Agenda item

Application for a new premises licence – Mad Husky / 51^st State

RECEIVED the application made by Mad Husky Events Ltd at the premises known as and situated at Trent Park, Cockfosters Road, EN4 0PS for a new time limited Premises Licence.   

 

NOTED

 

1.    The Introductory statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including:

a.    The application was made by Mad Husky Events Limited for a time limited new premises licence for Trent Park, Cockfosters Road, EN4 0PS, for Saturday 4 August 2018.

b.    The application sought hours of 11:00 to 22:30 on Saturday 4 August 2018, with regulated entertainment to cease 30 minutes before the close, and sale of alcohol to cease 45 minutes before the close.

c.    Similar applications had been made by Found Series Limited in 2015 and 2016 including an application made by Mad Husky Events Limited in 2017.

d.    Four representations had been made by local residents and groups, all against the grant of the application. Written representations were shown in Annex 3 – 6, from page 27 of the report and also in the supplementary information in Annex 8 -9 from page 49 of the report. The representations were based on all four of the licensing objectives.

e.    The applicant had responded to the representations and also provided a link to the live event management plan and supporting documents. The link is presented in Annex 10 – 11 and the full responses in Annex 10, from page 63 of the report.

f.     The Licensing Authority, which includes representations on behalf of Trading Standards, Environmental Health and Health & Safety initially, submitted a representation seeking modifications to the conditions offered in the operating schedule, by the applicant. Those conditions were agreed by the applicant and were set out in Annex 7, from page 45 of the report.

g.    The times and activities were not objected to.

h.    The Police had not made any representations to this application.

i.      Introductions were made of the attendees at the meeting on behalf of Mad Husky Events Ltd and of the interested parties. Also attending were Councillor Edward Smith (ward councillor), Hakema Kharot (Senior Parks and Business Officer) and Councillor Ergin Erbil (observer). Councillor Smith, as ward councillor, would be allowed to speak but only to reinforce comments made by the resident representations.

j.      As a point of clarity, the Chair questioned Annex 7, within the report, regarding the attached conditions. Reference was made to an event management plan and documentation having been agreed with the Safety Advisory Group (SAG). What sort of bodies formed part of the SAG? Ellie Green clarified that bodies included the Metropolitan Police, Fire Brigade, Highways & Transportation, Health & Safety and the Parks section. The Chair further stated that therefore SAG comprises those people who could be deemed responsible authorities who have the opportunity to have raised objections and be party to this. They had now seen the event management plan and other documentation and as a group are satisfied that it is compliant and were a licence be granted it would be governed by condition with all the implications the licence holder would have if those conditions were breached. Was that correct? Ellie Green confirmed that that was correct.

2.    The statements from the interested parties, including:

a.    Attendees of the event needed to respect the park and surrounding neighbourhood and believed that 51^st Festival organisers did not do this.

b.    This was a large scale House music event drawing young people from across London. These people would drink copious amounts of alcohol all day and did not have any regard for local residents.

c.    When interested parties recently met with Ms O’Sullivan (applicant) she had made an assessment that their data pointed to an average age group of 25-40 of mainly local people, many of them families who attend the event. This was challenged and based on their experiences of people who had parked in Leys Gardens, many of them alcohol fuelled, loutish noisy behaviour, anti-social and urinating in the grass areas and adjacent service road, in front of residents houses, they appeared to be in the 18-25 age group.

d.    The Enfield Helpline was called twice to complain and asking for help. The residents were told that marshals’ would be sent down, but no one came.

e.    For this event, residents were told that extra portable toilets’ would be placed outside of the event. This would not solve the problem at all as people who are drunk are not interested in toilets. They would stagger around in groups till they find dark areas to urinate on and encourage others to do the same. This would be ongoing till well after midnight.

f.     The event causes serious damage to the park. The field used in last year’s event had become a churned up mess and dog walkers have been unable to use the field which is still in a state of dis-repair.

g.    A county court judgement had been lodged registered against Mad Husky Events Ltd and was obtained by Enfield Council for non-payment of bills, for last year’s event, registered on the 4 May 2018. The Chair clarified that this may be an assertion and may be a judgement which would be considered as part of this process.

h.    If the licence is granted, ignoring residents objections, the very least that residents insisted on was for marshals' to be stationed at the top of Leys Gardens.

