Gala Festival in Peckham Rye Park - new licence application for the next three years

[kiera]

Notices on Peckham Rye Park gates from Gala festival applying for a 3 year licence to hold the event again. This time it's for an additional day and for an increased number of attendees. They are proposing to extend the footprint but have not included details or a plan of the extent of the site.

The notice is dated 26th November and is followed by a consultation period of 28 days. An accompanying poster invites the public to a meeting tonight from 19:00-20:30 at The Auditorium, Level 5, Peckham Town Centre Carpark, 95A Rye Lane, London, SE15 4ST.

[green ranger]

Excellent news - really looking forward to next year?s event - hope they manage to book acts as good as last year.

Good to see young people enjoying the park as well (as well as us old white would-be Rastamen).

[Beej]

Last year was immense and so lovely to have such a great party in your own back yard, stumbling distance from my front door! Bring it on! :)

[cookie]

Already got my early bird ticket. Last years event was awesome.

[Renata Hamvas]

The consultation on the license application is here, if you click on the "how to make a representation", you can lodge your thoughts for or against this application (please note there is some website maintenance work going on an some of the pages come up unformated!)

http://app.southwark.gov.uk/licensing/LicPremisesAppliedDetails.asp?systemkey=865977

Renata

[DuncanW]

Great stuff!!

Last year was great - long may it continue!!

[Penguin68]

As long as the constraints placed on them, including post-event actions, are clear and are delivered on, there shouldn't be any problems. We might anticipate next year bizarre weather conditions as this year, such that e.g. proper tracking should be in place to avoid damage to the ground which may not be easy to remedy if there is another drought. Each year's event should be able to build on and make use of previous years' experiences.

[fishbiscuits]

I understand the amount paid to Southwark for use of the park this year was very, very low. I would like to see Southwark negotiate a better deal, so more money can be put back into the park and the local area.

[jimbo1964]

Would be better if the event were held on the common. Despite promises last year the damage to the grass was never put right.

[DuncanW]

Do you know what the amount was, is it on public record...?

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I understand the amount paid to Southwark for use

> of the park this year was very, very low. I would

> like to see Southwark negotiate a better deal, so

> more money can be put back into the park and the

> local area.

[johnie]

jimbo1964 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Would be better if the event were held on the

> common. Despite promises last year the damage to

> the grass was never put right.

Actually the repairs were made in the last two or three months and the area is currently fenced off. I think they had to wait for the rains to soften the ground.

[taper]

Full repairs to the damaged ground have not been carried out. There's a lot of damage outside the fenced off area and no sign it's going to be fixed.

[kiera]

The damaged ground has not been repaired, but it's not so obvious to see the ruts and unevenness, now that grass has grown back over it. I assume that's why that area has been fenced off - to make sure no-one twists their ankle walking on it.

[jimbo1964]

johnie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jimbo1964 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Would be better if the event were held on the

> > common. Despite promises last year the damage

> to

> > the grass was never put right.

>

> Actually the repairs were made in the last two or

> three months and the area is currently fenced off.

> I think they had to wait for the rains to soften

> the ground.

So maybe it'll be repaired in time for it to be ruined again.

[Renata Hamvas]

The damaged happened as there was heavy rain after the festival, before the site was dismantled. My understanding of the situation:- All vehicles were supposed to drive over protective covering if there had been rain. One vehicle arrived much later than it was supposed to, the protective covering had already been removed. This vehicle caused the damage. We then had exceptionally dry weather so nothing could be done to repair the damage as the ground was too hard. The area cordoned off required treatment so that the furrows would be filled in and the top reseeded, this required wetter weather which we have now had and the work has been done. We are the Fair paid for the reinstatement works.

Renata

[jimbo1964]

Surely it's better to have events like this on the common where the fairs and circus set up. Easier access for vehicles, closer to transport links and leaves that section of the park free for people to enjoy it as a park?

[fishbiscuits]

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We then had exceptionally dry

> weather so nothing could be done to repair the

> damage as the ground was too hard.

I find it hard to believe that earth can dry so hard that it can't be broken up and leveled with a bit of elbow grease.

[first mate]

I agree with you Jimbo1964, much better to use the Common which seems an ideal event space and leave the more scenic, planted parts of the park open for use by public.

The reason given for not using the Common was I believe noise, in that the trees in other parts of the park provide a baffle. However, no doubt the organisers can find other ways to reduce noise, I find it hard to believe this cannot be done.

[KidKruger]

"I find it hard to believe that earth can dry so hard that it can't be broken up and levelled with a bit of elbow grease."

yep. basic groundwork.

no 'dark art' there.

[kiera]

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The damaged happened as there was heavy rain after

> the festival, before the site was dismantled. My

> understanding of the situation:- All vehicles were

> supposed to drive over protective covering if

> there had been rain. One vehicle arrived much

> later than it was supposed to, the protective

> covering had already been removed. This vehicle

> caused the damage. We then had exceptionally dry

> weather so nothing could be done to repair the

> damage as the ground was too hard. The area

> cordoned off required treatment so that the

> furrows would be filled in and the top reseeded,

> this required wetter weather which we have now had

> and the work has been done. We are the Fair paid

> for the reinstatement works.

