Gala Festival extension for 2023 - area of park proposed to be closed from May 16 to June 10

[Lollipop]

There is an application in with Southwark for the Gala festival closure of part of Peckham Rye Park to be extended this summer . This includes the time to build and decommission - the festival itself will be for 6 days - three, then a break, then another three.

A licensing application has been submitted to Southwark Council and there should be blue posters around the park outlining what they have applied for.

Deadline for your views is February 7.

Application reference is SWKEVE000569. Email [email protected] with the title Gala Consultation.

[first mate]

How many weeks will that section of the park be closed off, in total?

Is there a link to the application, it would be interesting to see the detail?

[Spartacus]

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/events-culture-and-heritage/events/major-commercial-events/stakeholder-engagement?chapter=5

Should take you to information on the event.

Personally I'm not convinced that we should have two weekends of disruption in a row or that the Rye should be closed to the general public for so long.

[TreacleRabbit]

I’ve attached the site map here, and schedule to use the site from 16 May to 10 June. That seems like a really long time to fence off that side of the park, including blank days when it’s not used, just waiting for the next weekend.

I don’t mind when it’s one weekend of music, but this use seems extreme.

[first mate]

I think they are testing the waters as they have expressed the desire to license part of the park throughout the summer for other events.

I've said it before, and I know others disagree, but it is a slippery slope to privatisation of a public space. What is wrong with having the odd very limited event but for the most part using the park as it was originally intended- a green, natural space that is the lungs of the area? A Labour Council should not be colluding in moves to privatisation.

[geh]

what's the cost/benefit, it would be useful if Southwark detailed the revenue raised. More useful still if that was directed/ring-fenced within Peckham Rye area, but I realise that's optimistic.

[Nigello]

I’d be less averse if the council told us how much profit was made and where that money would go to.

[first mate]

I don't think how much money they can make out of the park necessarily justifies hiring it out for private use for weeks on end in the summer months.

The Gala Festival business owners do have their sights on having control of a large slice of the park for much of the summer. I would hate for that to happen. We have so little green space in the city, we should treasure it.

Where, on the one hand ,you have a Council producing LTNs and banging on about parklets and creating green spaces, how on earth they can contemplate supporting Gala's moves to get more and more of the park for private hire is beyond me.

[Jules-and-Boo]

That’s a very large area.

Personally don’t mind but the fact that the revenue collected by the council just seems to disappear is concerning.

The money should be visibly put back into the community and not be allowed to offset losses or other activities that the council choose.

I’d like to see a list of things it could be spent on.

I’d like to see for example, provisions for teens; free activities, extra curricular activities, investment in a safe space….

[first mate]

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/05/revealed-how-london-parks-are-partly-privatised-festivals-wireless-finsbury-park

[Jules-and-Boo]

Exactly. “Plugging gaps” in spending means the council have either had budgets cut by central govt and they can’t afford to do essential things or that they are wilfully overspending or spending on the wrong things.

You can’t keep pouring money into a wasteful venture and expect good returns.

Where is visibility of the councils spend to date versus budget and what the budgeted activity is for next year? Where are the gaps and what will the revenue generated form the gala be used for?

[DDJ]

This is too much time for our public space to be privatised! Stop it now!

And will the money be used to improve the Rye? Not likely.

[Lebanums]

This comes up every year. Here's a link to their sustainability report and how much they fundraise for the area.

https://thisisgala.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=868824d550e48b37efdf197cc&id=116388d019&e=15e13ced5b

[first mate]

Well, it has only been going a few years but, yes, since they are now extending the period for which they want to control part of the park I think it is fair to ask questions.

It does not look as though much if any money goes back into the Rye, it is used to fund other projects. Those projects may be worthy but that is not the point, festivals should use the park for a few days here and there, not for weeks on end in high summer.

[taper]

I thought the plan was to shift it to the Common.

