seems a bit NIMBYish to be honest. Some of that meeting roughly translated to: dont have it here in Brockwell park near to where i live, because it will be a pain in the arse for a couple of weeks. Hang on, why dont you just go to Clapham Common instead? its a bit bigger and i dont live there, yes, that would be much better.
I don't think palming the events off on other areas is helpful or fair. However I got the impression that the questioner was intending to make a point about Clapham Common which was clumsy and slightly lost. Up until now it has been the location of preference for these events. Lambeth had to agree in an out of court settlement with Wandsworth council to reduce noise limits on Clapham Common because of complaints from residents in Wandsworth (also complaints from Lambeth but they were not prepared to act on those). So their limits are down on what they used to be. Whereas the noise limits at Brockwell have been increased - making it more attractive. There are also a lot of complaints about events at Clapham already. I think that is what they were getting at.
Lambeth were claiming that they were bringing their sound limits for Brockwell Park (and the other 5 "major venues") in line with Hyde Park and Regents Park. Their limits are 75dB. As a sound consultant pointed out at the meeting - national guidelines (can't recall the specific doc) are that sound limits should be no more than 15 dB about average background noise for this kind of event (based on event frequency and duration). Background noise is apparently around 60dB in the central parks. In Brockwell Park the background noise is 50dB so upper limits should not be more than 65dB to be in line with national guidelines and central parks - i.e.10dB lower. As I understand it a 10dB increase is equivalent to a doubling of volume. (My figures are from memory but should give a rough idea to make the point). Lee Fiorentino (Lambeth Events) claimed all sound levels had been individually professionally calibrated for all five "major" sites in Lambeth including Brockwell. He has been unable to produce any report which supports this.
There were a lot of valid concerns at the meeting. And the answers were pretty thin. For instance, the Field Day production manager (i.e. in charge of building the site) was smoothly praising his team's extensive experience of making sure that Field Day would not damage the parks and unnecessarily inconvenience park users. When someone pointed out that and FOI had revealled that their 2016 festival resulted in £40,000 of damage to the grass due to poor preparation and that security fences had remained up enclosing one third of their park for seven weeks after the event (basically until Lovebox) to allow ground to recover - all he could say was that he was not involved that year and knew nothing about it! He offered a bigger security deposit (currently £15,000) but could make no assurance about not leaving the park trashed and out of bounds for weeks, rather missing the point.
Lee Fiorentino also referred very specifically to environmental and biodiversity reports about the impact of the events by an expert he named as Dr. Bolton which had assured them there were no issues. He was then asked by the chair whether the reports would be made available online at which point he said that they were not so much reports as a series of informal emails. Asked to provide them afterwards he has said that he was speaking to colleagues to put together some information on park biodiversity - i.e. the emails don't exist. He also said that once they'd approved the festivals he's ask the promoters to do their own environmental assessments.
Lovebox referred to various Tower Hamlets cabinet members who they claimed were delighted with and would vouch for their professionalism - yet a quote was read out from one of those referees saying that he could not in good conscience recommend Lovebox to the people of south London or the council - followed by a detailed list of complaints.
Bear in mind that the original consultation was extended by six weeks because it had been poorly (not at all) advertised and no information released. But the extension was only notified days before it expires (tomorrow). I have a letter dated 18 January, delivered on 19 January informing me of a six week consultation ending on the 21st. It's a joke and it is no wonder that Sonia Winifred would not answer questions about it. People are thoroughly pissed off.
This is about far more than a couple of days of events. I think writing off objectors as Nimbys is particularly lazy and uninformed, rather in line with your usual comments on these things.