> Renata

It's very favourable to the new licensing application for Renata to say that all the ground damaged by the last Gala festival has been repaired. No doubt she is also reassuring her fellow councillors with this false good news, so they will not believe us mere regular park user residents when we tell them that it hasn't been. I don't believe it has been repaired, but if it has, is Renata satisfied with the quality of the work - ruts only being filled in gradually and naturally with autumn leaves and rubbish.

As councillor for the park, I consider Renata should've shown more interest in being sure of the facts before contradicting local users by issuing false assurances that it has all been repaired. I consider she should instead be looking into why part of the park is still fenced off from local residents and why there is still damaged ground now - over six months after the event.

[EDWill]

Looking at the info pack for the licensing sub-committee?s meeting re the 2018 Licence application, any objections because of potential damage that could be caused to the park (which proved to be well founded) would not be considered as We Are The Fair Ltd had already sought, and been granted, permission to use the park. Objections under the Licensing Act would only be considered (detailed below).

Renata, would you be able to confirm if permission has already been granted for using the Park in 2019 and, if so, there was any public consultation given the ongoing impact to park users after this year?s event in May?

****

For applications under the Licensing Act 2003, your representation must be based on one of the four licensing objectives, under the Act:

prevention of crime and disorder

prevention of public nuisance

public safety

protection of children from harm

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/business/licences/how-to-lodge-a-representation

****

Licensing sub-committee Info pack -

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6010/Public%20reports%20pack%20Monday%2029-Jan-2018%2010.00%20Licensing%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=10

[Sue]

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Renata Hamvas Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > We then had exceptionally dry

> > weather so nothing could be done to repair the

> > damage as the ground was too hard.

>

> I find it hard to believe that earth can dry so

> hard that it can't be broken up and leveled with a

> bit of elbow grease.

We are on clay soil here.

Believe me, it dries so hard it would take a great deal more than elbow grease to break it up.

[TheTruthisOut]

EDWill Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Looking at the info pack for the licensing

> sub-committee?s meeting re the 2018 Licence

> application, any objections because of potential

> damage that could be caused to the park (which

> proved to be well founded) would not be considered

> as We Are The Fair Ltd had already sought, and

> been granted, permission to use the park.

> Objections under the Licensing Act would only be

> considered (detailed below).

>

> Renata, would you be able to confirm if permission

> has already been granted for using the Park in

> 2019 and, if so, there was any public consultation

> given the ongoing impact to park users after this

> year?s event in May?

>

> ****

> For applications under the Licensing Act 2003,

> your representation must be based on one of the

> four licensing objectives, under the Act:

>

> prevention of crime and disorder

> prevention of public nuisance

> public safety

> protection of children from harm

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/business/licences/how

> -to-lodge-a-representation

> ****

>

> Licensing sub-committee Info pack -

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6010/

> Public%20reports%20pack%20Monday%2029-Jan-2018%201

> 0.00%20Licensing%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=10

Unfortunately, Southwark prefers to make a decision and then "consult" with residents.

The decision to allow this event - not just for 2019 but for the next 3 years and covering a much larger area of the park - was made by Southwark events team without any public consultation. Some of us anticipated that Southwark wanted to make the decision without first hearing residents' concerns and we asked for a meeting with Councillor Rebecca Lury, the cabinet member for Culture, Leisure, Equalities and Communities, well before the permission to hold the event was granted. Only after the decision was made did we receive a reply, nearly 3 weeks later, stating that there is "currently a community consultation event being organised on this to understand the concerns of residents..." A meeting was held on 10th December 2018 and attendees were told that there was to be no discussion of the suitability of the park for the event.

As you state, EDWill, the only input that residents now have is limited to the 4 grounds set out in the Licensing Act. Residents have thus been deprived of making any meaningful representations; in other words, the consultation is a complete sham since it is restricted to considering only how, not if, the event should be held.

Similar complaints about lack of consultation were made in relation to the 6-week event in Southwark Park. Southwark was forced to apologise for its mistakes there but this apology looks rather hollow when it has continued to contrive to avoid hearing residents' views in this case.

[first mate]

I am sure I am not the only one who would like to hear Renata's response to TheTruthisOut's comments above.

[VerryBerry]

I live oppersite the park and save for the blue small signs, NOTHING has been posted or put up about this. 3 years is a lot. We were impacted by the noise and disruption. It's telling that Lambeth council gave similar organisations a swerve in brockwell park and Southwark are rushing are rushing to lap up the leftovers. My neighbours and I use the park at lot and don't understand why events are being forced into the small area when you have Burgess and Dulwich park that easily accommodate these sorts of events. Parks are for enjoyment, not thoughtless profitmaking vehicles -And from a Labour council too. Smh