Brockwell Park news, festival updates and more...

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by editor, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I should also point out that Buzz was compelled to amend an earlier article after legal threats. I expect we'll get the same for here sooner or later....

    Friends of Brockwell Park vote against plans to bring Lovebox and Field Day to Brockwell Park
    kateh and Gramsci like this.
  2. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    kateh likes this.
  3. Tricky Skills

    Tricky Skills I demand tea - NOW!

    We received a very heavy handed legal threat from Lovebox after simply linking to an article in the East London Advertiser. Cllr Peck (no relation, I don't think...) was making allegations about the *possible* increase in crime rates at Victoria Park during the Lovebox weekend.

    The legal letter was clearly sent to Buzz to intimidate us. It asked for a legal contact at our end (ha!). Sadly Buzz has bugger all of a legal fighting fund. The link to the East London Advertiser was amended.

    Hey hoe.
    Gramsci likes this.
  4. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    Lovebox really don't want people to read about the downsides of hosting their event, do they!

    I'm surprised that linking to an article in which a councillor describes their very negative experience of a particular promoter and their event, and backs it up with data, could be actionable.

    To be honest, Lovebox have made it abundantly clear how desperate they are for kind words by publishing a "reference" from Friends of Victoria Park which is as clinical as it is far from a glowing referral. This is how it read to me:
    You sometimes listened to us.
    Thanks for the cash you gave us in 6 of the 13 years (but not last year).
    We were surprised when you moved on.
    After 13 years locals couldn't be bothered turning up to consultations anymore.
    Good luck.
    Tricky Skills likes this.
  5. lordnoise

    lordnoise Well-Known Member

    Did Lovebox move on from Victoria Park voluntarily ? I thought they were moved on by a newly elected Mayor who campaigned on ending the contract early due to crime and hassle to residents issues ...
  6. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    Summers of misery for Bow residents as Lutfur Rahman hands Victoria Park to controversial events company

    But also note the comment from the same chap who wrote their reference:
  7. Tricky Skills

    Tricky Skills I demand tea - NOW!

    editor likes this.
  8. lordnoise

    lordnoise Well-Known Member


    Wasnt me - it was him your honour ...
  9. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    The article is editor was asked to remove was a summary of a council meeting about a Lovebox license renewal.

    The minutes of the council meeting are here
    Tower Hamlets Council - Agenda item - Application for Time Limited Premises Licence for Lovebox 2014

    The email and data showing the bump in crime which councillor peck links to Lovebox is on page 55 of this document. 16.00 Licensing Sub Committee.pdf?T=10

    editor and Rushy like this.
  10. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    Wow. It really seems as if Lovebox actually have something to hide. Like someone convinced friends to look after their incontinent puppy. Without mentioning the incontinent bit.
  11. drachir

    drachir Well-Known Member

    Sounds lovely, but it's AEG taking over. They're just doing the same thing they do in Hyde Park with BST - have their two festivals on consecutive weekends, have some free entry events during the week (well, Hyde Park also has ticketed comedy etc.) they can sell £6 pints at, and save on setup/breakdown.
  12. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    I’m not sure they really do - correlation is not causation, claiming that this is “directly linked” to Lovebox when looking at stats for an entire borough is a pretty massive leap of faith.

    If this was reported crime within 1 mile of post code x, it’d be a lot more convincing.

  13. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  14. lordnoise

    lordnoise Well-Known Member


    This is the website on the PR exercise leaflet they're distributing in the area ...
    Gramsci likes this.
  15. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Live Nation are one hell of a stinking rich monster multinational:

    Live Nation Entertainment - Wikipedia
  16. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  17. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  18. jimbarkanoodle

    jimbarkanoodle Well-Known Member

    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.
    hungry_squirrel and DJWrongspeed like this.
  19. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Or maybe: this privately-run, profit scooping festival run by the biggest live entertainments group on the planet has a very good chance of completely fucking up the site for the Country Show which follows directly after.
    Ol Nick likes this.
  20. DJWrongspeed

    DJWrongspeed radio eros

    There's a great space in Battersea park but presumably Tory Wandsworth are unapproachable. Went to a great 1dayer world music fest a few years ago.

    Those against it are over doing it but in general it is the wrong park for the size of event. Why not Lydd airport like Oldskool rave days
    elmpp and editor like this.
  21. happyshopper

    happyshopper Well-Known Member

    Or Blackbushe for those who are even older.
    Nanker Phelge and ricbake like this.
  22. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Here's how much of the park is going to be swallowed up :(

  23. DJWrongspeed

    DJWrongspeed radio eros

    Thanks Ed, that is way bigger than I'd expected. I don't really get the entrance by the tennis courts. That area will get trashed. In the past the private festivals have really been around the 'Village Green' / Stage 3 area but this looks like a big take over.
  24. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
    elmpp, Tricky Skills, sealion and 6 others like this.
  25. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

  26. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Another comment at end of Brixton Buzz article points out that the income from events, according to Council events team, isn't going to be distributed as according to the Culture 2020 consultation papers. Which then would have meant that overall parks would have got two thirds.

    An argument for more feepaying commercial events is that as parks budget has been cut then this will help. But looks like in practice that's not guaranteed by Council.
  27. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  28. ricbake

    ricbake working out how

    editor likes this.
  29. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Fixed. That was my hangover at work!
    ricbake likes this.
  30. friendofdorothy

    friendofdorothy it is so much worse than Thatcherism now

    If anyone is concerned the letter we got (presumably the same one Rushy got) says -

    apparently 'the views of local residents are important to the council in determining whether they should go ahead' (I'll believe that when I see something change) So if these events bother you email them now.

    Deadline is 21st January.
    Gramsci likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice