the aim is to extend this event and that is the problem, plus damage to the park environment to facilitate the event.

One of the big supporting points Cllr Catherine Rose made was that the borough desperately needed events for its young people to attend and enjoy. This is a load of baloney. I sat and watched hordes of 20-30 somethings arriving, all white, seemingly young professionals, mostly heading in from PR overground. I get that the event is enjoyable for London's young white professional demographic but it is a want and privilege, not a 'need'. There must be literally thousands of fantastic indoor music venues, there for the taking. Leaving the park free for those wishing to enjoy nature and/or the outdoors.

Malumbu, please do not derail this thread. The environmental impact of large scale events on Peckham Rye is a serious issue. Dulwich Dweller, that is another really useful bit of information, from an informed perspective. I agree with Angelina on reporting every single instance of antisocial behaviour. Fishboy, in regard to the tree lopping, has anyone managed to establish how this was allowed and whether it was a council arborist? Have Friends of Peckham Rye got involved?

Thanks Dulwich Dweller for that article which sums up concerns a number of us have. I found the reference to tree felling in Brockwell Park really worrying. That park has been changed into a an events venue for hire throughout the summer. Southwark want to do the same with Peckham Rye. We must not let them.