[fishboy]

My main issue with this event in previous years has been the complete lack of post event clear up, and damage to the grassy areas. Last year there were huge potholes and indentations all over, and literally hundreds (possibly thousands) of fag butts, filter tips, cut off zip ties etc which apart from being unpleasant are a potential health hazard for animals & humans. It just shows a complete lack of consideration for the surrounding community. They seem to make a lot of promises regarding sustainability & their green credentials pre-event to dissuade objections, then just pack up & p*ss off afterwards, leaving our beautiful park looking like a cross between a war zone and a rubbish tip…

[fishboy]

It also can’t be a coincidence that every day for the duration of the event last year we had a woodpecker visit our bird feeders (on Colyton Road, opposite the park). Not seen it before or since, so there’s no way the organisers or council can say it doesn’t disturb the wildlife…

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Obviously the reason for allowing the private concerts to take place is money. Council wouldn't even think about it otherwise. And obviously council needs money from wherever it can get it to fund its normal service provision.

I'm begrudgingly okay with losing access to this section of the park, so long as the sum of money received is decent and so long as Gala actually cleans up/restores the location. In past years it doesn't seem like this has been properly done and checked.

I don't believe any of Gala's sustainability bullshit when it leaves the site in a state.

“Plugging gaps” in spending means the council have either had budgets cut by central govt...

You can’t keep pouring money into a wasteful venture and expect good returns.

Where is visibility of the councils spend to date versus budget and what the budgeted activity is for next year? Where are the gaps and what will the revenue generated form the gala be used for?

You seem to be blaming the council for your lack of awareness. Have you made the slightest effort to find out this information on the council's website? It's all there, in painful detail.

As for your question about whether central govt has cut councils' income (central govt doesn't determine councils' budgets)...have you read a newspaper in the last 12 years?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

[Jules-and-Boo]

DKH - by saying that the council need the money to fund normal activity - suggests that either they do not have enough to start with OR they have spent badly OR spent on the wrong things.

they should not have to sell of part of the park for part of the summer to meet basic deliverables.

Traffic fines are also topping up the funding pots quite remarkably - leading back to why such levels of Top Us are required.

FYI - councils get funding from central govt in form of grants.

[kiera]

At the public meetings before the first Gala festival, the council's representatives from their Events Team explained that all the revenue would go into that team to finance further events, enabling them to provide free events. They hoped to eventually make enough from paid events to be able to totally fund the Events Team, including their salaries. So we were left in no doubt that the only council service which is subsidised by Gala and other similar Park festivals is Southwark's Events.

[first mate]

So more and more events to fund an expanding events team. That sounds like a money black hole to me and also as though the aim is to use up more and more of the park to accommodate more events to raise more money.

No, please no. How in any way, shape or form does this correlate with a council that cares about the environment?

[Jules-and-Boo]

That's really good to hear Kiera - thank you

[legalalien]

I agree with DKHB on this, even though my natural instinct is to say that parks shouldn’t be used for private events.

For those interested in council budgets, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is going through the current one as we speak, I believe. Lots of painful detail here:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7388

(Btw looks like charges for garden waste and bulky waste are going up, am sure people will have views on that!)

To some extent we should think ourselves lucky that, as a central London council, Southwark has some decent revenue- making opportunities- were that not the case council tax would have to be much higher . As it stands there’s a proposed increase of just under 5% this year plus the uplift in the GLA component of the tax.

My biggest concern about council finances is the amount they’re potentially going to have to borrow to meet their housing targets and the cost of servicing that debt in a climate where interest rates are rising. I’m more than happy for them to spend events income on boring day to day activities rather than nice to have free activities for teens etc.

[first mate]

Don't think free events are any real justification for park privatisation.

Agree any revenue raised should go to prop up basic council services and then upkeep of the Rye.

However, I am not in favour of a proliferation of events or we risk losing one our most valuable local resources: green space and nature. Once lost we'll never get it back and that could create all kinds of problems.

We should also be careful what we wish for, we've seen on Greendale how MOL land is at risk. I could easily see this council finding a way to put up parcels of park land for sale at some point.

Frankly, I'd rather pay more council tax.

[danmaitland]

I think they are testing the waters as they have expressed the desire to license part of the park throughout the summer for other events.

I've said it before, and I know others disagree, but it is a slippery slope to privatisation of a public space. What is wrong with having the odd very limited event but for the most part using the park as it was originally intended- a green, natural space that is the lungs of the area? A Labour Council should not be colluding in moves to privatisation.

 

I agree. I think the park is too close to too many residential areas to be used for too many loud events. It makes sense in the central london parks, like st james and hyde park..