first mate

I understand that we may never find out what Gala pocket out of this event, but I do not get how Southwark are able to keep their cut under wraps, if that is the case? I may have that wrong. The 'commercially sensitive' bit only applies if we know what percentage of overall Gala profits Southwark gets? I do not see how knowing the actual amount Southwark gets can be classified as sensitive? Southwark is not a private company. The point is the park requires investment and we are told some of this money will be used for that. There are parts of the park badly in need of work. The toilets next to the park office are an absolute disgrace and apart from extreme dilapidation are also filthy, for anyone disabled or elderly, this is an aspect that needs fixing, immediately. They also need to be cleaned daily. At a time of a large scale event like Gala, I do think the council should have a few parkies on patrol. I did not see one at any point, did anyone? Gala look after their own interests with security all around the event perimeter but the rest of the park is open to abuse. On Saturday afternoon a group of young males were congregated beside the Sexby garden, consuming bottles of Vodka, an empty bottle discarded on the grass. They or others had also left discarded food wrappers and strips of blue paper towel lying around. Of course, youngsters will always do this sort of thing but it also needs a few grownups to supervise. Elsewhere there were smashed glass bottles. Come to think of it, I hardly ever see a parkie. Perhaps profits from Gala can be used to fund one?

Really? It sure sounds like you are and presumably you said you would like it imposed when you participated in the Melbourne Grove South consultation exercise?

Oh well, that's okay then. You seem to infer that Southwark Labour may view parks as just more land to be developed/monetised and aim to treat park habitat as no different at all to the average bit of street up for redevelopment. Sits very oddly with alleged concern for the environment but it does kinda ring true.

2 miles from Peckham Rye to Forest Hill. The thing is, I doubt your response will be ignored. If it were to be, they would only allow those living within or adjacent to the proposed CPZ roads to respond. As it is, anyone can join in, but of course you know that anyway, LCC are always exhorting their people to get in on all and any local traffic consultations, whether they are local to the area or not, because, I guess, they think they know better.

Interesting, you think the bird populations in Peckham Park have evolved in the space of 6 years to cope with the noise of full blown, bass heavy, urban music, literally a few feet from where they are nesting? It will be great when the barricades are all down and the park can get back to normal. The hope is that the grass has not been so badly damaged this year and that the area can be used again immediately, for the rest of summer.

I am not affected by the noise but sympathise with those who are; it can be deeply distressing, residents should not have to leave their homes for four days in order to cope. I am even more concerned about the impact on the nesting birds directly adjacent to and feet away from the heart of the event and its speakers, bearing the full brunt of that bass. The very same nesting birds that prompted Gala to put up barriers with notices bossily directing park users and dog walkers to be aware of nesting birds...the irony clearly lost on them. My wider concern is of event creep, both in terms of the event footprint encroaching on more and more park and being in situ for more weeks and months in the park.

Malumbu said: "Big picture stuff. I'm not getting involved directly with Melbourne Grove beyond using it to cycle to TJ surgery". So can we keep on thread and the issue of this specific CPZ. Not all locals are in favour, not by a long shot. The original North Melbourne Grove CPZ was imposed because a few of those living close to the train station complained they could not park outside their homes, because of commuters. I would hazard a guess that complaints about inability to park outside or close by one's home are the driver with a few behind this latest Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation. Many of us have long accepted that we should not expect to park outside of our house or even on the same street, but we have always been able to park. But, you, who live miles away yet told us on here you had entered into the consultation, so presumably you feel you know better too.

There is no mandate for these measures. The council was not voted in on an agenda to create lots of CPZ and LTN because neither were mentioned. Should add, I am as local as Marcus and do not support this latest attempt to CPZ East Dulwich- which is what will happen if this is pushed through- though given the Council's past form on CPZ, I am not holding my breath.

It is a fact that the festival has been expanded once, both in size and timescale. Attending the free day will be spun as support for not only this but even further expansion and embolden Southwark to launch more events and we could end up like Brockwell.

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 have no issue with the music but with the event structure that accommodates it. But, I think you know that.

Predictable!

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.