Jump to content

Gala setting up on Peckham Rye

beansprout
 Share

Recommended Posts

Spartacus

Spartacus

Posted
Posted

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

DuncanW

Posted
Posted

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.

first mate

first mate

Posted
Posted

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

DuncanW

Posted
Posted

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,

first mate

first mate

Posted
Posted

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

JohnL

Posted
Posted

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 :)

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Angelina
      Pride in place

      By Angelina · Posted

      when high streets are filled with betting shops, pound shops, empty sites and just run down - as is the case in many places - of course people don't want to go there - either for essentials or to hang out or shop-shop. a multi-fronted approach is exactly what is needed - upgrade the areas, encourage footfall, encourage new shops etc - BUT that has to be supported by consumers - who need to stop being lazy with amazon and home deliveries and make better choices.    
    • the_hermit
      give me your views on conveyancers and solicitors

      By the_hermit · Posted

      If the other side and/or you use a cheap conveyancer who doesn't understand any actual law, you will often end up being told to buy various unnecessary legal indemnity policies (because the conveyancer is too scared to offer an opinion) which will end up costing you more.
    • bubbachumps
      Ear piercing for 10 year old

      By bubbachumps · Posted

      Yes there seems to be a piercing studio in John Lewis on Oxford St that looks good, Tish Lyons, thank you
    • Spartacus
      Pride in place

      By Spartacus · Posted

      There was mention yesterday, which may have slipped by some, that the Goverment is about to launch a "pride in place" £5 billion investment into city and town centres to boost high streets, parks and public spaces. I can see two flaws with this. Firstly it's a sticking plaster over a problem that the government doesn't seem to want to tackle. The decline of town centres is largely down to the impact caused by large players including the Internet giants, (non bricks and morter), who seem not to be paying the appropriate amount of taxes or even bypassing them by sending small value items into the UK. Until the playing field is leveled to give high streets an equal chance, consumers will naturally go for the best price. This would also increase the tax revenue the Chancellor has to play with and keep money in the local economy . Second issue I see is that when we are all staring down the barrel of a potential £30 billion tax hike in the budget, is this the right time to be announcing even more spending. Feels that maybe waiting till the economy is tracking better would be prudent.  Of course the argument could be, improving the town centre realm , improves consumer confidence to shop locally, but unless the first point is fixed it could be a case of throwing bad money after good.   BBC News - Which areas are due to get share of £5bn funding boost? - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx8vr2gr1o  

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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