Lambeth: Let's churn up Clapham Common for profit! Up to 104 events per year planned

[CH1]

I still remember the 1997 Gay Pride Festival on Clapham Common (just about).
It was supposed to be fenced off and admission by £3 donation - but that petered out by the early evening (show time was 2pm to 10pm)
It was actually a marvellous do - with a set by the Pet Shop Boys to finish (with fireworks) - and a message from Tony Blair (who had just been elected)
Problem was the collapse of any arrangements to clear up afterwards - which led to a ban on all music events on Clapham Common events in the aftermath.

In 1997 the council was not particularly seeking profit - but was of course outraged to be actually paying to clear up after a big event. Naturally Councillors such as Bernard Gentry (who recently made a political comeback) were happy to fan the flames and seek the ban.

20 years ago it was the council who were resistant to events - but saw them as a sort of public service and clamped down heavily when it went wrong. Now it seems they have changed to turning parks and commons into a business model - and are not concerned about general amenity of residents at large.

 

[editor]

Fair enough, it's your opinion and a valid one. I'm just saying the majority of such events are very unlikely to take much space at all, and in fact the overwhelming majority of park users are unlikely to come across them, let alone much care.

You keep repeating this statement as a fact, so I'd love to see what you've got to back it up. What empowers you to speak on behalf of the "overwhelming majority of park users"? How do you know what they all think about events going on in their park?

I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that most people go to the park to relax and for a bit of piece of quiet, or perhaps enjoy a run around a regular circuit, and I can't imagine they're going to like anything that gets in the way of that.

 

[editor]

This seems relevant :

'Noisy' Clapham Common festivals spark furious row between councils

 

[Mr Retro]

Also the central government should properly fund local authorities, and Labour councils in particular shouldn't be in such a hurry to concede the ground of whether or not they are properly funded.

Reality is that they are not funded properly. The likelihood of them being funded properly in this governments term is nil. Therefore putting on these events is a way of raising some of the needed funds.

Before I could make a judgement on weather I am in favour of Lambeth council doing this (and councils in general doing similar) I would like to know:

1. The capacity of each event and how much profit is projected to be made on each.
2. Does the profit made on each outweigh the inconvenience for other users and damage to the park?
3. What will be done with these profits, who is accountable for distributing them and if this person(s) is being held to account for ensuring the profits are used as promised?

This info should inform if future events can happen in future years. If councils are going to behave like the private sector the same measures, accountability and consequences must be applied.

 

[Brainaddict]

Reality is that they are not funded properly. The likelihood of them being funded properly in this governments term is nil. Therefore putting on these events is a way of raising some of the needed funds.

Before I could make a judgement on weather I am in favour of Lambeth council doing this (and councils in general doing similar) I would like to know:

1. The capacity of each event and how much profit is projected to be made on each.
2. Does the profit made on each outweigh the inconvenience for other users and damage to the park?
3. What will be done with these profits, who is accountable for distributing them and if this person(s) is being held to account for ensuring the profits are used as promised?

This info should inform if future events can happen in future years. If councils are going to behave like the private sector the same measures, accountability and consequences must be applied.

Thanks for proving my point that many people can't see the problem with their local council becoming profit-making. It's not just about what happens on the balance sheet.

 

[Gramsci]

I have repeatedly tried to argue that it is bad for councils to be behaving like profit-seeking bodies (in the context of housing specifically) but it feels like the battle is lost. Most of the public seems to accept the argument that it's okay for councils to act for profit as long as that goes to fund public services. Sadly this is falling in line with what the Tories have been specifically pushing local authorities to do, and it's a shame more people don't wonder why it is we have 'public sector' bodies in the first place. They exist precisely because profit-seeking bodies don't act in a way that serves the public interest. In my opinion councils becoming profit-making is bound to undermine their ability to serve the public interest. In this case, as you point out, it makes the parks unavailable to most non-paying plebs for a lot of the time. I think it's very sad if people think this is acceptable just because the money then goes to fund public services - it's still a massive compromise in what councils are meant to be for.

