Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Malumbu, please do not derail this thread. The environmental impact of large scale events on Peckham Rye is a serious issue. 
 

Dulwich Dweller, that is another really useful bit of information, from an informed perspective. I agree with Angelina on reporting every single instance of antisocial behaviour.
 

Fishboy, in regard to the tree lopping, has anyone managed to establish how this was allowed and whether it was a council arborist? Have Friends of Peckham Rye got involved?

Edited by first mate
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
14 hours ago, first mate said:

Thanks Dulwich Dweller for that article which sums up concerns a number of us have. 
 

I found the reference to tree felling in Brockwell Park really worrying. That park has been changed into a an events venue for hire throughout the summer. Southwark want to do the same with Peckham Rye. We must not let them.

The tree felling in Brockwell park has been investigated by one of the local councillors.There are over 1,600 trees in Brockwell park and every year, after assessment ( i.e. danger, disease, age etc.) a number are felled, this is accompanied by a tree planting programme to replace all felled trees. It is a rolling programme and not done because of festivals.

 

https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2024/05/campaigners-question-lambeth-councils-plans-to-immediately-remove-44-trees-in-brockwell-park/

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Malumbu would never derail a thread. If he didn't see anyone p***ing in the bushes, then it didn't happen. OK?

It does seem that GALA has outgrown Peckham Rye Park in terms of its appeal. I've been going to festivals, big and small, for many years. I've seen many niche festivals grow from boutique chill-outs to being featured for the whole weekend on Radio 1. They don't always grow physically, but the appeal gets more mainstream, and the crowd morphs from local 25+s who are there for the music to the 18-25s who travel across the country and are there to get mashed and to show everyone they were there on Instagram. I don't know if this is representative of GALA, but the reports of anti-social behaviour in the park and the streets would seem that it's going the same way.

Edited by ed26
  • Agree 1

It would be interesting to know how many of you have been to a festival. I'm well past 50 over the years free ones, short ones and big ones.  I'm not interested in the Gala and most of them at Brockwell Park, but enjoy and have worked at the Lambeth Country show.  I seemed to have been asleep in the late 80s so can't comment on raves, but at this time Glastonbury turned nasty due to criminality so have experienced the less savoury elements.

I am not questioning the issues you have, rather the general feeling that some come across as being against people enjoying themselves.   

  • Like 2

One of the big supporting points Cllr Catherine Rose made was that the borough desperately needed events for its young people to attend and enjoy.

This is a load of baloney. I sat and watched hordes of 20-30 somethings arriving, all white, seemingly young professionals, mostly heading in from PR overground. I get that the event is enjoyable for London's young white professional demographic but it is a want and privilege, not a 'need'. There must be literally thousands of fantastic indoor music venues, there for the taking. Leaving the park free for those wishing to enjoy nature and/or the outdoors.

Edited by first mate
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

The 'festival' itself is clearly an annoyance to some (and noise, litter and alfresco urination would certainly qualify as such) but it is only for 3 days in 365. So long as (a) it remained this length and (b) the impresarios running it were properly managed by Southwark - full  and complete tidy-up and restoration, no tree cutting or other damage and no longer than 5 days (total) for set-up and recover - revenues not eaten up by consequential costs to the borough - then I think we could, and should, cope with it. But we have bids for an extended, or repeating event and we know that our asset is despoiled at our cost - and we are excluded from use of our asset for too long a time. This is not a field in the middle of the countryside which has a year to recover (and which is otherwise unused by the general public - vide Glastonbury) - this is a much used and loved (and needed) inner-city green space. And the 'fun' isn't in the middle of the countryside, it's on many of our actual doorsteps - in the case of litter and urine quite literally!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Agree 1
47 minutes ago, first mate said:

One of the big supporting points Cllr Catherine Rose made was that the borough desperately needed events for its young people to attend and enjoy.

This is a load of baloney. I sat and watched hordes of 20-30 somethings arriving, all white, seemingly young professionals, mostly heading in from PR overground. I get that the event is enjoyable for London's young white professional demographic but it is a want and privilege, not a 'need'. There must be literally thousands of fantastic indoor music venues, there for the taking. Leaving the park free for those wishing to enjoy nature and/or the outdoors.