i.      On behalf of CLARA, concerns were expressed about the lack of information received regarding this licence application other than what had been displayed on blue site notices. Since their original submission they had only received certain limited information, even after attending both the discussion meeting for CLARA’s original concerns and the stakeholder meeting, where the event organisers were to present their full details of the event.

j.      After Clara’s final submission, the group were provided with a drop box link which should have included the Event Management Plan and a list of individual procedures. Of the 24 files provided, over half were empty and did not include documents relating to community engagement, noise management, Metropolitan Police, traffic management and terrorism advice. Based on the lack of event information available, the group found it difficult to understand how the current licence application could be considered.

k.    Based on recent information not within their 2 original submissions, CLARA also reported the following information:

·         Noise Management Plan - In their opinion, last year’s noise management plan had not been complied with, leaving the applicant’s noise procedure incomplete. The current noise management plan had been replaced from a 10 page document (from last year) to a page and a half statement rather than a procedure and relevant resident information had not been included i.e. acceptable noise levels both inside and outside of the park. Making a condition of the licence was not effective as updating it to the required standard by a certain date is ignored. The group requested, as a condition of this current licence application, if granted, that a full effective noise management procedure is provided before the licence can fully operate.

·         Traffic Management Plan – The plan provided by the applicant on page 67 of the report, in the groups opinion, was a statement rather than a plan and didn’t include any information regarding local road closures, marshal operating times, marshal’s crowd control plan, instructions given to marshals’ regarding residents and their protection, diversion details and suitable signage.

The statement should also have included the full agreement Transport for London (TfL) made with the event organisers. TfL had been dissatisfied with crowd control and with event organisers (last year) had documented a procedure for resident groups to see.

Objections were made, with the suggestion that a car park location for 500 vehicles should be at the Saracens football club. The group also objected to plans for a proposed taxi rank made by council officers and the applicant, as it would not be a workable location.

The group had not been consulted in advance of this year’s licence application in order to agree a traffic management plan and road closures.

·         Damage to Trent Country Park – CLARA’s original submission provided full details of damage caused to the show ground last year. Revised procedures were promised last year for this year’s event so as to prevent the damage happening again. The applicant has indicated that temporary trackway would be used to minimise the impact on the grass and they would be consulting the park manager. The group felt that this statement was inadequate and did not reflect damage to the show ground last year.

l.      In conclusion CLARA felt that over the past 2 years of this event, Mad Husky Events Ltd as organisers had demonstrated a lack of commitment to residents with regards to keeping promises made last year at meetings prior to the licence application, ensuring all the relevant procedures are updated as part of last year’s licence conditions and illegal advertising which was confirmed to the group by Barnet Council who advised that posters on motorway flyovers, public land, lamp posts and shops all required planning permission and have been illegally advertised. The applicant had advised the group at a recent meeting that bill posters on private land are legal.

m.   The group asked that the Licensing Sub Committee reject this application.

3.    The interested parties responded to questions, including:

a.    The Chair asked, from the applicant’s point of view, if they are moving in the right direction, taking appropriate steps to deal with the issues that had been raised i.e. urination and the applicants agreement for additional portable toilets to be utilised at this year’s event. It was advised that what is put on paper is great but the reality of 1000’s of people leaving in groups late at night and intoxicated, urination will occur wherever they want i.e. grassed areas, nearby walls, etc.

b.    The Chair asked a further question given the group’s submissions and the strong feelings they expressed, the anti-social behaviour they had witnessed, etc, why did the group think that the Police (responsible authority) were being irresponsible in being happy to sanction an event that the group as residents and others were not. It was advised that the Police did not live in the area and they had not seen a police presence. Perhaps the Police were not aware because of lack of resources. They could not speak for the Police, only what they saw.

c.    Councillor Pite queried the Safety Advisory Group (SAG) and when they scrutinised the Events Management Plan (EMP), would they have been aware of the resident objections. Ellie Green (Principal Licensing Officer) answered no, as it is separately assessed. SAG had started months before the licence application was submitted.

d.    Councillor Pite further questioned if SAG had heard some of the resident observations, would they, in licencing terms, have been able to address them. It was advised that SAG would have been aware of any complaints from last year, from Parks and stakeholder groups. Those complaints would have been brought to their attention.

e.    Councillor Pite referred to a review meeting contained in the document pack, between officers and residents last year. Would any of the representatives of SAG been at that de-briefing. It was advised that the Parks department had attended and were the key lead in that de-briefing.

f.     Ms Bo-Eun Jung (Counsel for the applicant) asked if the objectors had complained, at the time, to the Council or the Police Service. It was advised that they had called the Enfield help line twice, who said that they would arrange to send marshals’ to Leys Gardens. However, no one came and the anti- social behaviour, car door slamming and urinating continued to well after midnight.

g.    Councillor Smith, as ward councillor, asked for clarity regarding SAG and their processes:

·         It was advised that there were no member represented on the group and was only an officer group.

