I hope the killjoys of Brockwell Park are happy with their contribution to killing off live music. What’s the betting they’ll oppose the planning permission process as well.
Oh come on. I doubt many people would care if it was just a weekend here and there. But the idea we should just accept half the park (the best half of the park!) being boarded up for the best part of the summer is for the birds. Yours, killjoyfully.
30,000 people a day in what sounds like a relatively small park? I don't blame locals for objecting--they're certainly not killjoys. No one wants to kill off live music--get a grip--just find appropriate venues that won't result in damage that makes a park inaccessible to local residents for unacceptably long periods of time. "Homophobia" has nothing to do with it.
Appropriate venue? What, like a park capable of hosting a festival? If it wasn’t possible to host 30,000 people there the festivals wouldn’t be able to be hosted there.
Just like at Finsbury Park it’s not the case that the whole park is inaccessible during the festivals. Outdoor festivals are how it’s possible to get many acts together at once in a variety of musical genres from huge acts to small ones. It just isn’t possible to do this in the sorts of indoor venues available and football stadiums aren’t suitable either.
I personally like the city festivals, but I think that there's plenty of opportunities for those people to attend live music in the city if they wish to, with or without these festivals. And it does massively impact the communities in which these parks are when huge sections of the parks are inaccessible for a long time.
There's even an argument that this big events, and the big mega clubs like Drumsheds, damage the footfall to grassroots venues, as fans would rather save up and have one big blow out with more famous acts vs a few nights out at smaller places with less well known acts
Too right we will. Some people are more interested in protecting a park that's for everyone, rather than PE-owned festival which makes a few people happy for a day, but had lasting consequences for everyone who lives there.
Take a wander up to the park. Take a look at the large patches of ground that are still screwed from last year (oh but you can't because it's all fenced off and built on again).
The festival area was fenced off until November last year while (pretty ineffective) restoration work was attempted.
The relentless soil compaction is screwing the natural drainage, damaging trees and flooding other areas of the park.
Oh and something like 30 protected species have disappeared from the park since 2021.
The park is for everyone to enjoy and a natural habitat for wildlife. It's not for companies to make money off.
We'd understand the ecological impact more, but funnily enough the council has never bothered to do an appropriate impact survey. Strange that.
There are few pleasures to be had in this increasingly cash-strapped city that one has the means to enjoy. Live music can be savoured in a variety of ways and places; nature less so.
I don't think this implication is fair "The anti-festival case gathered widespread support among the community in south London, although some residents are in favour of the events. A pro-Mighty Hoopla campaign group calling itself SayYesLambeth, run by members of a gay rugby team who wanted to attend the festival, briefly emerged before fizzling out."
The festivals that take place sell out far in advance and clearly have more widespread support than the NIMBYs opposed if you choose to count them properly.
Not for nothing, but Hoopla didn't sell out far in advance. And how many of the thousands of people who attend actually live in the area and witness the damage and destruction it causes?
The Say Yes group fizzled out because their best argument was that they wanted somewhere to drink prosecco and dance. Lol
And who cares if they are local? For one, there are 9 million of us in Greater London and many of us count ourselves as part of the greater, not the tiny fiefdom boroughs (and I'm up the street in Camberwell). And two, London is the capital city, not some quiet town, it will be noisy.
You didn't see the pictures from last year.... Or clearly havent seen the damage that's still not recovered while they build on it again.
Don't have any beef with the noise. Just want to protect a green space instead of let it get trashed for the benefit of some shady PE firm (the same one thats about to take over Thames water btw).
Hardly anyone wants to ban them outright... We just want them scaled back or tale and occasional year off. Glastonbury does it.
Yeah you are. And the idea that Hoopla should go ahead because LGBTQ+ people need a place to dance is almost as daft as the idea that festivals like Hoopla should go ahead because people can't get Glastonbury tickets.
Hoopla is owned by a cut throat private equity firm.... All that nonsense about it being for the community is pink washing. They wouldn't do it if they didn't make a huge amount of money. The LGBTQ 'community' it claims to serve are being taken for a ride. And I say this as a gay man who used to enjoy Hoopla before it got too big and top corporate (and full of straight kids desperate to be interesting)
It was would be very elaborate and would have required a degree of premonition, since the campaign against the festivals had been going on for some time and predates the recent controversy surrounding Kneecap.
I have to say the fence thing sounds very familiar, similar to what happened to Gunnersbury Park. The events are not a problem - this is London for Christs sake - but turning the Park into a corridor for months is a bit annoying.
Would be intersted to know how many London festivals are actually impacted by this. There can't be many others that take over a park for over 28 days. The only ones I can think of are All Points East and perhaps Finsbury Park. They both might come and go within the four week window, for all I know.
If anything this might just incentivise promoters to spread their events out across different venues and use arenas/staduims, rather than repeatedly use one venue to cut costs. Perhaps they will also seek to avoid London parks which neighbour wealthy areas housing famous actors.
It doesn’t have to take over a park for a full 28 days for this to matter - it’s just that the park can only have temporary events (of any kind, markets etc could be other examples) for a total of 28 days in the year before requiring full planning permission for further events. So even if it’s not around for that long, if there are other events also operating via permitted development, it might then need full planning permission.
Also worth nothing that at least in the case of the Brockwell Live events, the setup and deinstallation formed the majority of the events’ total duration (the 37 days noted by the judge).
Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. That is more significant.
Not great for the likes of Lambeth who raise much-needed funds from these events. Perhaps promoters will seek refuge in other boroughs where they are less likely to get opposition!
That's part of the issue. The council isn't allowed to make profit from the park. Something to do with the fact they only hold it in trust. It's not theirs to monetise. The idea that the festivals fund local services is false.... And the reason this went all the way to court is because Lambeth refused to give any transparency on how the money side of things worked. All the money goes to the festival owners (which includes some dodgy PE firms)
You can't really use an arena or stadium for a festival. Mighty Hoopla, for example, has 5+ large and small stages, so the noise from the main stage would drown everything out. You'd kill all the smaller, local acts, in favour of big ones, which is not the point.
Yeah that's not actually true. And successful for who? In terms of numbers and money, yeah I'm sure it is. But I've seen the damage first hand. And I was still seeing it in November... And a week before the fence went up again for this year. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, or paying attention to what's happening.
Why are you so against the council and promoters following the rules?
The claims have been pretty well specified. 30 odd wildlife species gone since 2021, compacted soil damaging trees and creating major drainage problems, huge patches of grassland turned to barren dust that you can still see from last year?
We'd know a lot more if the council undertook proper environmental impact assessments... But they don't bother.
You realise people are just asking for a more considerate approach... Either fewer events, or smaller, or regular fallow years. Glastonbury takes a year off to give the land time to recover. Seems a weird thing to fight against.
Further thoughts on this. Two of the most reported on/most amplified voices on this are a well known actor and a TV and film producer. Working in an industry that can significantly impinge on access to public parks and spaces, especially on larger projects.
But that’s ok, just so long as it’s not in their own neighbourhoods and helps add to individual net-worths of multiple millions of pounds.
You're seriously comparing a day or two's location filming to multiple festivals for tens of thousands for people?
And you realise the only people making money with this are the festival promoters right? Curious how you think a local resident makes any money from protecting a park...🤔
Been thinking about this. All in all this could have been avoided if the council was more transparent and less greedy but in the end it's all us fighting for crumbs of culture or fun that only seem to make sense if it causes mass inconvenience on the park. It's as if "don't take so much space" "as part of hiring the space you will pay for maintenance" are out of the table - the only discourse is fun against nimbys.
In a country so screwed economically where an event only makes money nowadays when it's massive (most of the nightclubs are losing money, most of the bands and gig venues and the sacred "grassroots" ones most of all) and where most people related to a politician job sees the rest of citizens as cattle, this is what happens.
