Blah Blah

It looks like a tap for the gas lighting that used to be found in those homes. The little tap would regulate the flow of gas to give a brighter or dimmer lamp. It's probably not part of any gas feed now and you can check that for yourself by following the gas pipework from your meter (which should only run to the kitchen to supply a boiler and cooker). Next time you have your boiler serviced, ask the engineer to have a look for you.

Sure. He is ideological driven on many things. He was the person that defended the blanket CPZ policy because he believed that 'if you asked most people in southwark if all parking should be paid for, most would say yes'. A completely unfounded belief not backed by any evidence. In the real world, that policy caused significant local electoral damage for some councillors. I personally see his disillusion with the Labour Party as one of his idealism vs the reality of governance. He will probably be much happier with the Greens.

The problem with the first Southwark leadership election is that two proxy votes were cast, which is against Southwark's own party rules. So that is why the election was re-run. The controversy is in switching to an online as opposed to in person second election. James has causes he vehemently stands for, and it's fair enough if he thinks the local Labour Party is no longer for him. Government is not easy, and there are hard decisions to be made always. London councils have always had a better deal when it comes to central funding, and anyone who travels to the North frequently can see the stark difference. It's that failure to see the bigger picture that I find most surprising about his comments. Sure, as a local councillor he should be always arguing for local needs, but reform of central government funding to give more help to poorer regions has been a long held aim by this Labour Party, and especially since Brexit, where poorer regions benefitting from EU grants lost out. As always, it will be the public that decides at the ballot box.

Plus it is pure hypocrisy from the council, who pontificate about cleaner, greener, spaces, but then throw that out of the window for a bit of cash from a disruptive event. I will raise this with them. I will point out to them that whether their event takes place or not is of as little consequence too 😉 Because they are public servants paid for by our taxes. It's the whole reason FOI exists. We have a right to know certain things.

While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say. For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.

I went and will post a summary in morning. It was a farce. But the good that came out of it was the start of a physical petition and I will get started on a strategy group for an orgnised opposition to the extention. So watch this space and if anyone is interested in being part of that strategy group, please DM me.

100% agree and eloquently put. Trump's lawsuit will go nowhere. He can't sue in the UK as he is out of time and the bbc would have a case to countersue given all the times he has lied about the BBC. A court in Florida will have no jurisdiction in the UK and he would still have to prove malice and reputational damage. Well he won the elction so there's no argument on damage there. The program was not broadcast in the US, so very few if any people saw it. His entire speech is readily available to view elsewhere anyway. And on reputation, does he really want all the facts dragged out as you have listed them above? In what world does Trump thinks that leaves him with a good reputation that someone else could damage? It will go nowhere, like so many of his other lawsuits and court actions. The BBC should hold firm. A more curious question though is why the Telegraph waited until now to do their predictable mischief? Agreed. To downplay the state murder of a journalist, in an embassy on foreign soil of all places, because he was 'not liked' by a lot of people, is just ludicrous and offensive. Compare that to his narrative around the murder of Charlie Kirk, who was also not liked by a lot of people. Trump is playing his guest as always, but it shows just how morally spineless he really is.

Trying to get to the bottom of the confusion. The events team email, the council website and the letter we all got through the door, says the consultations are this evening. I went along yesterday because it looks as though word of mouth had sent some people there on the wrong day (myself included). So not an error by the council on the date, but definitely a problem in letting people register their interest in attending. Hopefully that clears things up.

That explains why no-one was there when I went yesterday. Something else to complain about this evening then, and given that at least one adjacent ward is having their Labour Party branch AGM this evening (the one Renata Hamvas belongs to), may well be raised in passing conversation there😉 .

Yes, that compromise is in not extending the event to two weekends, and keeping it to the one currently. Yes, I am getting that too, but just go anyway. I intend to. I will talk to FOPR, and see if there is any interest for a petition from those going to the consultation tm. We just need some volunteers to get together and do the leg work. I've done political party canvassing before, and so can organise a ward by ward schedule. I think it's fair to say that any goodwill some of us had towards working with Gala has gone with this proposed expansion. They are not the same people that started the event with We Are the Fair. At least one of those people actually lived next to the park. The people running things now have no connection to the park or local area and quite frankly are taking the p*** now. Might be worth officially demanding to know where the money the council gets from the festival is actually spent as well.

Seeking eye contact is a good way of making sure you are seen yes, especially when that car is coming out of a side road and looking the other way. I always slow down until the driver looks my way. When I did my driving lessons and test many years ago, I was taught to always leave plenty of room when overtaking a cyclist and then to look in my kerbside mirror to make sure I had overtaken them safely. Have always done that since.

I've been cycling in London for decades. The two times a vehicle knocked me off my bicycle, were in conditions that were well lit (one was daylight) and the night time one was just me and the vehicle on the road. Both the driver's fault. The point it that most drivers are perfectly capable of seeing a bicycle in most conditions, just as they are capable of seeing a child or dog run out in front of them. Who knows why a small percentage are incapable of doing that, but gaslighting the victim is not the answer. Are there wreckless cyclists? Sure. Just as there are reckless drivers and pedestrians. But it's worth remembering that millions of roads users navigate their journeys perfectly safely every day. As a driver, you are taught to check your mirrors regularly (not just when considering an manoevre), and the first rule of the Highway Code, is to always avoid an accident if you can. My attitude when using the roads it to always expect someone to do something stupid/ wreckless. I look for it. That is the best way of avoiding any accident, no matter what form of transport you use.

The other thing is that the money the council makes from the festival is not spent in the local area, whereas money made from events in other parks are. Renata Hamvas would have to approve any change to the premises licence before the events team can consider a license for the proposal in the current form. There needs to be an organised local pushback this time, to at least stop that second weekend being granted. I am thinking along the lines of a door to door petition. There are local elections next May. Lot's of opportunity to make this an election issue for impacted wards around the park. Just need to be orgaised.