·         The Chair of SAG is a local authority officer who has a health & safety/food background.

·         The reports it makes are not published and meetings are not minuted.

The Chair further clarified that SAG would have met when the initial application had been submitted, regarding last year’s event, so that the Park’s team were able to use it. There would also have been subsequent meetings of SAG to follow up any outstanding actions that were needed. The SAG, in terms of this application have been satisfied by the EMP which is now enshrined in the condition, if granted, and therefore the legal implications of breaching conditions are heavy and an incumbency on the applicant later on.

h.    Councillor Pite’s re-iterated the points made by CLARA and that the applicant should touch on these in their submission including planning, the EMP, ongoing damage to the park, contractual arrangements, monies owed to the Council from last year’s event and noise management and required information about noise levels and what happens if they are exceeded.

i.      The Chair asked how many resident members CLARA had as an organisation. As, there were only 3 other resident objections to the application and the committee needed to establish how many residents CLARA spoke for. It was advised that the CLARA treasurer would need to be consulted, but at their last AGM there had been approximately 70 residents in attendance. Councillor Smith stated that the last CLARA AGM was well attended by residents and people there were very concerned by the proposed event because of last year’s event.

4.    The statement on behalf of Mad Husky Events Ltd, the applicant including:

a.    For the past three years, Trent Country Park had hosted the 51^st State music festival. It’s a festival over the course of the day and is for over 18’s only but because of the genre of music (80’s & 90’s) it tends to attract an older crowd with the majority demographic age being between 25 - 40.

b.    In previous years, it was a 2 day event with a Moon dance festival event on the Sunday, which had now been moved to another site so as to allow Mad Husky Events Ltd to focus on the 51^st State Festival on the Saturday.

c.    The application this year is only for one day on Saturday 4 August 2018 and is in very similar terms to last year and will be operated in broadly the same way. The size of the festival is not being increased and there will be again 5 stages, 3 bars and one VIP bar.  The only new addition would be a roller disco. All activities start at 11:00am with the last entry on the site at 06:00pm with no re-entry.

d.    There again will be the application of the soft closure procedure which had worked well last year. The first bar closes at 09:00pm and the rest of the bar closures would be staggered through the evening. The first music stage closes at 09:15pm, all alcohol sales stop at 09:45pm, all music stops at 10:00pm and the gates to the site are completely shut at 10:30pm.

e.    The applicant again this year is Mad Husky Events Ltd, solely owned by Director Liza-Marie O’Sullivan who is very experienced in her field. She has managed licensed festivals and worked in the music festival industry for 14 years and has held a personal license for 10 years. She is currently the general manager of the Lowline Entertainment Group which manages the site at London Bridge. She was previously, the manager of Scala nightclub in Kings Cross for 10 years and has experience of managing operations at a number of large scale festivals similar in size to the 51^st State. Liza-Marie took over the 51^st State when the previous owner, Found Series Ltd, went into liquidation. Since then in the last 2 years, she has not only consulted with the relevant experts in Health & Safety, medical security and other industries, but very closely with Enfield Council, especially the Parks Authority and with SAG. Also with the Metropolitan Police Service, providing for a safe event. This year, event planning has actively involved the British Transport Police and TfL who have participated in SAG meetings aswell, which had not been done last year.

f.     Objectors were thanked for viewing the 24 working files within dropbox. The organisers were still 9.5 weeks away from the event and it was not abnormal for all documents not to be finalised at this early stage. The organisers were in constant communication with SAG and other responsible authorities to ensure that all those documents are in the state they should be before the event takes place and in an agreed format.

g.    Clarification of two points raised by objectors including:

·         It was agreed that Mad Husky Events Ltd had not filed any company accounts because the company had not been trading for long and only one set of accounts were due. Liza-Marie O’Sullivan had suffered some medical issues that resulted in here not being able to file the accounts on time. The matter was now in hand after contacting Companies House for an agreed extension which is now being dealt with by her accountant.

