first mate

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?

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.

Go back to the very first post on this thread.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Angelina, well said. Let's not dilute the central message that there is a lot wrong with how this event is handled, where it is mounted, and it is vital they are never allowed to extend it to more days.

Did this lot eventually get cleaned up?

I have great sympathy for those who live closer to the park and who are sensitive to the noise. Relentless bass noise, that you cannot escape, can be extremely distressing. I imagine the impact on wildlife, with even more sensitive hearing, would be great but hard to measure...which is worrying. However, I am just as concerned about the lopping of a healthy tree in order to accommodate a metal barrier. I cannot believe green-friendly Southwark would allow this.

Just had a walk out and notice the huge amount of bumper to bumper traffic queues from Peckham to the event. Seems like lots of people are getting lifts in by car and not using public transport.

Good point. With the anticipated footfall churning up saturated ground, there could be a lot of damage to the turf.

Oh please, nice swerve, but if the suggestion is that the bulk of cyclists are forced to cycle on non-shared pavements because it is too unpleasant to cycle on the road then try another tack. As a regular cyclist I see other cyclists take convenient shortcuts over non-shared pavements just because they can, not because it is dangerous or in any way necessary. By the way, if you guys find cycling Brenchley gardens unpleasant and dangerous then when you do use the pavement I sincerely hope you do the decent thing- dismount and walk.

You may be right but, sadly, it is equally possible that our council of double standards on green issues has green-lit the lopping of a healthy tree to facilitate the needs and interests of its private contractor. Council arborists are usually super protective of trees.I wonder if it is possible to get an FOI on who okayed the lopping if this tree and for what reasons?

This! And just a polite reminder to certain posters on here, the title of the thread is "cyclists taking over paths"!

Is there more news on this? Plus Council/Gala response on the tree lopping?

Exactly, what really comes over in those clips is how reluctant cyclists are to stop or even slow down for pedestrians at the zebra. This reminds me of a stance made by one of the more extreme cyclist posters years ago. He objected to disability mobility scooters in cycle lanes on the grounds this would slow down cyclists and get in the way. Instead he felt they should be in bus lanes (so safe) or on the pavement.

This is disgusting. They really have no shame. Vandalism of a tree shows this shower and Cllr Catherine Rose cannot be trusted an inch. I walked over yesterday and was struck by what seemed to be even higher barriers. I remember Gala mentioning at some point they wanted higher barriers to deter jumpers. This is what happens folks when community assets are handed over for private exploitation.

Malumbu, I agree, let's all have another think!

I believe those guideline are flawed. Many disabled people may not own a car and/or have multiple carers that do own a car, they may also use a taxi. In each case, if the car is being used to transport the person living with a disability then it should be possible to display the blue badge for the benefit of the holder. Yet, in this document Southwark seem to insist that only one vehicle is registered to the blue badge. That could make life very difficult for some.

Indeed Alice, but the traffic illustrated and those affected by it really don't count; they are examples of necessary collateral damage in the council's fight for the 'greater good'.

One of the many, many beaches around the world you have flown to?

Eh, what are you on about Mal? I thought we were talking about penalties for road users. I am not au fait with traffic penalties in Rwanda, are you? Mind you, with the amount of overseas travel you have flagged up as having done over the years perhaps you do? Either way, seems a bit off piste, even for you.

57% of those who actually lived in the consultation area I believe. Around 3,000. Presumably 2,000 of whom are the ‘supporters of One Dulwich (but not members of One Dulwich? So how does one ‘join’?) Not clear what point you are trying to make here Earl? A majority of those consulted wanted measures returned to their original state. Majority is the salient point. Again, if consultations are pretty irrelevent, as you seem to suggest, then why do oragnisations like Southwark Cyclists repeatedly prompt their members, whether local to the consultation area or not, to respond to consultations on CPZ or LTNs. What a waste of everyone's time if of no import in terms of local policy-making.

Okay Earl, of those 'consulted' how many voices were in favour of the junction and how many against? Were there more responses in favour or more against? This local junction change is being driven by Southwark Labour Councillors- not as you assert by Central Govt. Also, if consultations are so irrelevant as indicators of meaningful local support in the way you seem to imply, why do organisations like Southwark Cyclists constantly ask their members to respond to all and any consultation on LTN's and CPZ's?