Also the central government should properly fund local authorities, and Labour councils in particular shouldn't be in such a hurry to concede the ground of whether or not they are properly funded.

You are correct that that the Tories do want Councils to become more profit making. And you are correct that this has become accepted. With some Councils it might start as pragmatic response. With other Tory councils they see this as the way forward for local government. Either way once it's started its hard to turn back the clock.

Lambeth are a unique case. Being still run by the Blairite wing of the party they see the future of Councils as being enablers not providers. There words. Heard a senior Labour Cllr say this last week. They regard this as different to Tories push to make Councils profit making.

The issue of Clapham common is one small example of the gradual intrusion of profit making into space that was outside the realm of Capital.

 

[Gramsci]

London Squares Act 1931 specifically prevents councils from use of squares and parks that prevents public use and I gather was passed to make sure council's don't use for money making ventures at cost of public use. This is only reason Westminster doesn't have permanent champagne bars etc on the squares it owns, and is restricted in only using limited parts of Hyde park for summer concerts. Think the act only applies to central London borough so Lambeth not bound by it.

Its really shit, bit by bit, these really precious public spaces get appropriated.

If common land and parks were not protected by legislation dating back years ago I think London would lose these public spaces bit by bit.

Over in Loughborough Junction having a dispute with Council over losing the Adventure Playground. It's s beautiful site in a large green space surrounded by fully grown trees. It's not protected by legislation around parks or common land. So the Council want to sell it off to a developer in long term.

 

[Brainaddict]

Lambeth are a unique case. Being still run by the Blairite wing of the party they see the future of Councils as being enablers not providers. There words. Heard a senior Labour Cllr say this last week. They regard this as different to Tories push to make Councils profit making.

What do they mean by that, out of interest? It sounds very Big Society.

 

[Jangleballix]

Some visitors (though not all) will notice it for a festival of that size, yes.

But then, it is almost certain that the overwhelming majority of those proposed 104 events will be much, much smaller than the likes of SW4. So very few, if any people will be inconvenienced at all.

You are, of course, taking into account the four/five days on either side of any big event when the site is setting up and breaking down and therefore out of bounds to council tax payers.

 

[editor]

You are, of course, taking into account the four/five days on either side of any big event when the site is setting up and breaking down and therefore out of bounds to council tax payers.

Yep. This kind of thing:

 

[editor]

Update: Campaigners fight Lambeth’s plans for commercial events on Clapham Common

 

[editor]

Protest on the common today Protesters take to Clapham Common to stop Lambeth Council acting unlawfully and enclosing their Common land for profit

 

[editor]

Day three:

Day 3 in Clapham Common as protesters try to stop Lambeth Council acting unlawfully and enclosing their Common land for profit

Day Three of protests are being held by local residents, The Friends of Clapham Common and The Clapham Society in Clapham Common to stop Lambeth Council acting unlawfully and enclosing their Common…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

 

[jimbarkanoodle]

Hate to throw the cat among the pigeons, but i am of the opinion that there is plenty of room on Clapham Common to accommodate the festivals (which have been going on for many years now) and the usual leisure purposes locals and visitors enjoy it for. The protestors in the picture look to me like comfortably off middle class types who are trying to look good to fellow affluent Clapham homeowners by doing this pointless protest, or for stories to share over the next fancy dinner party down Abbeville Road.

The only real gripe i think locals can have is if it rains and the ground turns into a bog during the festival, but there is little control over this and the ground quickly recovers. i spend a fair amount of time on the common (as opposed to Brockwell Park) and i find the bits of it in the worse state are not where the festivals are but where people go and chill on a hot day- the area by the tube station has been a desert until the recent heavy rains this summer.

If the whole bloody common was fenced off for an event where you had to buy a ticket for i would be quite livid. As it is, i would say less 25% of it is, even for the big events like SW4. If i was a cynical man, i would say the main motivation the Clapham types are objecting so strongly is because they hate the noise of dance music and young people having a good time in their highly desirable, affluent neighbourhood on a few weekends each summer. And just because they cannot walk their pampered dog the usual way around the common for those weekends, doesnt mean they should deny tens of thousands of people the chance to go to and enjoy a music festival this summer.