·         The County Court Judgement (CCJ) filed against Mad Husky Events Ltd was not in relation to damage to the park, but in relation to some ticket sales. There was some dispute, between the applicant and the Council, about how much money was owed this year and last year. This had now been resolved and the applicant has paid off the outstanding monies.  The applicant now only has to pay the £250 issuing fee and the CCJ would be removed.

h.    Mad Husky Events Ltd is a small independent company and Ms O’Sullivan had done everything she should be doing. It is unfair and not right to say that Ms O’Sullivan is not a fit and proper person to hold a premises licence. The applicant had shown that she is a responsible licence holder.

All the responsible authorities were happy to continue to work with Mad Husky Events Ltd with Liza-Marie as Director. As detailed within the application, the hours sought and licensable activities are exactly the same as last year. The finish times are modest and deliberate to avoid the most sensitive times for local residents, with a 10:00pm finish for all music and alcohol sales finishing at 9:45pm. This is a large scale event but only takes place for 1 day. Last year 23 onerous conditions had been added to the license. However, this year licensing are asking that 2 conditions be added:

·         Adult entertainment services.

·         That Mad Husky Events Ltd shall comply with the Event Management Plan which has been agreed with the Safety Advisory Group (SAG).

i.      There had not been any crime and disorder incidents arising from last year’s event nor any nuisance issues reported to the Council. Only one noise complaint had been reported to the applicant. The event was commended by the Police for its management and how security and searches had been carried out. The Police and other responsible authorities had not made any representations for 2 years running regarding previous events at Trent Park.

j.      Vangardia Noise Consultants would be used again by the consultant for this year’s event. The noise management plan was not yet on drop box, however, the consultant Mr Parker who is drafting the plan had bought a draft plan to today’s meeting which would be uploaded by the end of the day. Measures would be similar to last year with the sound systems all fitted with noise limiters.

The site layout is planned deliberately to minimise noise impact to residents including careful alignment of sound systems. The decibel level agreed with environmental health and SAG would be 65db. The decibel level of the A10 is 70db, to put into perspective.

There will be sound tests and sound propagation tests before and during the event of all stages as well as various points on the Cockfosters Road. Vangardia and staff would be monitoring sound throughout the event and taking regular measurements at regular intervals, agreed by the Council.

This year someone from the Parks Authority would be on site, different from last year. So, if a complaint is received, this will be passed on to event management who will send someone out for a reading. If it is determined that the reading is higher than the set limit then they will communicate directly with the music stages and sound levels will be bought down to the appropriate level.

Last year only one noise complaint was received and recorded at 13:42pm on Saturday from residents on Sussex way, which is south of the event site. At 14:50 a reading was taken and noise levels were found to be audible but within the limit of 65db. They were in fact 57.25db so no action needed to be taken. All the sound readings taken at last year’s event are available in the draft report. Fifteen readings were taken over 8 different sites with no breaches.

Neither, Vangardia or the applicant knew about the complaint from IP1 objector, possible because it was made towards the end of the event. The applicant did have a license condition last year to respond immediately to any complaint reported to them.

There will be a meeting with the Events Liaison Team and SAG before, during and after this year’s event.

k.    The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be uploaded to drop box. This year the applicant has decided to change companies because of issues arising with the previous company last year. They have started to prepare the TMP and are in talks with Health & Safety who have traffic management experience. The finalised document would be uploaded once the new company has been identified. The new company, once appointed, would be in direct liaison with traffic and transportation and highways to develop the TMP.

There were issues with the Snakes Lane car park last year. Concrete bollards had been put up on the site to deter travellers from entering back on the site after eviction by the Council. Some cars leaving the car park may have collided with the bollards, but no one was hurt. The applicant accepts that it was not managed properly by CSP (traffic management company). CSP were let go because they did not heed instructions to only use experienced marshals’.

This year, the traffic management company that is to be used will be asked for assurances regarding the experience of their marshals’ aswell as confirming that they have been properly trained. The applicant would be overseeing that marshals’ are doing their jobs properly. It will also be communicated to them that they should be respectful to local residents and be familiar with local road closures and the TMP before the event.

