Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm with James Barber on this one. I understand why councils are wanting to offset the Tory Government's austerity drive by reaping money from events on their parks - but London parks should be for all. The disruption of the events - particularly in terms of the closed parts of the parks and the inevitable damage and rubbish (it will be cleaned from the park as part of the contract, but not the surrounding streets) is unlikely to be outweighed by any positive benefits from the local people who use the park regularly.

More free park community events, eg Peckham Rye Festival - but not mass events. As others have pointed out, Hyde Park has the scale and infrastructure to cope, Peckham Rye is a vital green lung for the benefit of the people who live in tightly packed housing around it. Let it breathe, not be cut off by fenced off events - nor full of pissed up festival goers pissing in gardens nearby.


And, noise control guarantees don't work. The bass reverberations from Sunfall at Brockwell could be heard as far as Peckham (for eg). If you've ever tried calling Southwark noise control you will know how completely under-resourced it is to deal with any kind of noise issue, especially in the evenings.

This is not a massive event, it's a very small part of the park and common that will be used, with large areas still open. There is only residential housing on one side of the site, it's not like it's totally surrounded. It's a one weekend event with a short build period. A number of local businesses are involved which is great to see. I fully support these events and can only think they add to the vibrancy and appeal of the area.

The promoters and contractors for the event appear to be up to the job and have some history/substance, and Southwark seem to have identified many of the obvious concerns and addressed them through licensing conditions. I can understand that people who live close by or use the park and the common frequently might still be concerned, and there's definitely going to be some impact, but I can't see any reason for predicting disaster.


I can also understand people whose strong feeling/expression is simply that they don't want this sort of thing in the park at all (I'm looking at you J Barber, opportunist par excellence) but hopefully there is sufficient insight to understand that others disagree with equivalent sincerity, and there's nothing inherently unreasonable about these types of events.


NB - I suspect I'll be going away for the weekend!

Yeah, I saw the impact of the event the Hornimans ran a few years ago, It was not pleasant, be prepared for major disruption and upheaval in the name of fun, when the population of the area will swell by 35% (9000 people)


How will it impact on local bus services, will they continue to run between Peckham Rye and Forest Hill Road?

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is a local councillor report on the event

> which will hopefully reassure of any concerns;

>

> Music festival Peckham Rye Park ? May 27-28

> The festival is planned for Sunday 27th May and

> Monday 28th May. Sunday will be for over 18s only

> and alcohol can be served until 10pm; while Monday

> will be a family friendly folk music event with up

> to 3 children allowed per adult. Alcohol can be

> served until 9.30pm on Monday. Music will cease

> half an hour after the alcohol sales. Maximum

> sound at the nearest properties is expected to

> reach 67 to 73 decibels. An absolute maximum of 75

> decibels has been set, this level must not be

> exceeded at any time at the closest residential

> properties and reading levels will be available to

> the police and Southwark officers. Tickets will be

> sold in advance on-line and residents in the 200

> closest properties will be offered free tickets.

> There will be a maximum of 8000 tickets per day,

> including complimentary ones.

> A time limited license was granted by the

> Licensing Committee last week, 51 conditions were

> agreed between officers and the event organisers,

> ?We are the Fair?, with an additional 8 added by

> the Licensing Committee. The conditions include a

> detailed ingress, egress and dispersal policy

> including a public transport plan which must be

> approved by Licensing, the Environmental

> Protection Team and the Police, at least 6 weeks

> before the event. Southwark Highways and Parking

> also must be consulted and their advice

> implemented for the event to take place. Set entry

> and egress routes will be used to minimise damage

> to the park and the operators will make good any

> damage. A deposit has also been taken. The event

> has moved from Brockwell Park to Peckham Rye Park

> as a much larger event is being held in Brockwell

> Park on the 1-3 June and will be being set up from

> end of May.

>

> The organisers of the event "We are the Fair" have

> won awards for their good practice in the running

> of outdoor events

>

> We have both raised a number of concerns with

> officers and it has been agreed that ?

>

> The cancelled stakeholder meeting is urgently

> rearranged. The cancelled Stakeholder Meeting

> planned for 24 Jan must be urgently rearranged,

> and this meeting must include local residents. And

> in the meantime responses to the queries raised at

> the December stakeholder meeting are circulated.

> These included concerns around damage/damage

> deposit, noise, dispersal, transport etc.

>

> Further queries raised by FoPRP and

> councillors around transport and dispersal, damage

> deposits, parking, investment into the park will

> be responded to as soon as possible.

>

> Both the council and We Are The Fair need to

> engage with local residents, many of whom will

> still be unaware of the festival. This could

> include a letter, meeting, FAQs online etc. This

> will be agreed and finalised at the stakeholder

> meeting.

>

>

> Anecdotally, many residents we have spoken to are

> excited about the prospect of the festival and

> coupled with the requirements that We Are The Fair

> provide work opportunities for local people and

> use local food and drink companies, it could and

> should be a good cultural event for our part of

> the borough. However, if the festival isn?t well

> run, the opportunity to have good events that

> support local cultural and arts groups and the

> local economy will be lost.


There are a couple of points in the text that I would like to raise with the councillor. Could you post which local councillor wrote this so that I may write / speak to them.


Thanks

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ....be prepared for major disruption and upheaval in the

> name of fun


Wow, What a bizarre world view, when did your spirit die? 😳


Well I bought my early bird tickets before Christmas, went last year and can?t wait to go again. I feel proper lucky to have this in my neighbourhood - truly uplifting and beautifully spirited festival and if I could have those tunes playing in my backyard every weekend i?d never leave. You could always move to Swindon where souls go to die.

There is a meeting at the Herne Tavern on Tuesday 20th February at 6:30 or you can contact them on [email protected]. Not sure that they are advertising the meeting too widely as it was not mentioned in a newsletter received today through letter box. But we contacted [email protected] to attend.

Thanks Blah Blah for posting the report that was written by Vikki and I. One thing to add, any funds generated by hosting this event will go towards funding free events in Southwark Parks. All residents living near to the park (including all the Peckham Rye Councillors as we are local residents too!) should have/ are supposed to be receiving a letter from the organisers about the event. The free tickets are only for residents living very,very close to the event and those households will be notified of this by the organisers. There seems to be little detail so far about the Monday event. I plan to attend the meeting on Tuesday (mentioned by Mrs Y above, thanks) and this is one of the things I will be asking about.

I would suggest that if you want to ask questions directly to We Are The Fair, do attend Tuesdays meeting. My email is [email protected] if you want to ask me any questions about the event, or with questions that you would like me to raise on Tuesday.


Thanks

Renata

  • 4 weeks later...

Blah Blah


Please do not send me unsolicited private messages, especially those of a political kind.


Hi there,


We had some discussion about this event at the Labour Party branch meeting. My household is one of those affected as being closest to the site. We have two small children and free tickets are no use to us. We can't take a 7 and 9 year old to an all day music festival for three days.


But as you can see from the report, final plans have not been submitted from the organisers yet on transport, dispersal, damage etc and there is still plenty of opportunity for local people to have a say on those things. Renata and Vikki both also share those concerns. Getting 8000 alcohol fuelled people out of the park at closing time is going to be a challenge I think. We also have concerns about urinating and litter in surrounding streets too. It all depends on the kind of people that go to the event really.


Good luck with the councillors.


Best wishes David.

It was in response to your query Pipsky and all you had to do was respond privately. It is not a political message at all. Publishing a private message in the public forum is poor form and let that be a warning to anyone that ever messages you in the future. Fortunately it contains nothing confidential but I have asked the administrator to remove it.

Another unsolicited post from Blah Blah



It is out of order to pubish a private message in the public forum, which has my name and details about my family in it. There was nothing political about it at all. I was simply sharing my concerns with you privately. You could have replied privately asking me not to message you again. I have asked the admin to remove your post.

I am happy to answer questions about the festivals to the best of my ability. We are meeting with the organisers on Wednesday, so those questions I don't know the answer to now, I may be able to address after that.


The parking, transport, dispersal etc needs to be presented to and satisfy the various council authorities and teams by mid April in order for the events, so I will question them on progress.


I still have no details on the Monday family festival event. I was told on Wednesday that around half of the tickets sold so far for Sunday (Gala) are to local residents (ED, Nunhead, Peckham).

Renata

If all local stations are to be closed over that weekend, do you mean, Peckham Rye, East, North and West Dulwich?? Which others do you believe will be closed??


Can you confirm or find out from Council Officers if Peckham Rye from the junction of Barry Road to the junction of Forest Hill Road will remain open to normal traffic during this event, i.e. 63 and 363 bus routes or will they be curtailed to the Heaton Arms??

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...