I absolutely will. Fed up of property developments that are funded from offshore investors and price out local people. Fed up of the demise of social rents and the growing crisis of families in bed and breakfast. Fed up of young people being unable to save deposits, start families and generally have the same security of tenure that previous generations had. So yes, I will drill down into the financing, affordability, where the properties aer being advertised for sale, and how many are genuinely for social rent. Otherwise, no opposition to redeveloping that site in that way.

There is now reseach emerging into the impact of festivals on nesting birds and I will be collating that for the consultations this time round. That research is showing that walls of suddenly imposed sound can send birds away never to return to their nests. Some species are affected more than others. Starlings are particularly sensitive.

Shared living amenities come with shared service charges and there is no ceiling to anual increases in those. Expect many of the properties will be sold off plan to investors that never live there. Just more additions to rental properties that very few locals can afford to live in. Questions to be asked at their drop in sessions.

The plans look interesting but once agan, we have developers offering just the bare minimum on social rents. 222 units, but no mention of how many are for social rent. From the floor plans, I counted just 21.

And who are the homes for exactly?

Every year they ask for more and every year it is an exhausting process pushing back on that for local residents and councillors. What annoys me is that at the post event consultation/ feedback this year, I specifically asked them if the rumours around applying for two weekends next year were true. They told me no. So that was a lie. Anyway, we go again.

Licensing application for 2026 has gone in and they want to extend the event from 4 to 7 days accross two weekends. There are some proposed significant changes to be aware of: Event proposal moves to two separate weekends Number of days of the festival moves from 4 to 7 meaning also a change in the original licence is required Expected footfall in the park over the two weekends around 60,000. Dear Peckham Rye Park Stakeholder, Re: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – event application: ‘GALA and On The Rye Festival 2026’ – ref: SWKEVE000935 We are writing to you because you have previously identified yourself as someone who wishes to be informed about event applications for Peckham Rye Park, or we think that you might have an interest in knowing about this particular event application. Please be aware that the council are in receipt of an event application for: GALA and On The Rye Festival 2026’ In line with the council’s Outdoor Events Policy and events application process we are carrying out consultation regarding this application. The following reference documents are attached to this email: Consultation information APPENDIX A – site plan weekend 1 APPENDIX B – site plan weekend 2 APPENDIX C – Production Schedule APPENDIX D – 2025 Noise Management Plan The consultation is open from Tuesday 4 November and will close at midnight on Tuesday 2 December 2025 Community engagement sessions will take place on Wednesday 19 November. If you would like to comment on application: SWKEVE000935 and take part in the online consultation, please visit: www.southwark.gov.uk/GALA2026 If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Kind Regards, Southwark Events Team Environment and Leisure PO Box 64529 London SE1P 5LX 020 7525 3639 @SouthwarkEvents APPENDIX A - SITE PLAN weekend 1.pdf APPENDIX B - SITE PLAN weekend 2.pdf APPENDIX C - PRODUCTION SCHEDULE.pdf And just to add that councillor Renata Hamvas chairs the licensing committee. Worth contacting her with views on ammendments to the original license. I am fairly sure she won't grant any amendments, but just in case.....

No need to wait until next year. They always run a post event feedback meeting. And yes, they were using some new contractors this year because the previous ones were not good enough by their own admission.

This is where I sit too. A two day event is bearable. Three tests my tolerance. Finding the right balance on size, noise and impact is where I contribute to the consultation process. BUT, as I wrote elsewhere, every year the GALA organisers ask/ push for more, and deals have already been done with the council before it gets to public consultation stage. It is also worth pointing out that when a licence was first granted, the orgnaisation was different (We Are the Fair), one of the company directors lived literally next to the park (she left when it became GALA) and the current form bears no resemblance to original ethos/ vision sold to the council and licensing committee. This needs to be pointed out and I am fairly confident local councillors would also support a pushback on any further expansion. We have local elections next year, so councillors ears will be open.

There is no question that the events team makes exceptions to the promoted ethos of Southwark Council on green and ecological standards. This is part of the frustration when challenging the decision to allow an event of this kind in that part of the park. It's hypocrisy, and it's entirely commercially led. Other events have always been held on the common, be that the circus, fun fairs, even the two day Irish festival (back in the day). None of those events have ever caused anything like the level of disurbance or damage to the park and common. Local councillors will tell you that every year, the GALA organisers demand more and more and every year they have to be opposed by those same local councillors. It's exhausting. The consultaions are nothing to do with questioning of the event itself, but are designed to make tweaks and allay fears, because the deal is already done with the council events team by the time things get to that. It's so disrespectful to the idea of consultation and what that should mean.

There is emerging research that nesting birds are impacted by festival noise, especially starlings. Some species rely on acoustic signals that are disrupted by the kind of noise a four day festival produces Why is this research emerging? Because the number of these types of events in urban settings is increasing, and it takes time to do the research and observations required. Evolution is a slow porcess taking thousands of years in most cases. Nesting birds don't evolve to these sudden events, they leave. If there are chicks already hatched, that's a problem. If they don't come back to nest, that alters the local ecology. It matters. This is something I have been looking into and will finally have some case studies to make both the council and event organisaers aware of moving forward. As you say, birds don't know that a huge wall of sound is about to hit them for four days. It disrupts the acoustic fequencies they rely on.

They never disclose that, citing 'commercial confidentiality'. On nesting birds. This has been brought up several times at consultations, asking if the event can change to another time of the year that avoids the nesting season. As you can see, no-one is listening.