Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jazzer said:

Need to know how much Southwark Council are benefiting financially?

They never disclose that, citing 'commercial confidentiality'.

On nesting birds. This has been brought up several times at consultations, asking if the event can change to another time of the year that avoids the nesting season. As you can see, no-one is listening.

  • Agree 1
13 hours ago, F.R. said:

It’s 3 AM - Anyone know when this horrendous noise is going to stop?! We’re on the Sainsbury’s Local end of Landells and am quite frankly sympathising with all of you nearer Peckham Rye. My ears are ringing! How is this ok?! 
Edit: According to the website it should have finished by 22:30. What is going on and how is this acceptable (and not more people are complaining about the crippling sound levels we’re being subjected to?) - shocking.. 

I live directly across the road from the Gala site just up from Harris Boys, can see it from my front window, and the festival stopped before 11 pm and everything was quiet.

I haven't enjoyed the last few days, it's been unbearable in my flat and I went over the hill to Honor Oak last night and could still hear it there, but it certainly didn't go on until 3. 


It's actually not as bad today because it sounds like they only have one stage and I've just got one reggae song playing in the distance and it's quite nice. The thing that has made it most like torture is the cacophony of all the stages mixed together for three days. If it was just one stage at the sound level it is right now I'd probably be ok with it. 

On 26/05/2025 at 16:51, Blah Blah said:

They never disclose that, citing 'commercial confidentiality'.

On nesting birds. This has been brought up several times at consultations, asking if the event can change to another time of the year that avoids the nesting season. As you can see, no-one is listening.

I'm unhappy with major building works going on during nesting season but I expect that this is immaterial to allowance of most human activities going on that cause a lot of noise.  I did some research but didn't find out a great deal so expect birds have evolved to live around human disruption.  Messing with the nest will cause birds to abandon it. Not sure how much the Gala causes.  Should welcome signage even if you consider that is a token effort.

Edited by malumbu
Typo

Interesting, you think the bird populations in Peckham Park have evolved in the space of 6 years to cope with the noise of full blown, bass heavy, urban music, literally a few feet from where they are nesting? 

It will be great when the barricades are all down and the park can get back to normal. The hope is that the grass has not been so badly damaged this year and that the area can be used again immediately, for the rest of summer.
 

Edited by first mate
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
1 hour ago, malumbu said:

I'm unhappy with mafor building works going on during nesting season but I expect that this is immaterial to allowance of most human activities going on that cause a lot of noise.  I did some research but didn't find out a great deal so expect birds have evolved to live around human disruption.  Messing with the nest will cause birds to abandon it. Not sure how much the Gala causes.  Should welcome signage even if you consider that is a token effort.

There is emerging research that nesting birds are impacted by festival noise, especially starlings. Some species rely on acoustic signals that are disrupted by the kind of noise a four day festival produces  Why is this research emerging? Because the number of these types of events in urban settings is increasing, and it takes time to do the research and observations required. Evolution is a slow porcess taking thousands of years in most cases. Nesting birds don't evolve to these sudden events, they leave. If there are chicks already hatched, that's a problem. If they don't come back to nest, that alters the local ecology. It matters.

16 minutes ago, first mate said:

Interesting, you think the bird populations in Peckham Park have evolved in the space of 6 years to cope with the noise of full blown, bass heavy, urban music, literally a few feet from where they are nesting? 

It will be great when the barricades are all down and the park can get back to normal. The hope is that the grass has not been so badly damaged this year and that the area can be used again immediately, for the rest of summer.
 

This is something I have been looking into and will finally have some case studies to make both the council and event organisaers aware of moving forward. As you say, birds don't know that a huge wall of sound is about to hit them for four days. It disrupts the acoustic fequencies they rely on.

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

Interesting, you think the bird populations in Peckham Park have evolved in the space of 6 years to cope with the noise of full blown, bass heavy, urban music, literally a few feet from where they are nesting? 

It will be great when the barricades are all down and the park can get back to normal. The hope is that the grass has not been so badly damaged this year and that the area can be used again immediately, for the rest of summer.
 

They've been living with noise from humans ever since we've been doing things in an industrial basis.  And lost habitat ever since slash and burn.

