GALA 2025

[Jenijenjen]

19 minutes ago, DuncanW said:

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.

 

 

And if there is a confidentiality clause within the contract regarding the amount paid, would a FOI be able to override that?

[Angelina]

Yes I suppose it could mean that, if there is a fixed cost for GLA for everything - but the FOI can be worded so that it asks what the revenue agreement is - ie is it fixed or does it include a % of revenue from the stalls and tickets etc.

 

[DuncanW]

Why would you need to know any of that? 

 

[Angelina]

Revenue could all be contractual and fixed or it could have multiple elements. I don’t think we know that

[Penguin68]

The Council is making use of land which is intended for the use of Southwark residents (rate payers) as a general amenity. In doing so it is removing the rights of Southwark residents for a period of time from land which is (if not legally) 'common'. Whilst it can do that in order to undertake e.g. remedial works for the benefit of residents this is, in this instance, not the case.

The least, I believe we have a right to, is information on what costs the council has incurred to act as a short term landlord to a commercial company (acting as a leasing agent), what costs the council has incurred in land management costs in preparing and recovering the land after use, what revenues it has obtained acting as such a landlord, what ends has the net revenue been put to.

Without this information it is impossible for the Council's employers (us) to determine whether we have got value for money in these transactions - considering what we have had to give up to gain this. 

At the least we need to know - was this - on a whole life cost basis - profitable; how profitable and how were these profits deployed?

And another question (which we will not get an answer to) - why is the council so intent on keeping all this secret? Commercial confidentiality only goes so far. The idea that Gala wants to keep it secret in case someone else offers more - well maybe - but if this is about monetising our parks - maybe we'd like the council to get more. The idea that the council is hiding information in case it gets a better offer is simply insane. If this is how they 'monetise' things... ! They set the rules under which they are prepared to trade away our use of our parks - maybe Gala does want what they pay kept secret - in which case maybe don't do business with them.

Indeed, if you're going into the business of being a venue entrepreneur perhaps employ people who are skilled in that business and not apparatchiks whose skill is in running councils, not venues.

[Rockets]

Surely a very simple: "how much does the council receive from the organisers of the Gala festival for payment for use of Peckham Rye" would smoke out a response.

The "commercial sensitivity" could be because the council are giving it away or it could be because Gala don't want others to know how much they are paying - it is really tough to make money from any type of festival these days and Wide Awake in Brockwell, for example, sent out a plea for people to buy tickets via a reduced price "Tell a Friend" special offer because (they said much of it linked to the problems Lambeth were having with the High Court) things were entering "squeaky bum time"  and they were struggling to hit their break-even point.

It does make me wonder whether expansion is baked-in to the agreements the council has with the organisers for events like Gala as the organisers have to be able to scale the size of the event each year to try to make money. I do also how much of the "revenue" from these events might be swallowed up by the provision of the "free community" event element of them.

The comment piece in the Guardian sums it up quite nicely:

The heart of this issue seems to be how cash-strapped councils are becoming increasingly beholden to commercial interests to the detriment of the public. A weekend festival that welcomes 50,000 people can expect to raise about £500,000 for local authorities. Councils argue that this money goes back in the public purse, allowing them to continue funding free community events such as Lambeth’s beloved Country Show, though there doesn’t seem to be much transparency over exactly how much cash is raised or where it is allocated.

 

The issue for councils may well be that if people found out how much was actually being raised by these events that the community would say the disruption is not worth it and I do wonder how much of the revenue is being swallowed up by the provision of the "free event" using the same infrastructure. Any time a council doesn't want to share something openly very much suggests that it is because they think constituents won't like the answer.

 

[fishboy]

 

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

 ... I do wonder how much of the revenue is being swallowed up by the provision of the "free event" using the same infrastructure. 

My understanding is the "free event" is 100% Gala, nothing to do with the council. Obviously Gala will still make money from the food & drink that they are trying to coerce punters into buying on their social media posts. Their costs will be negligible due to already having the infrastructure in place for Gala.

So Gala are trying to appear community minded by providing this "free event" - which surely no one could possibly object to?!? - but the real goal is clearly to set a precedent for a fourth day's festival in preparation for applying (again) for two three-day festivals spread over two weekends. It's only another two days, right, and the site & equipment is already there, so why would anyone object?!? More money for the council, much more money for Gala, win-win right?

But yet another week of our park taken away from us, too, and another 18,000 people trampling & littering the park, and another week of disturbance for the native birds & wildlife...

Edited Wednesday at 10:49 by fishboy

[hellose5]

Miranda Sawyer of the (once) Observer has done a piece on festival on Insta which might be of-interest.  Councils are private companies, imo. They make money for themselves, imo.  I do not think by law that they have to follow anything brought up by a consultation, this is for 'face' only - hence, LTNs and everything else.  

