first mate

Presumably local businesses have been consulted?

@Earl Aelfheah Show us the bits in that summary that are untrue, but do it on the Ryedale thread, just so this one is not taken further off subject. reposting James Barber, to get thread back on track.

You have not yet told us which statements in the summary you have labelled as fake (in the Ryedale thread) are untrue.

What with 'fake summaries' and 'nimby judges' it is all beginning to feel a bit Trumpesque.

Thanks for that. Maybe forthcoming elections have stymied the 7 day request? If Labour get back in, do we think GALA will try with greater success in 2027?

@Sue I think there was only 1 free day in the 7 day event GALA were asking for, that was the third day, after the first weekend. I think the second weekend was meant to be paid for access. I agree, the free Horniman music events are great but have nowhere near the same impact as GALA.

@Earl Aelfheah you have carefully avoided saying whether you think any of the statements in the document provided by @Lebanums are untrue. Tell us which if any statements are untrue?

It would be a relief if that is the case but GALA, at least, have a vested interest in expanding the event to more than one weekend; with all the infrastructure in place it makes financial sense for them to get more use out of it.

@Earl AelfheahWhich of these statements is untrue? 1. Pre-determination and outcome-driven approach The emails show that the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) was treated internally as a priority scheme with a predetermined outcome, rather than an open options-based process. Officers and senior figures discussed how to achieve implementation quickly, rather than whether the scheme should proceed. There is repeated emphasis on: Speed of delivery Avoiding delay until after elections Managing reputational risk rather than addressing substantive objections This gives the appearance that process was shaped around a desired result, not the other way around. 2. Explicit discussion of bypassing governance Several emails explicitly reference: Bypassing or streamlining normal governance Avoiding informal consultation and governance boards Fast-tracking through IDM/LMB with concurrent sign-offs Drafting and mobilising the ETO during the call-in period This is important: it shows awareness that normal safeguards existed, and a conscious decision to circumvent them to meet a January implementation date. 3. Known risks acknowledged internally The FOI clearly shows that officers and councillors: Anticipated resident backlash and bad press Recognised a risk that legal justification might not be sufficient Acknowledged traffic displacement and volume concerns Understood the reputational parallels with unpopular 2020 ETMOs Despite this, the scheme was progressed on the basis that senior figures were: This is significant because it demonstrates that risks were known, documented, and accepted, not unforeseen. 4. Internal disagreement and warnings ignored At least one council officer: Withdrew from the process entirely Explicitly cited issues they had raised with the scheme Warned of reputational risk and governance concerns Others recommended informal consultation specifically to mitigate those risks — advice that appears to have been overridden or side-lined. This supports an argument that professional concerns were raised but not acted upon. 5. Consultation treated as tactical, not substantive Where consultation is mentioned, it is framed as: A reputational safeguard A way to potentially slow or derail the scheme politically Something to give councillors “cold feet” rather than to shape policy This undermines the credibility of any claim that consultation was intended to be meaningful or influential. 6. Weak evidential basis The documentation: Acknowledges risk that legal justification may not be met Does not demonstrate a clear causal link between the measures proposed and the outcomes claimed This matters for public law fairness, proportionality, and rationality. 7. Concentration of influence While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show: A small number of elected members driving urgency and direction Officers framing decisions around political priority Escalation being discouraged once senior backing was confirmed This creates a reasonable perception of undue influence, particularly when combined with: Lack of consultation Accelerated governance Acceptance of known risks

Earl, which of the statements are untrue?

You disagree with all the statements in the summary? Please indicate which parts are untrue.

For those who have read the FOI- does part of the ai summary below seem fair? The emails show that the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) was treated internally as a priority scheme with a predetermined outcome, rather than an open options-based process. Officers and senior figures discussed how to achieve implementation quickly, rather than whether the scheme should proceed. There is repeated emphasis on: Speed of delivery Avoiding delay until after elections Managing reputational risk rather than addressing substantive objections This gives the appearance that process was shaped around a desired result, not the other way around. 2. Explicit discussion of bypassing governance Several emails explicitly reference: Bypassing or streamlining normal governance Avoiding informal consultation and governance boards Fast-tracking through IDM/LMB with concurrent sign-offs Drafting and mobilising the ETO during the call-in period This is important: it shows awareness that normal safeguards existed, and a conscious decision to circumvent them to meet a January implementation date.

This! I would also like to know why the council has been in such a hurry to drive this through?

I am also keen to understand the tearing hurry. The emails in the FOI keep mentioning things like 'October will be too late'. Too late for what?

I just checked the Southwark Council website and it stated: All responses to the consultation will be recorded and a ‘consultation findings’ report will be published once feedback has been reviewed. The review process involves collating feedback from a number of council teams and external agencies - the aim will be to publish the report as soon as possible after the consultation has closed and no later than the 31 January 2026. The report will be published on this site. The use of bold type on the date is the Council's, not mine. They are late. I wonder why?

In it's own right a free event is potentially a nice idea- although reports from last year were not that positive. But, a free event in this case is not in my view worth the price of continued expansion of this event and privatisation of park space over the summer months. It will be interesting to see if Southwark has declined to licence the further three days (meaning 7 in all over 2 concecutive weekends). The decision is meant to be in but I cannot find it.

Timely confirmation that Gala 2026 will be limited to one weekend is needed. The Gala website indicates the extension is still in the offing. GALA will return in 2026 on the following dates: Friday 22nd May Saturday 23rd May Sunday 24th May In addition, the following event days are also planned to be hosted on the event site in 2026: Bank Holiday Monday 25th May – On the Rye Festival – a free to attend, community event Friday 29th May – Afrobeats Festival Saturday 30th May – Mahrajan Festival Sunday 31st May – Festival show or Concert show *subject to licence

Forget London-wide statistics, what matters is evidence for and against local interventions. Once experimental traffic orders are imposed they tend not to be reversed. The council take little if any notice of local consultation results and tend to push ahead with their agenda. What is your evidence that negative messages are coming from people who don't live locally and have their own agendas?

But we are told most of these 'experimental' traffic orders are just pilots, but they always seem to become permanent. Will you be pressing for wider consultation before or after elections? Which ward are you intending to stand for?

Hi Tori, thanks for that welcome news. Do you know when this decision will be reported/ confirmed on the official Southwark site?

It says on the Southwark site that the decision on extending the event to two weekends, with a large slice of park inaccessible to the public for over a month, is imminent ( publication due 31January). Does anyone know the decision?

Thanks for bringing us back to the real issue. Clearly, some who live on Ryedale, as well as others close by, cannot see any merit in the council's latest proposed street meddling.

@malumbu said: "So will not comment on the general repetitive Rockets view that LTNs are dreadful, Southwark are corrupt/incompetent, and it is all down to some mythical cyclist lobby" Isn't that exactly what you have just done? Thank goodness we have posters like Rockets prepared to challenge the pro LTN perspective. We could even call it a public service;)

I do not understand the denials by some in this case. Cllr McAsh has been very clear, one of the tactics to try to stop people using cars is to make car journeys more difficult.

Or as Cllr McAsh might put it, "that's the whole point".