The applicant had not seen any evidence of a marshal being threatened by a baseball bat, reported in one representation, nor did the police or responsible authority raise anything.

This year’s car park has not been confirmed yet and is still in discussion. The applicant is being led by the Council on this because it has to be a Council owned premises. Saracens is within walking distance of the site but not confirmed yet. The proposed taxi rank may be stationed at the Chicken Shed Theatre but this is not confirmed. If both locations are confirmed as the car park and taxi rank, then there will be additional marshals’ and security at that part of Cockfosters Road to ensure that public nuisance and public order are addressed. Last year only 148 car spaces were taken out of 500 available. The 24 hour tube was in place last year therefore leaving 80% of attendees or more using public transport.

As regards the vicinity of the IP1area, the applicant has offered to get road closures in Leys Gardens to prevent people from parking in that road. The applicant will also ensure that signeage of road closures are bigger and well located.

l.      In terms of crowd management, public nuisance and anti-social behaviour, there will be a soft closure procedure in place. This means that not all patrons are dispersed out on to Cockfosters Road at the same time.

At last year’s event, the whole area was cleared by 11:15pm. This year road closures will be in place again until 11:30pm and the applicant will ensure there is security and marshals’ available until the whole area is cleared.

The shortcomings last year with regard to areas directly outside cockfoster’s tube station,  was due to TfL not being prepared as they could have been. They were given the EMP last year but did not take part in SAG meetings. TfL said that there was space for 600 people on each train, but there was only space for 300 people on the platform which caused confusion leading to barriers being shut. This year, in talks with Saber Security, TfL, British Transport Police and other members of SAG, new measures have been put into place:

·         Instead of the Chicane system to enable queuing outside the station, people will be guided to penned areas of 300 people each. So each pen is released into the station at a time to ensure the correct number of people are on the platform to enter the train.

·         The roles of each responsible authority are more clearly defined. British Transport Police and TfL are now clear that it is their responsibility for everything that happens within the station. The Metropolitan Police Service, Traffic Management Company and security are responsible with everything that happens outside the station. Last year Saber Security dealt with things inside and outside the station.

·         This year additional security is being bought in by the applicant just to deal with ingress and egress of the event. Saber Security can then just concentrate on matters inside the perimeter but will be on standby if needed outside the perimeter of the site.

·         The same Police team and Inspector will be at the event as they have been for the past 2 years. In light of local resident concerns, the applicant understands that additional special constables will be bought in and the Police are happy with the number of officers as sufficient for the event should any issues arise. The Police team of 22 officers will be bought in and paid for by the applicant and not from local forces and resources. They are based within Enfield and know the local area.

·         There will be visual documentation, in the form of diagrams and plans, between all of the responsible parties. These will be put up in various areas of Cockfosters station so that people can see how egress will be managed.

·         The area manager of TfL, Sarah Jackson, will also be bringing in additional TfL staff from other stations to assist with people at Cockfosters Station.

·         Anti-social behaviour and in particular the urination issue, this year the attention is to put more portable toilets further out from the site, before the BP station just past the cemetery, including on the island opposite the BP station. There will be 6-8 additional portable toilets. The applicant has also offered to put portable toilets around the facility where IP1 live in Leys Gardens and generally past Cockfosters station. In addition to marshals’ wearing high visibility vests, they will also carry torches to shine them on patrols’ to deter people from urinating in public spaces.

Marshals’ will also be more sensitive, in terms of dealing with residents who haven’t had easy access routes to their streets as all would have wished.

m.   In terms of security, Mr Byes has prepared a security deployment pack plan at page 43 of the pack. Very similar to last year, there is CCTV throughout the site, a thorough 3 point search carried out on everyone coming into the site, search by wand, a physical search, search of all vehicles, bags, etc and dogs sniffing for explosives. There will be 250 Saber Security staff including bar security on duty. These make up patrol’s, rapid response teams, dog handlers and undercover security. The applicant has also asked for a gangs’ team from the Police service to also attend for extra security. Within the site evaluation of folder 6, documentation states the ingress and egress routes will have plans and diagrams of the positions of all security staff and Traffic Management Company, when it is uploaded.

n.    In terms of other issues raised:

·         The tractor issue from last year that was left on site. The applicant accepts that that should have been better managed. It had been secured when security was on-site. The tractor will be removed as promised. Due to adverse weather conditions’ last year, it could not be removed as quickly. This was an isolated incident.