 

[RoyReed]

No one is protesting against events happening on the Common. They're protesting against it being fenced off (illegally) for weeks at a time to facilitate money-making events that cause so much damage that a large area of the Common has to stay fenced off for months - last time for about eight months.

I used to be one of the organisers of the Streatham Common Kite Festival. It was a one day event that only fenced off a tiny area (100m square) for demonstrations, and was free to everyone.

 

[ricbake]

Which bit of the common should be given over to commercial events to the exclusion of the people who have an expectation that it should be respected as common land and available to all.
How large a section of it? For how long? Should the time it needs to be protected to recover properly included as a specific cost to the event? Would you give over all the football pitches? The spaces adjacent to the houses?

 

[editor]

Update: Park protesters release ‘The People of Clapham vs Lambeth Council’ statement

 

[thebackrow]

a lot of this seems a bit hyperbolic.

I'm pretty sure it's not 104 days of music festivals - from memory it's 5 or 6? Theres a load of setup/breakdown days around them which are included. The rest of the commercial days presumably includes things like the funfairs (which go on the gravel area at the end of Windmill drive), Winter Wonderland (which is probably the best part of 30 days of the total?) then I'd guess all of the charity events (London to Brighton bike ride, Moonwalk come to mind but there seem to be loads of others as well) count as commercial.

I want to have music festivals in London that I can get to by public transport (or even better walk home from) - they're part of what brought me to the city. I don't want all those other things to stop either (even if some of them have no interest to me at all) - they make the city a richer place, and I'd rather some of them were in Lambeth than everything banished to the Olympic Park. But they all take space temporarily away from free public access so it seems right that there should be a charge for them so that the people who do lose access benefit in some small way by having better funded public services.

Are the people dead set against any commercial use of the park in favour of none of these things happening at all? or do you think they should be given the space for free? For that matter the fairground at the Country Show is 'commercial' - they pay the council to be on site and you have to pay to go on the rides. No different to the fairground on Clapham Common .

 

[jimbarkanoodle]

"In the meantime, we would urge you to keep a record (photos, videos, sound recordings, diary entries etc) of any disturbance you see or hear during the events. Please also keep up the pressure on the Council by calling in to log your complaints. They always insist that they receive very few complaints about the events…"

Any respect or sympathy i have for this group and cause in general goes out the window when i read that. Urging people to snitch to the council means ruining the event (by getting the music turned down on the day) for 10's of thousands of people who have worked hard to fork out for expensive tickets and drinks for a day out with friends after a shitty 1.5 years. Besides, anyone affected enough by the event's will no doubt be perfectly capable of moaning to the council about it without a tiny but very vocal group of affluent Clapham homeowners ordering them to.

The sentence may as well of been written:

"please complain to the council as we are so hilariously in the minority with our views that we are not been listened to enough for our liking, and we dont want to hear distant basslines from our nice gardens every August bank holiday Sunday for the foreseeable future. We dont want other people enjoying the common in a way that we do not personally enjoy or approve of."

 

[Jesterburger]

The only real gripe i think locals can have is if it rains and the ground turns into a bog during the festival, but there is little control over this and the ground quickly recovers. i spend a fair amount of time on the common (as opposed to Brockwell Park) and i find the bits of it in the worse state are not where the festivals are but where people go and chill on a hot day- the area by the tube station has been a desert until the recent heavy rains this summer.

It's not a quick recovery - the main festival area was out of action for months and months and months, has only just reopened and then could be back to square one again

 

[Gramsci]

Update: Park protesters release ‘The People of Clapham vs Lambeth Council’ statement

So local amenity groups have gone through all the correct procedures to object. Lambeth council hasn't been able to get the consent needed in time but went ahead anyway. Saying it will get retrospective consent. It hopes.

I can understand why some local groups are upset. This isn't a one off. Looks like Council want the Common to be used for large commercial events like this regularly now.

I think the local groups have put a lot of time and effort to engage with the Council using all the right procedures. Can't be faulted on that. The Council has just gone ahead anyway.