So, the outcome of the Brockwell Park thing is the Council has to... ask themselves for planning permission? This doesn't seem like too difficult a thing to achieve? I presume the planning committee isn't anti, particularly at this kind of notice... Obviously will have effects in the future, but can't believe anything would stop next weekend's events?
I’d assume it’s the festival organisers that would be seeking planning permission from the council, although as you say, the vested interest Lambeth has in allowing these events to go ahead should mean the process could be rubber-stamped fairly expediently. Posing the question… why did the residents go to all the bother and expense of making the council jump through its own hoops? They seem to have done nothing more than inconvenience Lambeth Council, not to mention costing the council £35k+ in legal fees that could have been put to more productive use.
Well, I think it will have a bigger impact on subsequent year's planning, ie they'll need to apply properly and then people can object properly (and, no doubt, prospective cllrs in the area will be campaigning to get elected to get on the planning committee to stop it) which seems a reasonable outcome in the long run (to be clear, I've enjoyed Brockwell Park events in the past, but an extra bit of democracy isn't to be avoided).
I hope the killjoys of Brockwell Park are happy with their contribution to killing off live music. What’s the betting they’ll oppose the planning permission process as well.
Oh come on. I doubt many people would care if it was just a weekend here and there. But the idea we should just accept half the park (the best half of the park!) being boarded up for the best part of the summer is for the birds. Yours, killjoyfully.
Hi killjoyfully and nimbyly -- might I just say: motte, meet bailey.
You can say what you like, but if you want a proper answer it's best not to talk in riddles.
30,000 people a day in what sounds like a relatively small park? I don't blame locals for objecting--they're certainly not killjoys. No one wants to kill off live music--get a grip--just find appropriate venues that won't result in damage that makes a park inaccessible to local residents for unacceptably long periods of time. "Homophobia" has nothing to do with it.
Appropriate venue? What, like a park capable of hosting a festival? If it wasn’t possible to host 30,000 people there the festivals wouldn’t be able to be hosted there.
And I am a local.
So because so something can be done, we should do it?!
If it has no meaningful detrimental impact, yup.
Just like at Finsbury Park it’s not the case that the whole park is inaccessible during the festivals. Outdoor festivals are how it’s possible to get many acts together at once in a variety of musical genres from huge acts to small ones. It just isn’t possible to do this in the sorts of indoor venues available and football stadiums aren’t suitable either.
Don’t want to otherwise take issue with this, but just to be clear Karen, it’s a huge park
I personally like the city festivals, but I think that there's plenty of opportunities for those people to attend live music in the city if they wish to, with or without these festivals. And it does massively impact the communities in which these parks are when huge sections of the parks are inaccessible for a long time.
There's even an argument that this big events, and the big mega clubs like Drumsheds, damage the footfall to grassroots venues, as fans would rather save up and have one big blow out with more famous acts vs a few nights out at smaller places with less well known acts
Too right we will. Some people are more interested in protecting a park that's for everyone, rather than PE-owned festival which makes a few people happy for a day, but had lasting consequences for everyone who lives there.
‘Lasting consequences’..please elaborate.
Take a wander up to the park. Take a look at the large patches of ground that are still screwed from last year (oh but you can't because it's all fenced off and built on again).
The festival area was fenced off until November last year while (pretty ineffective) restoration work was attempted.
The relentless soil compaction is screwing the natural drainage, damaging trees and flooding other areas of the park.
Oh and something like 30 protected species have disappeared from the park since 2021.
The park is for everyone to enjoy and a natural habitat for wildlife. It's not for companies to make money off.
We'd understand the ecological impact more, but funnily enough the council has never bothered to do an appropriate impact survey. Strange that.
Elaborated enough?
There are few pleasures to be had in this increasingly cash-strapped city that one has the means to enjoy. Live music can be savoured in a variety of ways and places; nature less so.
