GALA 2024

[fishboy]

1 hour ago, HeadNun said:

I've been in two minds about Gala. While I don't like it much, the noise didn't reach me this year. I'm all for the council generating revenue through events. Or at least I was... I took a look at the field yesterday (I'm in the park three times per day but have been avoiding that area) and the damage is terrible. I'm really not sure that it will recover this year. Destroying `parks for this aim is wrong. 

Gala was better at lessening the noise this year and moving the entry point. It's a peaceful festival, with what appear to be peaceful people, but Southwark should not have the right to permanently destroy swathes of the park for money.

As Angelina said, that particular park - the layout and geography of it - just isn't suited to this type of annual event. 

I've just gone over for the first time, and oh my - got to be the worst one yet. 

My issue has never been with the noise - although it is intolerable, it is only for three days. My issue is the environmental damage to our lovely park, which lasts a lot, lot longer.

The obvious damage to the landscape is shocking - so widespread, so deep - but perhaps even worse is the litter. Without even looking too hard, within a few minutes I'd found dozens of bottle tops, can ring pulls, tubes of filter tips, fag butts, cut off cable ties, disposable vapes, even a tampon applicator, all either hiding in the longer grass where the entrance was, or embedded in the dried mud. This is apparently after there have been several 'teams' of litter pickers over the whole area, and representatives of the council have walked the area and given it the thumbs up.

These are all things that aren't going to decompose, so will be embedded in the ground forever, literally turning the park into a rubbish tip. I just don't know how this can be allowed to happen, again and again and again?

May I suggest that before anyone comments on this post, or on the state of the park, they go and have a good, slow, careful, hard look first, over the whole site. Try and find some litter, I guarantee it will be a matter of minutes before you do, then you'll find some more, and some more, and some more...

Edited June 3 by fishboy

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Yeah, I kind of agree. I don't know why they do it at the back of the park where it's more landscaped / undulating, rather then the 'common' part (in front of the café), which would seem better suited (effectively a big flat field). This is where they put the circus when it's in town.

It is something that has been raised in meetings with Gala organisers and it is claimed that the Common is not a large enough site. At least that was reported by someone who had attended one of the recent meetings with Gala, where issues were raised. If this rings a bell with any of our more informed posters, maybe they can remind us of the detail.

I think the person either posted on this forum or it was raised in a recorded meeting with Gala, that I listened to. Sorry, cannot recall exactly.

A further reason given, historically, is that there are not enough trees to act as sound buffers on the Common- I can imagine that is true.

Have Friends of Peckham Rye commented yet? What about Cllr Renata Hamvas?

 

 

 

Edited June 3 by first mate

[PeckhamRose]

Councillor Renata Hamvas is Chair of the Licensing Committee so she can't do anything because she agrees they can have a licence.  The noise possibly because of the wind went east and so those of us on the east side of the park were bombarded, it was dreadful.  At the meetings I attended - yes Gala boys in their smart suits including the boys in the PR company they'd hired - all said yes yes yes they'd restore it and it would be clean and essentially we had nothing to worry about. Just like they say every year.     The Friends of Peckham Rye Park (I am a member but not on the committee) do attend meetings but feel their hands are tied.  They are never told how much goes back to the park.  They would never see it anyway, but they should do.  They do so much for the park and the Community Garden area is the best most precious place to be for me, which they maintain and work hard at.    And Gala will not stop at asking for more days.  One of the six days they had wanted would have been for us locals - but personally why should I go for free to a festival which puts on music I can hear from my flat?  I don't want to give them any time of day or night.   And yes, suggestions that the festival be had on the common were knocked back even by Southwark Events Team (who are just as responsible for this, for letting them get away with this) ([email protected]) because Peckham Rye Common has no tree surrounding to buffer noise, and being smack in the middle of that triangle it would cause more harm because of the traffic. 

I would beg everyone who is posting against Gala, please please get your complaints in now, and let's all physically go to the meetings next year.  The ones this year were quite well attended at the Clockhouse.   Sorry to go on but the sight of the site now is really upsetting and is exactly what Gala said would NOT be allowed to happen.

