Wandsworth Council’s Cabinet is facing a rare public challenge this evening as the Friends of Tooting Common (FOTC) attempt to speak directly to councillors about the borough’s controversial new Events in Parks policy—amid rising anger that Tooting is being left to carry the commercial burden thanks to a Wandsworth Common exemption.
The group, backed by seven local residents, submitted a formal deputation request last week and sent a detailed statement [pdf] highlighting flaws, unclear wording and unfair decision-making in the final version of the policy, which was only published on 7 July and is expected to be rubberstamped by Cabinet tonight.
It is not yet clear whether councillors will allow the deputation to be heard—a test of transparency in the new Cabinet meeting format introduced earlier this year by Council Leader Simon Hogg.
While FOTC’s tone is typically measured, the submission leaves little doubt that local trust is wearing thin.
“We were surprised and rather puzzled,” the statement reads, referring to a new clause added late in the process that bans large-scale Category B and C events from Wandsworth Common, with no explanation—and no such protection for Tooting.
Under the revised policy, Category B and C events can draw thousands of attendees and involve days of setup, fencing, noise and disruption. While the council claims a 10-day cap across the borough, critics say this is little more than a theoretical limit, and the sudden exemption of Wandsworth Common—with no rationale provided—suggests political convenience rather than strategic planning.
FOTC fear the result will be greater pressure on Tooting Common, the only other large green space outside Battersea Park. Their statement calls for urgent assurances that Tooting will not become the fallback for commercial promoters now barred from Wandsworth.
Policy ambiguity and vague promises
The group’s concerns go beyond the Wandsworth Common carve-out. In a careful but forensic dismantling of the final draft, FOTC point to confusing language, loose definitions, and policy loopholes that leave decision-making firmly in the council’s hands—without scrutiny, limits, or clarity.
One clause forbids back-to-back event weekends “unless this can demonstrably reduce the duration of events infrastructure being on site… or where this can provide increased social impact benefits.” FOTC ask: what counts as a social impact benefit? Who decides? And what does “duration of infrastructure” mean in practice—especially when it comes to weeks of perimeter fencing?
“We have concerns that this could result in fencing being left in place for a number of weeks,” they warn—calling for a clear limit of no more than two consecutive weekends.
Noise, litter, police—and a six-year review
FOTC also call for common-sense additions that were left out: firm rules on noise levels, guarantees that litter will be fully cleared, and that events will be “appropriately policed to minimise anti-social behaviour.” None of these appear explicitly in the policy.
They want a clause committing to a full public review every six years—a safeguard now standard in similar policies elsewhere, but not included by Wandsworth.
Even where wording has improved—for example, counting “event days” instead of just “events”—FOTC note that key definitions remain vague or inconsistently applied. They question why “event size” is defined one way in policy tables and another in the classification of event categories.
A cosy Cabinet—and a bigger political question
Tonight’s Cabinet meeting could mark the first time the council’s new top-table format is tested by real scrutiny. Introduced earlier this year by Simon Hogg, the Cabinet format replaced the old committee system with a model where decisions are taken by eight senior councillors, usually in a carefully managed and self-congratulatory environment.
Whether the deputation is allowed to speak may indicate how open the new regime really is to challenge.
More broadly, the row highlights the tension at the heart of the council’s parks strategy. While the Events Policy paper outlines a vision of “community benefit”, many believe its underlying aim is to generate income from commercial events—particularly in a borough that continues to promote its status as having the lowest council tax in the country.
That detail features prominently elsewhere on tonight’s Cabinet agenda, prompting accusations that the Council is hoping residents won’t notice the increasingly difficult trade-offs being made behind the scenes.
If Cabinet members wave the policy through tonight without allowing the deputation, critics may see it as confirmation that the policy—and the process—was never meant to be open to meaningful challenge.