I don't think this implication is fair "The anti-festival case gathered widespread support among the community in south London, although some residents are in favour of the events. A pro-Mighty Hoopla campaign group calling itself SayYesLambeth, run by members of a gay rugby team who wanted to attend the festival, briefly emerged before fizzling out."
The festivals that take place sell out far in advance and clearly have more widespread support than the NIMBYs opposed if you choose to count them properly.
Not for nothing, but Hoopla didn't sell out far in advance. And how many of the thousands of people who attend actually live in the area and witness the damage and destruction it causes?
The Say Yes group fizzled out because their best argument was that they wanted somewhere to drink prosecco and dance. Lol
"witness the damage and destruction it causes"
This is hyperbole.
And who cares if they are local? For one, there are 9 million of us in Greater London and many of us count ourselves as part of the greater, not the tiny fiefdom boroughs (and I'm up the street in Camberwell). And two, London is the capital city, not some quiet town, it will be noisy.
You didn't see the pictures from last year.... Or clearly havent seen the damage that's still not recovered while they build on it again.
Don't have any beef with the noise. Just want to protect a green space instead of let it get trashed for the benefit of some shady PE firm (the same one thats about to take over Thames water btw).
Hardly anyone wants to ban them outright... We just want them scaled back or tale and occasional year off. Glastonbury does it.
Now that is a homophobic dogwhistle.
Nope. Actually it's a direct quote from
one of the SayYes organisers in an article on this site.
"Mighty Hoopla, he said, is “honestly the best day of the year” where he gets to drink Prosecco with friends,"
I suspect a level of homophobia in the protests against the festival though I may be being unfair.
Yeah you are. And the idea that Hoopla should go ahead because LGBTQ+ people need a place to dance is almost as daft as the idea that festivals like Hoopla should go ahead because people can't get Glastonbury tickets.
Hoopla is owned by a cut throat private equity firm.... All that nonsense about it being for the community is pink washing. They wouldn't do it if they didn't make a huge amount of money. The LGBTQ 'community' it claims to serve are being taken for a ride. And I say this as a gay man who used to enjoy Hoopla before it got too big and top corporate (and full of straight kids desperate to be interesting)
I wonder about that. Who pointed out Mighty Hoopla as the example festival that was harmful to the park?
And what is going to happen to Wide Awake now? Is this an elaborate plan to cancel Kneecap?
It was would be very elaborate and would have required a degree of premonition, since the campaign against the festivals had been going on for some time and predates the recent controversy surrounding Kneecap.
well, that is what someone with an elaborate plan to cancel Kneecap would say!
Not so much unfair as cretinous
Try not to be quite that rude.
I have to say the fence thing sounds very familiar, similar to what happened to Gunnersbury Park. The events are not a problem - this is London for Christs sake - but turning the Park into a corridor for months is a bit annoying.
The festivals this ruling effects are all in May. That's a month that's half over already.
Would be intersted to know how many London festivals are actually impacted by this. There can't be many others that take over a park for over 28 days. The only ones I can think of are All Points East and perhaps Finsbury Park. They both might come and go within the four week window, for all I know.
If anything this might just incentivise promoters to spread their events out across different venues and use arenas/staduims, rather than repeatedly use one venue to cut costs. Perhaps they will also seek to avoid London parks which neighbour wealthy areas housing famous actors.
It doesn’t have to take over a park for a full 28 days for this to matter - it’s just that the park can only have temporary events (of any kind, markets etc could be other examples) for a total of 28 days in the year before requiring full planning permission for further events. So even if it’s not around for that long, if there are other events also operating via permitted development, it might then need full planning permission.
Also worth nothing that at least in the case of the Brockwell Live events, the setup and deinstallation formed the majority of the events’ total duration (the 37 days noted by the judge).
Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. That is more significant.
Not great for the likes of Lambeth who raise much-needed funds from these events. Perhaps promoters will seek refuge in other boroughs where they are less likely to get opposition!