[Ben Wile]

I’ve been following the conversation with great interest. I don’t think that london parks and their wildlife are appropriate places for this kind of events. And of course, it also affects residents, too. It was really annoying going to the park with so many people, cans and rubbish everywhere, and noise spreading towards all directions. And think that I do like this kind of music, but I still think that this is not the right place to run big open air events like this.

Also, today I saw this on the news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3gg8p770eeo

A free event was cancelled because private ones damaged the Brockwell park. Of course a free event would be cancelled, there is no way it’d be the other way around.

 

Edited June 3 by Ben Wile

[alice]

The biggest free Lambeth  country fair is in next weekend 

[first mate]

Thanks Peckham Rose for reminding us that Southwark Events Team are just as responsible as Gala for the damage to the park.
 

I was not aware that Cllr Hamvas was Chair of Licensing. Isn't the Rye in her constituency? Surely, despite her role, she could object to the state the park has been left in. In fact, how can any of our local councillors ignore it?

[jazzer]

See the comments about the festival at Brockwell Park

https://x.com/richardwillq

 

[first mate]

Jazzer, is that link the right one? 
 

Edited to say you have to click in the first post in X to see all the other comments.

A lot of very upset residents.

I hope Southwark Council, Southwark Events and Cllr Catherine Rose, Cabinet Member in charge of parks and who has supported the Gala event come what may, have a good look at all of this and a rethink.

Edited June 6 by first mate

[PeckhamRose]

I have emailed [email protected] with a series of questions about the event including asking how many complaints were made to them and Gala, and how many times the readings went over the limit of decibels allowed, as well as asking about if they are satisfied with the state of the park afterwards and how much money will go directly to the park.  I asked quite a few pertinent and important questions.  Given the replies I think we shall have more ammunition to stop this next year.  However, if replies are refused or not answered in enough detail, a FOI shall be fired off and the responses to that shall be even more ammunition as it would have taken an FOI to acquire it.  Either way shall keep you informed.  If all of you who didn't turn up to meetings this year, turn up and join the rest of us next year, with all the information about how Events and Gala went against their word on what would happen, we may just stop this.

Look, I can dream, ok?

[PeckhamRose]

Hi folks.

A reply from Events re my questions:

"Thank you for taking the time to send us this feedback.   We have an internal event debrief booked to take place on Thursday 18 July and all of the issues you have raised have been recorded and will be reviewed at this meeting. I will be able to respond fully to you after this meeting has taken place.

There will also be an opportunity for local residents to attend a community debrief meeting. This is scheduled to take place at a venue close to the park w/c 22 July. This meeting will be facilitated by the GALA team, but council officers will be present also. Details will be circulated to those on the council’s stakeholder register and GALA’s stakeholder register and also to anyone who has complained about the event but does not have their contact details listed on either register.     If you have any further questions in the meantime, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Charlie Simm         Senior Events Officer       London Borough of Southwark

Email direct: [email protected]           Email general: [email protected] 

Tel: 020 7525 2739"

We must go to the meeting if you're invited because you made a complaint, or are on the list from being invited to the pre-Festival meetings.

 

[LivinSaarfMan]

The ridiculous hyperbole about the park being ruined is not going to aid your cause take a photo a couple of  weeks after all the seeding and repair works I saw taking place at the weekend I would think it will be well on the way to repair. Anyone in urgent need of a picnic can use the rye common instead of the park.

I live 200m from Colyton road this is very much my back yard.  I didn’t go and I fear I’m past the age group it’s aimed at. It’s been  well organised each year and it seems the organisers are trying hard to please residents,  who I don’t argue are inconvenienced for 3 days out of 365.  I was disappointed they got refused another weekend that I understand would be aimed more at families and fogeys  - much more my demographic. 

 

[John OShea]

15 hours ago, LivinSaarfMan said:

The ridiculous hyperbole about the park being ruined is not going to aid your cause take a photo a couple of  weeks after all the seeding and repair works I saw taking place at the weekend I would think it will be well on the way to repair. Anyone in urgent need of a picnic can use the rye common instead of the park.

I live 200m from Colyton road this is very much my back yard.  I didn’t go and I fear I’m past the age group it’s aimed at. It’s been  well organised each year and it seems the organisers are trying hard to please residents,  who I don’t argue are inconvenienced for 3 days out of 365.  I was disappointed they got refused another weekend that I understand would be aimed more at families and fogeys  - much more my demographic. 

 

Don’t know why but when I read this one expression sprang to mind, SOUTHWARK COUNCIL STOOGE!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

3 minutes ago, John OShea said:

Don’t know why but when I read this one expression sprang to mind, SOUTHWARK COUNCIL STOOGE!

Do you genuinely think that the local council is paying or making people post comments on Internet forums in support of council policies? 

The person that you're replying to created their account in 2012. If Southwark Council has been planning this for 12 years (or maybe they hacked the EDF servers!), then you have to acknowledge their project management skills.

[John OShea]

2 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Do you genuinely think that the local council is paying or making people post comments on Internet forums in support of council policies? 

The person that you're replying to created their account in 2012. If Southwark Council has been planning this for 12 years (or maybe they hacked the EDF servers!), then you have to acknowledge their project management skills.

Who knows what the motivations might be? Thought your comment about 2012 membership has, therefore, no relevance at all. <text removed>

Edited June 13 by Administrator
Remove jibe against another forum member. Warning given.

[first mate]

Other posters are entitled to their views and there will inevitably be opposing views, that is the beauty of the forum.
 

The issue for many of us is that year on year we would prefer that a large and popular section of the park is not taken out of use for weeks on end, does not have to undergo significant remedial work each time or undergo unnecessary tree lopping to accommodate event structures,  and does not have its ornamental aspect impacted at the height of summer, when all of us would like to enjoy it. If the impact of the event was literally only for three days, that would be different. As it is, we are talking weeks and months. There is also the question of long-term impact on substructure and wildlife, who knows...

Many thanks to Peckham Rose for raising matters with the event organisers and Southwark Council events.

 

[taper]

Must say, they have done a thorough looking job of repairing the damage done to the park. I'm mildly antipathetic to the Gala Festival. But it has been better organised this year. 

[turtledove]

18 hours ago, LivinSaarfMan said:

The ridiculous hyperbole about the park being ruined is not going to aid your cause take a photo a couple of  weeks after all the seeding and repair works I saw taking place at the weekend I would think it will be well on the way to repair. Anyone in urgent need of a picnic can use the rye common instead of the park.

I live 200m from Colyton road this is very much my back yard.  I didn’t go and I fear I’m past the age group it’s aimed at. It’s been  well organised each year and it seems the organisers are trying hard to please residents,  who I don’t argue are inconvenienced for 3 days out of 365.  I was disappointed they got refused another weekend that I understand would be aimed more at families and fogeys  - much more my demographic. 

 

It's not three days out of 365 - it's almost three weeks of putting up and taking down in which the residents on the west side of Peckham Rye can barely access the park. And then GALA leaves the area in an appalling state, ruining everyone's enjoyment for the rest of the summer.

[Spartacus]

4 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Do you genuinely think that the local council is paying or making people post comments on Internet forums in support of council policies? 

The person that you're replying to created their account in 2012. If Southwark Council has been planning this for 12 years (or maybe they hacked the EDF servers!), then you have to acknowledge their project management skills.

Obviously the council has a time machine 🤣

Must have paid for it with all the money they make from the CPZ revenue generating machine 😉

[LivinSaarfMan]

15 hours ago, John OShea said:

Don’t know why but when I read this one expression sprang to mind, SOUTHWARK COUNCIL STOOGE!

I’m not a Southwark council stooge I’m a city drone working for the man in the square mile… I’ve been an East Dulwich resident from 2007. I lost access to my previous account  my new account is from 2012 as mentioned. 

its unbelievably narrow minded to think that there is no local support for the festival. I would say that 8/10 of my local friends do.  OK they/we are the types that like a party. The two that  are mildly annoyed are dog walkers who do moan about having to use the other side of the park… but again they don’t hate it. 

I take the point that although only 3 days of noise,  access to the park is restricted for longer but there is another mooosive bit of grass right next to it that people can use … ie the Rye common part of the park. 

I feel London’s open spaces should be for everyone EVEN  those that like to listen music and dance in the open air. AND those that want to use it for quiet contemplation. 

