Annual music events in Brockwell Park are not a temporary use of the park, but “part of an obviously prolonged and recurring use with lasting effects beyond the event period”, says a major objection to planning permission sought for this year’s Brockwell Live events.
The Protect Brockwell Park (PBP) campaign today (5 January) published a detailed submission from its planning consultants.
It says Summer Events – which has applied for permission to use part of the park for up to 32 days for five one-day events – “has not demonstrated very special circumstances … nor a complete and robustly evidenced package of benefits and mitigation” that outweigh the harm the events will do to the park, wildlife and the “amenity” of people living nearby.
Today was the last day for comments on the application. Although it has yet to be considered by the council’s planning sub-committee, one event, Cross the Tracks, is urging possible attenders to book tickets – at more than £70 each – soon, as it has already sold out ticket tiers one, two and three.
The events, each with a maximum capacity of 30,000, are:
- Field Day – electronic – Saturday 23 May, tickets £70 and upwards
- Cross The Tracks – jazz & funk – Sunday 24 May, tickets £70 and upwards
- City Splash – reggae, dancehall and Afrobeat – Monday 25 May, tickets £70 and upwards
- Mighty Hoopla – pop with an emphasis on queer culture – Saturday and Sunday 30 and 31 May, tickets £100 and up. With Lily Allen topping the bill, Saturday is already sold out.
- The up-to-now free Brockwell Bounce festival for children and families has been promising “updates soon” about its timing and a “refreshed” format for some time.
The PBP objection, which runs to nearly 8,000 words, says the planned events are “inappropriate and unacceptable in this sensitive location”.
It says the proposals “constitute inappropriate development” on a special planning category, “metropolitan open land” (MOL), by causing harm to the “openness and the essential parkland character” of Brockwell Park.
The objection says the legally necessary “very special circumstances” that clearly outweigh this harm are not demonstrated in the application.
Instead, it would:
- result in unacceptable harm to the openness and functioning of the park;
- materially diminish public access to and enjoyment of this important recreational resource, and;
- cause (both alone and cumulatively) harmful effects in respect of ecology/biodiversity, trees/ground conditions, residential amenity and the significance of designated heritage assets.
All of these objections relate directly to considerations that members of the planning committee are legally required to take into account when reaching a decision.
The objection also says that, to date, there has been little meaningful dialogue with residents.
PBP says that this indicates that the application “has been prepared to a compressed timetable aligned to the applicant’s event programme”, rather than being supported by a complete evidence base.
It also cites confusion over the deadline for the submission of objections, which Lambeth council communications have said was 31 December or 5 January.
The campaign calls for the consultation deadline to be extended and for any further submissions and additions to the application – which are mentioned in the application – to be subject to a further period of public consultation.
PBP says that, while the council uses a “headline figure” of 26% of the park used for Brockwell Live events, in fact, council drawings, and taking into account areas of the park that do not represent accessible open space (for instance car parks, and ponds), the amount of useable space occupied by the events increases to 45% – almost half the park.
The campaign says that Summer Events’ suggestion that there will be no permanent harm to the park because the permission sought is time-limited and the infrastructure dismantlable is “fundamentally misconceived”.
Its objection says: “the proposed use is, in reality, a recurring and ongoing commercial occupation of MOL which materially erodes the permanence of openness of the park, its fabric, and its public park function.”
PBP adds that there is “inadequate justification” for using the park, saying that claimed benefits could apply to any location.
It says that the council’s own post-event briefings for 2025 demonstrate that the “recovery” period is prolonged and that the park’s openness and recreational function remain “materially constrained for weeks and months” after the events.
Council officers “recorded the need for rope and pin barriers to restrict foot traffic in the most damaged areas … and later considered wider use of fleece/soil recovery methods notwithstanding the temporary reduction in usable open space this entailed during the summer holiday period.”
By early September 2025, officers were reporting “pre-event standards” across about 70% to 80% of the site and confirmed that further phases of work were required to reach 100% coverage,” the PBP objection says.
“On any fair reading, these are not benign, short-lived effects; they are continuing consequences of the event model itself.”
The objection also notes lessened activity in the park by protected species of bats as a result of events, and that “the application documentation (as publicly consulted upon) does not present a single, auditable, assessed lighting design package”.
PBP is also concerned that the Summer Events’ noise evidence is “materially weakened” by the decision not to monitor noise at the Herne Hill House and Park View tower blocks which directly overlook the music stages. “There is no credible justification for not doing so,” it says.
In terms of the public benefits arising from Brockwell Live events, PBP says that the application “is overstated and, in several respects, not robustly evidenced”.
It “largely repackages the intrinsic attractiveness of major ticketed festivals as a benefit and relies heavily on generic assertions rather than demonstrating secured, additional benefits arising from this specific proposal.”
Claims relating to “secondary spend” by people visiting the area for events are not supported by any transparent and auditable assessment. “Popularity alone is not a material public benefit,” it says.