That's part of the issue. The council isn't allowed to make profit from the park. Something to do with the fact they only hold it in trust. It's not theirs to monetise. The idea that the festivals fund local services is false.... And the reason this went all the way to court is because Lambeth refused to give any transparency on how the money side of things worked. All the money goes to the festival owners (which includes some dodgy PE firms)
Ah yes the great work of the utterly unrepresentative of the area Friends of Finsbury Park with their own court case.
The public trust thing was thrown out by Justice Mould in the Whitewebbs case last year.
Not getting into an argument about 'dodgy PE firms' as its Friday and I'm at the pub. Have a good evening 👍
You can't really use an arena or stadium for a festival. Mighty Hoopla, for example, has 5+ large and small stages, so the noise from the main stage would drown everything out. You'd kill all the smaller, local acts, in favour of big ones, which is not the point.
Lol it's almost like the festival is too big or something?!
Except it isn’t. It has run successfully for a number of years, with no lasting damage to the park or the local area.
Yeah that's not actually true. And successful for who? In terms of numbers and money, yeah I'm sure it is. But I've seen the damage first hand. And I was still seeing it in November... And a week before the fence went up again for this year. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, or paying attention to what's happening.
Why are you so against the council and promoters following the rules?
Not against there being rules Mark. I am against unspecified claims of permanent damage.
The claims have been pretty well specified. 30 odd wildlife species gone since 2021, compacted soil damaging trees and creating major drainage problems, huge patches of grassland turned to barren dust that you can still see from last year?
We'd know a lot more if the council undertook proper environmental impact assessments... But they don't bother.
You realise people are just asking for a more considerate approach... Either fewer events, or smaller, or regular fallow years. Glastonbury takes a year off to give the land time to recover. Seems a weird thing to fight against.
Further thoughts on this. Two of the most reported on/most amplified voices on this are a well known actor and a TV and film producer. Working in an industry that can significantly impinge on access to public parks and spaces, especially on larger projects.
But that’s ok, just so long as it’s not in their own neighbourhoods and helps add to individual net-worths of multiple millions of pounds.
You're seriously comparing a day or two's location filming to multiple festivals for tens of thousands for people?
And you realise the only people making money with this are the festival promoters right? Curious how you think a local resident makes any money from protecting a park...🤔
Been thinking about this. All in all this could have been avoided if the council was more transparent and less greedy but in the end it's all us fighting for crumbs of culture or fun that only seem to make sense if it causes mass inconvenience on the park. It's as if "don't take so much space" "as part of hiring the space you will pay for maintenance" are out of the table - the only discourse is fun against nimbys.
In a country so screwed economically where an event only makes money nowadays when it's massive (most of the nightclubs are losing money, most of the bands and gig venues and the sacred "grassroots" ones most of all) and where most people related to a politician job sees the rest of citizens as cattle, this is what happens.
Tear down this wall!
So, the outcome of the Brockwell Park thing is the Council has to... ask themselves for planning permission? This doesn't seem like too difficult a thing to achieve? I presume the planning committee isn't anti, particularly at this kind of notice... Obviously will have effects in the future, but can't believe anything would stop next weekend's events?
I’d assume it’s the festival organisers that would be seeking planning permission from the council, although as you say, the vested interest Lambeth has in allowing these events to go ahead should mean the process could be rubber-stamped fairly expediently. Posing the question… why did the residents go to all the bother and expense of making the council jump through its own hoops? They seem to have done nothing more than inconvenience Lambeth Council, not to mention costing the council £35k+ in legal fees that could have been put to more productive use.
Well, I think it will have a bigger impact on subsequent year's planning, ie they'll need to apply properly and then people can object properly (and, no doubt, prospective cllrs in the area will be campaigning to get elected to get on the planning committee to stop it) which seems a reasonable outcome in the long run (to be clear, I've enjoyed Brockwell Park events in the past, but an extra bit of democracy isn't to be avoided).
Council was a bit daft thinking it could get away with a blatant loophole, in my opinion...
Welcome to Lambeth Council. Daft would be a polite way of putting it.