I would also like to highlight that nightclubs and venues  across UK are under pressure and closing at a shocking rate. A large event like this not only supports the artists playing and the  ‘scene. ’  It also provides traffic and income at local south London venues used for pre and post events/ drinking. 

We should all be proud of the musical culture the UK  has to offer  and in particular it’s leading contribution to electronic dance music. There needs to be more  support for the reducing number of venues and events. 
 

[first mate]

A number of us are puzzled that the event is not held on the common, this is where events are usually mounted, leaving the more ornamental section of the park free.

Again, the objection is not so much to the three day event itself but to the fact that for the sake of three days a large section of the park is taken out of use for weeks, in high summer. There is also significant damage to that section of the park, seriously limiting its use for months.

If music venues are closing in London I wonder if this is because they are having to compete with myriad park festivals, of which there has been an explosion. 

 

[DuncanW]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

A number of us are puzzled that the event is not held on the common, this is where events are usually mounted, leaving the more ornamental section of the park free.

Again, the objection is not so much to the three day event itself but to the fact that for the sake of three days a large section of the park is taken out of use for weeks, in high summer. There is also significant damage to that section of the park, seriously limiting its use for months.

If music venues are closing in London I wonder if this is because they are having to compete with myriad park festivals, of which there has been an explosion. 

 

I think it's been said before that the organisers, and maybe the council feel that the dipped area where the event is held offers better acoustic protection. And it's also prettier - even people who dance to repetitive beats like to do so somewhere nice 🙂

Is there a legal/administrative issue around fencing off Common land that makes it easier to have it in the Park? I know they hold events on Clapham Common so that might suggest not... just wondering??

It's a very reasonable question about the evident correlation between more festivals and the diminishing number of nightclubs and music venues; it may be a factor but def not the only one. Gentrification and repopulation across inner and central London has caused problems around licensing and also meant that businesses that that rely on 5-6 hours of trade 3/4 nights a week struggle to compete economically in revitalised neighbourhoods.  

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

At least it's only 3 days. Brockwell Park seems to have been properly taken over for weeks on end.

[first mate]

And the Brockwell Park model is exactly what Southwark Council have in mind , if they can get away with it.

As to the observation that festival- goers also like to have an event in 'pretty' surroundings; I am sure they do, why wouldn't they. It also arguably makes that event even more saleable/profitable. But the inherent contradiction that the event they attend then removes degrees of prettiness for others, not only during the event but for weeks afterwards, cannot be denied either.

Edited June 14 by first mate

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

At least it's only 3 days.

Of course the minimum 'lost time' for normal Rye users is actually the fat end of 3 weeks, once set up and strike is taken into account, and before any necessary recovery time is additionally added in. And that's normally during the summer period (this June is exceptional) when you might be expecting to take most benefit of a park.

What I think is also objected to is the opacity of the whole arrangement - is this actually, once fully costed, in fact profitable for Southwark? If so where are these profits distributed (and if not where are the costs taken)? Are the Organisers charged for 3 days use or 3 weeks (or however long it takes)?

Claiming 'commercial confidentiality' is not really acceptable when one party is a public body with public responsibilities for proper management. At the least the profit and loss issue of operating as an event landlord should be disclosed, even when the actual charges were kept confidential. 

If the council cannot be open and honest about its dealings (or chooses not to be) it starts to beg a cascade of questions. 

Knowing they made £1000 profit (or £1000 loss) does not breach confidentiality when the base figures aren't disclosed, but it does tell us whether the disruption to council tax payers was worthwhile in the grander scheme of things.

[DuncanW]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

And the Brockwell Park model is exactly what Southwark Council have in mind , if they can get away with it.

As to the observation that festival- goers also like to have an event in 'pretty' surroundings; I am sure they do, why wouldn't they. It also arguably makes that event even more saleable/profitable. But the inherent contradiction that the event they attend then removes degrees of prettiness for others, not only during the event but for weeks afterwards, cannot be denied either.

First Mate, was it not Southwark Council that denied Gala's application for a license to run over two weekends? Am I missing something.

It's not really a contradiction, it seems more like it's an inconvenience to you and you don't like it. Fair enough that's up to you. I also live v near the site and it doesn't really bother me... I'm glad that so many people come and enjoy themselves.