Wandsworth Council’s new Events in Parks Policy was waved through Cabinet on Monday night – despite a forceful deputation from the Friends of Tooting Common (FOTC) raising concerns about fairness, transparency, and creeping commercialisation.
Speaking directly to councillors at the 14 July Cabinet meeting, FOTC chair Peter Ramell welcomed improvements to the revised policy but warned that key elements remained unexplained and unresolved.
“We were surprised and rather puzzled,” Ramell said, referring to the newly introduced clause banning large events on Wandsworth Common, with no equivalent protection for Tooting Common or any clear justification in the public paper. “There’s no indication why this was added – and no explanation of why Tooting Common is being left more exposed.”
A policy with “no complaints” – until people were asked
Cabinet Member for Parks, Cllr Paul White, described the new policy as a “tightening up” of the 2014 version, stating that it would better control how the borough’s commons are used and strike a balance that avoids disruption or overuse.
But Ramell pointed out the contradiction: “The number of large events, which in total could be up to 10 event days, we think it’s too high, and our concerns on this are heightened by the decision now made to exclude such events from Wandsworth Common.” He continued:
“We need to ask for an assurance from the Council that this decision will not lead to increased pressure for more large events on Tooting Common than would be reasonable, given that Tooting Common is the other large green space in the borough, aside from Battersea Park, which is dealt with elsewhere.”
Ramell also called for clearer definitions around “social impact benefits” – a vague clause allowing events on consecutive weekends – and urged explicit commitments around litter clearance, antisocial behaviour control, and policing.
The group outlined a series of practical changes they wanted to see in the final policy. These included a clear explanation for why Wandsworth Common was granted a blanket ban on large events while Tooting Common was not, a reduction in the total number of large event days allowed per year, and stricter limits on events held across consecutive weekends.
They also urged the council to commit to a full public review of the policy at least every six years, and to clarify how event size thresholds are calculated and applied.
Cabinet members responded warmly, thanking the Friends group for their work and asking follow-up questions. But the tone quickly shifted when it became clear the feedback wouldn’t alter the outcome.
Leader of the Council Simon Hogg described the consultation as a “listening exercise” – even as the points raised had no impact on the final decision. Cllr Paul White then read a pre-written statement from his laptop that dismissed or ignored the FOTC’s concerns, outlined minutes earlier.
The Cabinet then unanimously approved the policy without amendment.
“Listening” without change
More than 870 people responded to the council’s consultation, with a clear majority raising concerns about noise, commercialisation, and overuse of green space. The administration’s response was to cite the volume of responses as proof it was listening.
But listening is not about the volume of feedback received — it is about responding to it, reconsidering assumptions, and being willing to change course when the public’s views do not align with those of decision-makers.
Despite Cabinet claims that the policy had evolved meaningfully, no specific changes were made in response to the issues raised by Friends of Tooting Common at the meeting. The final policy still allows up to 10 large event days per year per site, offers no special protections for Tooting Common, contains loopholes for back-to-back commercial bookings, and lacks clear rules for policing and cleaning up.
Country on the Common – popular but revealing
Much of the discussion focused on the recent “Country on the Common” event, attended by 9,000 people and praised by Cabinet members as a showcase for the Borough of Culture year. Ramell agreed the event was well-received, but noted ticket prices were “quite high” and called for more local, affordable, and inclusive options in future.
Councillors insisted the policy would not allow “mass events” and stressed that many of the recent festivals had generated little complaint. “There is no demand for that in Wandsworth,” said Cllr White, begging the question: if there’s no demand, why write a policy that allows it?
Conclusion: praise without substance
For the Friends of Tooting Common, the experience was one of polite acknowledgement without impact. Their suggestions were welcomed, but not adopted. Their concerns were heard, but not acted upon.
As to why Wandsworth Common was granted special protections and Tooting Common was not, with no explanation and a refusal to provide one, internal emails would suggest it was based on the levels of public opposition to proposed events earlier this year. Not to mention the dual roles and conflicts of interest that councillors are now subjecting themselves to by approving inconsistent policies across Wandsworth.
Letting people speak is not the same as listening. True listening means taking public feedback seriously, being open to challenge, and adjusting course when needed. Consultation without change risks becoming a gesture, not a process — and that distinction matters in a council that claims to put residents first.
