Gala setting up on Peckham Rye

[Spartacus]

DuncanW Wrote:

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

>

> I completely agree that trying to hold a street

> party in one of the very near-by roads would not

> be the best idea while the festival is on. Luckily

> we have a four-day bank holiday weekend, and GALA

> only runs for three days.

Street parties where road closures are required have to be planned months in advance with the council and emergency services (to ensure they know the road is closed) so the idea of being able to move it at short notice to another non gala day is frankly insane thinking.

[DuncanW]

first mate Wrote:

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

> I have quoted one of a number of online articles,

> and do not know their source for the 'recovery'

> aspect.

>

> This year, when the event organiser requested an

> in perpetuity licence for, I think, up to 4 events

> a year, Cllr Hamvas objected. I have looked but

> cannot find what the new licence covers. Do you

> know for sure that what they wanted was turned

> down?

Have you? All of the quotes you used are on the Friends of Peckham Rye website - http://www.peckhamryepark.org/news

They don't quote any source or evidence for this claim either.

The application was amended withdrawing the 'in perpetuity' aspect + some other amendments to reflect concerns that had been raised. The Licensing Authority then withdrew their representations against. TBF I don't think this info is on Southwark's website yet, but it was communicated by email to parties who have expressed interest.

[ruffers]

Do we know how much Gala pay the council to hold this event?

[first mate]

So that website would have been the source for various articles, I am not involved with FPR but imagine they have the best interests of the park at heart.

It would be good to know that those amendments and withdrawals have definitely been made how did you find out about them?

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I have quoted one of a number of online

> articles,

> > and do not know their source for the 'recovery'

> > aspect.

> >

> > This year, when the event organiser requested

> an

> > in perpetuity licence for, I think, up to 4

> events

> > a year, Cllr Hamvas objected. I have looked but

> > cannot find what the new licence covers. Do you

> > know for sure that what they wanted was turned

> > down?

>

>

> Have you? All of the quotes you used are on the

> Friends of Peckham Rye website -

> http://www.peckhamryepark.org/news

> They don't quote any source or evidence for this

> claim either.

>

>

> The application was amended withdrawing the 'in

> perpetuity' aspect + some other amendments to

> reflect concerns that had been raised. The

> Licensing Authority then withdrew their

> representations against. TBF I don't think this

> info is on Southwark's website yet, but it was

> communicated by email to parties who have

> expressed interest.

[DuncanW]

I'm sure they have, but that means different things to different people I guess.

The info was sent to me in an email as I had expressed interest.

If you want to DM me your email address I can forward it on. Understand if you don't want to and would rather wait,

[JohnL]

In Perpetuity is actually a long time.

Like my Sky contract is 18months and that seems long.

[jazzer]

Perpetuity - meaning, the state or quality of lasting forever.

[first mate]

Thank DuncanW.

JohnL, legalalien kindly explained that it was likely this was not wholly sinister, in that the request was so the company did not have to go through the rigamarole of applying for a licence each year. That said, I think there is more control and accountability if they have to, which it seems they now will, if DuncanW is correct in what he has heard.

[JohnL]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Thank DuncanW.

>

> JohnL, legalalien kindly explained that it was

> likely this was not wholly sinister, in that the

> request was so the company did not have to go

> through the rigamarole of applying for a licence

> each year. That said, I think there is more

> control and accountability if they have to, which

> it seems they now will, if DuncanW is correct in

> what he has heard.

Fair enough - I guess a legal term and not meaning until the world ends :)