Wandsworth Council’s claim to have shaped its new Events in Parks Policy around community feedback is only partly borne out by the evidence. While it made meaningful concessions in some areas, it ignored or sidelined many of the most serious concerns — particularly those raised by the very groups set up to protect the borough’s green spaces.
Score by group:
- Parks advisory and Friends groups: 4 out of 10 (One major win on Wandsworth Common, but most other asks were rejected or diluted)
- General public and other organisations: 6 out of 10 (Some clear improvements on timing, noise, and access — but key powers retained by the council)
When councillors meet on Monday 14 July to approve the new policy, they’ll be adopting a framework that allows significantly more and larger events to take place in parks across the borough. The new rules replace a much stricter 2014 policy and are intended to support Wandsworth – most significantly through commercial income.
But was the policy genuinely shaped by the community? Or just tweaked around the edges?
The council received 862 responses to its consultation earlier this year — including four detailed submissions from organisations set up specifically to protect and advise on the borough’s most sensitive green spaces. Those four groups were:
- Wandsworth Common Management Advisory Committee (WCMAC)
- Friends of Wandsworth Common (FoWC)
- Tooting Commons Management Advisory Committee (TCMAC)
- Friends of Tooting Common (FoTC)
The council published these separately, reflecting their official advisory status — but then chose to ignore many of their key recommendations.
Park groups strongly opposed large events — but only half were heard
All four park groups were united in opposition to medium and large-scale events (Category B and C) on both Wandsworth Common and Tooting Common. They argued these areas are environmentally sensitive, lack infrastructure, and have suffered visible damage in the past — pointing to incidents like Zippo’s Circus tearing up grassland in 2024.
The council responded by banning larger events on Wandsworth Common, allowing only Category A (small) events. That’s a significant shift — and a major concession.
But it rejected the same request for Tooting Common, meaning that Category B and C events will now be allowed there for the first time — potentially involving up to 10,000 people at a time.
The council also rejected calls to create a separate policy for Wandsworth and Tooting Commons — even as it confirmed that Battersea Park will have its own policy, due later this year.
Environmental safeguards tightened — but council keeps control
The park groups pressed hard for stronger environmental protections, including:
- Clear exclusion zones for ecologically sensitive areas
- Formal mapping of no-go areas for events
- Clear accountability on habitat protection and inspections
In response, the council did introduce stronger wording, including mandatory involvement of tree and biodiversity officers and post-event inspections for larger events.
But crucially, no specific sites were excluded — and no maps or published criteria were provided. The decision on what areas are safe for events remains entirely in the council’s hands, with no independent mechanism to hold it accountable.
Advisory groups sidelined from decision-making
Perhaps the biggest concern raised by all four park groups is that they have no role in deciding whether an event is approved in the first place.
Under the final policy, the council will continue to consult only after an event is approved in principle — meaning community groups are reduced to commenting on logistics, not whether an event should happen at all.
This is a significant step back from community influence — and a clear assertion of greater control by council officers and Cabinet Members.
Loopholes and grey areas remain
Other key areas of concern raised by the park groups saw little or no meaningful change:
- The policy still allows consecutive weekends of large events — a change from the 2014 policy — if they offer undefined “social value”. There is no clear definition of how this will be assessed.
- The council ignored warnings about antisocial behaviour, drug use and crime spikes linked to large gatherings — simply stating that such issues are dealt with through existing policing and licensing frameworks.
- Calls to assess public transport capacity — particularly for evening events — were dismissed or left vague.
These unresolved issues are likely to become flashpoints in the months ahead, particularly if events lead to repeat complaints, as has been the case with festivals on Clapham Common in neighbouring Lambeth.
Wider public feedback: some concessions, but council keeps the final say
Feedback from general residents and other organisations echoed many of the same concerns. Among the 862 responses:
- 71% opposed lifting the winter ban on grass events, citing the risk of turf and tree damage. The council responded by requiring Cabinet Member sign-off, but not a ban — meaning winter events can still happen when politically desirable.
- There was strong support for limits on event size and frequency, and clear concern about noise, fencing, public access and long set-up/removal times. The council introduced a 10pm curfew, banned full-park closures for non-council events, and now requires that part of each park remains open to the public.
- Noise rules were updated from a flat decibel limit to a more flexible model based on Noise Council guidance, with smaller events expected to be inaudible outside park boundaries. While technically stronger, this also depends heavily on enforcement.
The bottom line: more power, fewer limits
While the council made a number of positive changes, especially around Wandsworth Common, the pattern is clear: when it comes to deciding whether an event can go ahead, the council has ensured that it — not the public, and not its own advisory groups — gets to make the final call.
The policy’s tone reflects a desire to expand events, attract more commercial activity, and generate more income from parkland. Restrictions are there — but they’re flexible, and subject to officer and Cabinet Member discretion.
For residents, that means the future of parks will depend not on clear rules, but on what the Cabinet wants to approve — and how closely it listens next time.