3 hours ago, Blah Blah said:

There is emerging research that nesting birds are impacted by festival noise, especially starlings. Some species rely on acoustic signals that are disrupted by the kind of noise a four day festival produces  Why is this research emerging? Because the number of these types of events in urban settings is increasing, and it takes time to do the research and observations required. Evolution is a slow porcess taking thousands of years in most cases. Nesting birds don't evolve to these sudden events, they leave. If there are chicks already hatched, that's a problem. If they don't come back to nest, that alters the local ecology. It matters.

 

Any links?  I used mesh around my feeders to get rid of my starlings who were unwelcome visitors to the garden devouring food for the small garden birds.  Interestingly their numbers have plummeted across the country, nothing to do with festivals.  Not sure how important starlings are in local ecosystems.  Only see them in numbers in large car parks.  Labour will be ditching habitat protections on their build for growth programme so Gala will pale into insignificance.

Edited by malumbu
21 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Labour will be ditching habitat protections on their build for growth programme so Gala will pale into insignificance.

Oh well, that's okay then. You seem to infer that Southwark Labour may view parks as just more land to be developed/monetised and aim to treat park habitat as no different at all to the average bit of street up for redevelopment.  Sits very oddly with alleged concern for the environment but it does kinda ring true.

  • Confused 1

There are many negative aspects to the Gala festival, those that I am most concerned about include the residual litter & damage to the park and the impact on wildlife. The latter is supposedly absolved by the "Wildlife Survey" which is carried of each year, but has a sadly limited scope purely to tick a box, rather than actually investigate the effects to wildlife in the park as a whole. 

The survey document is available on the council website, but this summary from it is a good indication of the level of consideration Gala really have:

"The 2025 pre-show nesting bird survey found no evidence of active bird nests within the designated event footprint, and therefore no additional mitigation is required within the working area."

This clearly shows that all they are bothered about is whether there are nests onsite, which would prevent them from their construction activities, nothing more. The impact of 24/7 lighting, flashing lights, construction noise, loud music on wildlife outside of the site is of zero interest to them. 

Here's a map from the survey, showing nests onsite, and possible nests outside the site, and yet it makes no difference to their activities. Crack on, nothing onsite, don't care about anything else? 

 

Screenshot_20250526-230740-713.png

PS I've just noticed that this map references the site footprint from 2022, yet is from the latest 2025 survey. And this is supposed to be a survey from a professional body??

PPS I've just noticed a bat survey on the council website by the same company, which states: 

"To minimise potential disturbances to local bat populations during the festival, it is recommended to limit artificial lighting and reduce noise levels starting at least 20 minutes before sunset throughout the event period in May 2025."

So which part of this did Gala adhere to?!?

  • Agree 3
1 hour ago, fishboy said:

There are many negative aspects to the Gala festival, those that I am most concerned about include the residual litter & damage to the park and the impact on wildlife. The latter is supposedly absolved by the "Wildlife Survey" which is carried of each year, but has a sadly limited scope purely to tick a box, rather than actually investigate the effects to wildlife in the park as a whole. 

The survey document is available on the council website, but this summary from it is a good indication of the level of consideration Gala really have:

"The 2025 pre-show nesting bird survey found no evidence of active bird nests within the designated event footprint, and therefore no additional mitigation is required within the working area."

This clearly shows that all they are bothered about is whether there are nests onsite, which would prevent them from their construction activities, nothing more. The impact of 24/7 lighting, flashing lights, construction noise, loud music on wildlife outside of the site is of zero interest to them. 

Here's a map from the survey, showing nests onsite, and possible nests outside the site, and yet it makes no difference to their activities. Crack on, nothing onsite, don't care about anything else? 

 

Screenshot_20250526-230740-713.png

PS I've just noticed that this map references the site footprint from 2022, yet is from the latest 2025 survey. And this is supposed to be a survey from a professional body??

PPS I've just noticed a bat survey on the council website by the same company, which states: 

"To minimise potential disturbances to local bat populations during the festival, it is recommended to limit artificial lighting and reduce noise levels starting at least 20 minutes before sunset throughout the event period in May 2025."

So which part of this did Gala adhere to?!?

There is no question that the events team makes exceptions to the promoted ethos of Southwark Council on green and ecological standards. This is part of the frustration when challenging the decision to allow an event of this kind in that part of the park. It's hypocrisy, and it's entirely commercially led. Other events have always been held on the common, be that the circus, fun fairs, even the two day Irish festival (back in the day). None of those events have ever caused anything like the level of disurbance or damage to the park and common. Local councillors will tell you that every year, the GALA organisers demand more and more and every year they have to be opposed by those same local councillors. It's exhausting. The consultaions are nothing to do with questioning of the event itself, but are designed to make tweaks and allay fears, because the deal is already done with the council events team by the time things get to that. It's so disrespectful to the idea of consultation and what that should mean.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7

I understand that we may never find out what Gala pocket out of this event, but I do not get how Southwark are able to keep their cut under wraps, if that is the case? I may have that wrong. The 'commercially sensitive' bit only applies if we know what percentage of overall Gala profits Southwark gets? I do not see how knowing the actual amount Southwark gets can be classified as sensitive? Southwark is not a private company. The point is the park requires investment and we are told some of this money will be used for that.

There are parts of the park badly in need of work. The toilets next to the park office are an absolute disgrace and apart from extreme dilapidation are also filthy, for anyone disabled or elderly, this is an aspect that needs fixing, immediately. They also need to be cleaned daily.

At a time of a large scale event like Gala, I do think the council should have a few parkies on patrol. I did not see one at any point, did anyone?  Gala look after their own interests with security all around the event perimeter but the rest of the park is open to abuse. On Saturday afternoon a group of young males were congregated beside the Sexby garden, consuming bottles of Vodka, an empty bottle discarded on the grass. They or others had also left discarded food wrappers and strips of blue paper towel lying around. Of course, youngsters will always do this sort of thing but it also needs a few grownups to supervise. Elsewhere there were smashed glass bottles. Come to think of it, I hardly ever see a parkie. Perhaps profits from Gala can be used to fund one?

Edited by first mate

a Freedom of Information request should confirm the amount of revenue generated from the event for the council and what the council spent that on.

There is nothing that meets the "commercially sensitive" exclusion (which is for the safeguarding of information which if disclosed would prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the Public Authority holding the information),

Perhaps the best way forward is if we list the questions we want the council to answer and submit an FOI. It is a criminal offence for the public authority to refuse to disclose information and that can be enforced by the Information Commissioner.

I would have though that the council would want to be transparent.

 

 

  • Agree 1

yes and it's illegal for the council to withhold information requested as an FOI, although they can use the exemption, if it meets criteria of being commercially sensitive, but it seems that is not the case, and would be less so if questions are suitably worded.

I don't know if there has been one, but am suggesting we compile questions and send one

  • Like 1

I suspect that the council's deal may be based on a percentage of the gate take - as an example - but we want the actual sum paid and do not need to know the basis on which calculations were made. This is thus not very commercially sensitive as it discloses no information about the private company finances, other I suppose than one of its costs. As the council is obliged to disclose its sources of finance this shouldn't be an issue.

I suspect they are simply using this as an excuse to keep their own actions secret, which they are not meant to do. They may be worried that the sum 'earned' may be quite paltry and not commensurate with the cost to the community, including costs incurred by the council in doing this at all. 

Edited by Penguin68
  • Agree 2

Additionally, the council should be bound by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: This is the primary law protecting wildlife in Britain, including birds, their nests, and eggs. TfL, like other operators in London, must adhere to this Act when carrying out activities on their land or infrastructure. 

 

 

  • Agree 2

What makes you so sure that this information is not worthy of being classed as 'commercially sensitive'?  - they may feel that they could get more for this site or similar ones in the borough now or further down the line from another promoter. If it's publicly known what GALA are paying, that reduces their negotiating position in other contracts - plus GALA wouldn't want it publically known as another promoter could just come in and offer x% more to take it away from them. This is basic stuff, surely?

And it IS NOT a criminal offence to deny an FOI request that could be enforced by the ICO.  In some cases, it could be a criminal offence to block that, only after the ICO has made an enforcement. But that is a very different set of circumstances.

 

 

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...