Why mention skin tone? There are plenty of examples of middle- and working-class people of all heritages and the festival will attract all kinds of people and all kinds of people are capable of being good or bad citizens. 

  • Like 1

Point taken, all I am saying is that the demographic need cited by the council as a reason to mount the event seems different from the demographic actually attending. This is not a criticism of either demographic but of the council rationale for the event.
 

Like Penguin I can accept a very well run three day event but the aim is to extend this event and that is the problem, plus damage to the park environment to facilitate the event.

  • Agree 1
24 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

The 'festival' itself is clearly an annoyance to some (and noise, litter and alfresco urination would certainly qualify as such) but it is only for 3 days in 365. So long as (a) it remained this length and (b) the impresarios running it were properly managed by Southwark - full  and complete tidy-up and restoration, no tree cutting or other damage and no longer than 5 days (total) for set-up and recover - revenues not eaten up by consequential costs to the borough - then I think we could, and should, cope with it. But we have bids for an extended, or repeating event and we know that our asset is despoiled at our cost - and we are excluded from use of our asset for too long a time. This is not a field in the middle of the countryside which has a year to recover (and which is otherwise unused by the general public - vide Glastonbury) - this is a much used and loved (and needed) inner-city green space. And the 'fun' isn't in the middle of the countryside, it's on many of our actual doorsteps - in the case of litter and urine quite literally!

Yeah, just a money making event for Southwark Council and it’s ruining the park and common. The only 3 days a year argument doesn’t hold water. Like an abused wife saying her husband only beats her up three times a year but overall he’s a good husband.

1 hour ago, first mate said:

One of the big supporting points Cllr Catherine Rose made was that the borough desperately needed events for its young people to attend and enjoy.

This is a load of baloney. I sat and watched hordes of 20-30 somethings arriving, all white, seemingly young professionals, mostly heading in from PR overground. I get that the event is enjoyable for London's young white professional demographic but it is a want and privilege, not a 'need'. There must be literally thousands of fantastic indoor music venues, there for the taking. Leaving the park free for those wishing to enjoy nature and/or the outdoors.

And if it was another demographic you would still be moaning

Has anyone actually seen the so-called damage to that tree? You’re absolutely ridiculous

  • Like 1

Take a closer look, those branches are larger than one & a half inches diameter.

There is a wider point here that I think a number of us are concerned about. Once we start saying it's fine to lop tree branches to accommodate metal barriers for a private event, what might be next? You may think it is ridiculous but I think this behaviour indicates we are dealing with the thin edge of the wedge and the council and event management have to be held accountable and be clear about protecting the park.

Edited by first mate
  • Agree 2
56 minutes ago, first mate said:

the demographic need cited by the council as a reason to mount the event 

Can we have a reliable source for this claim beyond "some guy online said a Councillor said something"? There is all sorts of absolute toss made up about councillors and the council on this forum.

  • Agree 1

Okay, rather than say Council I should have said Cllr Catherine Rose - Cabinet member in charge of parks- at a Southwark Council Scrutiny session- these can be viewed online. I do not keep notes so cannot give date and timecode, but that is my source.

But even if you do not accept that, I hope you agree the wider principle stands, that if we support council use of the parks as a venue for hire to raise funds, what level of accountability should be in place, what degrees of damage to the park environment are acceptable and for how long should significant parts of the park be removed from general community access,  to achieve that aim?

Edited by first mate
  • Like 1

Just walked back from Herne Hill and if you want a future vision of how Gala might end-up just look at what is happening in Brockwell Park. The noise from the first weekend of three weekends of activities is unbelievable, not sure how the residents are supposed to deal with that. Just a cacophony of noise from competing stage sound systems.

 

Festivals and inner city environments will never mix well and residents are suffering from the revenue catnip that council's salivate at when they think they can make a quick buck from selling our public spaces to the highest bidder. It's getting ridiculous.

  • Agree 2

There used to be events in brockwell park, for years, including Pride and they were never ticketed and there was never the damage there is now.

the music isn’t the issue ( although at least Brixton had live bands this year and Peckham didn’t get that right).

it’s the insult of a private company working with our council to host a private ticketed event and then show such disrespect for the area.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

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...