[Sally Eva]

Councils are not private companies though they can set them up. Do you have any evidence that Southwark has done this? 

[cookie]

Gala - Evening Standard Review

[Sally Eva]

Makes me wish I had gone. 

[Sue]

22 minutes ago, Sally Eva said:

Makes me wish I had gone. 

And me!

[malumbu]

Nice review by the Standard.  Good to be aware that 20,000 plus had an enjoyable time at what was considered to be an excellent festival.  I was maybe in that demographic once ..

@Rocketsit amazes me after all your anti-Guardian views you are now posting articles you like. 

 @hellose5 Maranda Sawyer, Stephen Graham, Marcus Radford, Gary Lineker,  all celebs with views media, and at times government pick up in.  Doesn't necessarily make them an authoritative source 

Edited Wednesday at 22:06 by malumbu

[jazzer]

And it was so peaceful up until now, and you've managed to raise the volume again, just as things were settling down.............

[David Peckham]

2 hours ago, Sue said:

And me!

Even with this quote from the article?

'First and foremost, the music across its three days is curated with admirable care.'

 

 

 

[Sue]

11 minutes ago, David Peckham said:

Even with this quote from the article?

'First and foremost, the music across its three days is curated with admirable care.'

 

Haha, I hadn't noticed that 😂

[Angelina]

Have to admit, I did have to check myself - I've been to many festivals and it seems a bit contradictory to challenge one, but our local park is not the place for a festival of this size.

It just needs to either scale down to the environment (smaller footprint, less damage) or find a better location.

There is a VAST difference between festivals out in the countryside and the same in an urban park.

 

 

 

[first mate]

Yes, but most posting on here against the festival have not said they hate all festivals, it is about location, scale and footprint, duration of the event, including build and dismantling, and the level of impact on wildlife and residents living close by. 
 

Last year I said on here that I would, reluctantly, accept the three day event, provided it was no more than that and the footprint was not extended to include more of the park. Now it is reasonably clear there is an intention to scale up I think a new, more suitable location must be found. 

[Angelina]

I completely agree.

 

Pride used to be in Brixton and Brockwell Park before it outgrew it and moved to Finsbury Park. 

Quite reasonable to accept limitations and respond properly

 

[Rockets]

 

Absolutely agree - there is a place for multi-staged music festivals and densely populated residential areas in a crowded city are not it, especially not over multiple weekends.

 

[jazzer]

Why aren't the barricades and stages coming down?

[PeckhamRose]

Someone on another website, seems to be in the know and like some of us attends the pre and post event meets this year held at the Clockhouse, said, "....but I think they wanted to get other organisers in to run the other weekend (like at Brockwell), and couldn't make it happen in the timeframe so withdrew the application.   Bearing in mind they are already advertising pre-registration for next year's tickets, I suspect they are a bit more organised this time and it will take a bit more to stop them..."

Quite.  When the post meeting is announced I hope we shall all attend.  I shall share details on here when I get my email invite.  I hope we all bothered to complain too,

[Blah Blah]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

Yes, but most posting on here against the festival have not said they hate all festivals, it is about location, scale and footprint, duration of the event, including build and dismantling, and the level of impact on wildlife and residents living close by. 
 

Last year I said on here that I would, reluctantly, accept the three day event, provided it was no more than that and the footprint was not extended to include more of the park. Now it is reasonably clear there is an intention to scale up I think a new, more suitable location must be found. 

This is where I sit too. A two day event is bearable. Three tests my tolerance. Finding the right balance on size, noise and impact is where I contribute to the consultation process. BUT, as I wrote elsewhere, every year the GALA organisers ask/ push for more, and deals have already been done with the council before it gets to public consultation stage. It is also worth pointing out that when a licence was first granted, the orgnaisation was different (We Are the Fair), one of the company directors lived literally next to the park (she left when it became GALA) and the current form bears no resemblance to original ethos/ vision sold to the council and licensing committee. This needs to be pointed out and I am fairly confident local councillors would also support a pushback on any further expansion. We have local elections next year, so councillors ears will be open.

[fishboy]

9 hours ago, jazzer said:

Why aren't the barricades and stages coming down?

They are. We are back to the same construction racket 8am-8pm every day for the whole of this week. The wall is one of the last things to come down, probably on Saturday. Then we can see how much of a mess they've made, especially the quantity of non-biodegradeable litter trampled into the earth.

GALA 2025 - Production Schedule.pdf

[cookie]

For balance, I've had construction noise 5 days a week for the last 3 years as loft and side constructions are undertaken one by one, with added joy of being overlooked in the garden, so a few days noise shouldn't be too onerous.

I do know that Gala had a team of litter pickers working non-stop the whole time I was there, so efforts are made to keep the park litter free.