·         In terms of communications and the uploading of documents there will be better direct communication channels between the applicant and all interested parties than there was last year. Last year’s noise management plan and traffic management plan were all agreed with the Council and SAG before the event took place. This year the solicitor will directly upload those documents to Drop Box.

o.    In terms of dealing with the state the park was left in last year, the Parks Authority did not accept that the park was left in a dangerous state. They performed a site check after everything was dismantled.

p.    In terms of illegal advertising, the applicant has requested the advertising company to provide a list of all adverts placed. Their understanding is that if placed on private property, then it is lawful. If placed on public property then they will ask for those to be removed.

5.    Following a 5 minute comfort break, the representatives of the applicant responded to questions as follows:

a.    Councillor Pite asked for clarity regarding the position for checking people under18 years of age. It was clarified that the description shown at page 21 of the bundle had typo errors and anyone that looks 25 or younger is challenged and asked to produce ID. This is applied at all the bars and search lanes.

b.    Councillor Pite asked why there was a contradiction between the two presentations (IP1 & Applicant) about how long people were staggering around after last year’s event. The applicant had said  that the area was cleared by 11:15pm and IP1 are claiming it was more like 12:15pm. It was clarified that by 11:15pm the area was cleared and by 11:30pm Cockfosters Road was re-opened with the area clear.

c.    In response to the Chair’s enquiry regarding the proposed locations of the Taxi rank and car park, which may be nearer to Leys Gardens and affect more areas beyond Cockfosters Station. Would that mean more rigorous policing of the area south of the Station and the Chicken Shed area. It was advised that the Traffic Management team will be in position. The security team will be positioned along that route and also within the Chicken Shed Theatre, the proposed taxi rank and car park areas.

d.    There had only been 148 car spaces used out of 500 at last year’s event. Was the applicant confident that less cars would be using the proposed car park. It was advised that the Saracens area had a clearer entrance and exit. So cars could exit easier where as last year Snakes Lane, was very tight. By changing the traffic management company and producing documents, this would be much clearer. The applicant would also ensure that the car park and taxi rank areas would be clearer with all rubbish removed. Security would be controlling the Cat Hill area, Trent Park Entrance and Cockfosters Road.

e.    In response to the Chair’s question if the Chicken Shed Theatre had any events on the same night as the festival, the applicant was in consultation with the Council and meetings were planned with the Chicken Shed to go through that.

f.     The Chair asked if there was any way in which most of the traffic management plan, security and dispersal couldn’t have been more articulated so as to have before the committee. This would have given the committee and residents more assurance because 9.5 weeks before the event was cutting it fine. It was advised that last year, it had been discussed, that the EMP document should be made available 6 weeks before the event. The applicant accepts that the documents could be further along and apologised. The applicant had offered an explanatory meeting with CLARA to go through each of the documents.

g.    IP1 was concerned about the proposed locations of the car park and taxi rank which would impact a wider area of residents for this year’s event. It was advised that, last year, a letter was sent out to all of the residents impacted by the event 2 weeks before and the plan was for that to happen again. Parks departments would be sending out the communication to residents. Hakema Kharoti (Senior Parks & Business Officer) further advised that once the meetings and discussions had taken place, parks would issue a further notification to residents around those areas regarding the Council’s proposals. Including, what the council plans to do as regards the proposed car park and taxi rank. This would be done a few weeks before the event, with  detail about the traffic management plan including marshals’ and contact numbers. If residents do have issues, council officers will be on duty on the night and can be contacted.

The Chair advised that it would be useful to consult with Cllr Edward Smith, as the local ward councillor, in advance of any letter sent to residents.

h.    In response to interested parties about damage to Trent Park, The parks team were in liason with their parks operation team and are currently undertaking works to repair damage that had occurred at last year’s event. For this year’s event Hakema Kharoti (Senior Parks & Business Officer) would be present in the park during the set up only but officers would be on duty throughout the event. Parks would be having a meeting with the organisers to assess ground conditions and to make sure that the site is left as found. Any damage would be relayed to organisers.

i.      Councillor Smith asked if there was any documentary evidence to back up the applicants views of how well the event went last year. The example provided was that the police commended the applicant on how well the event went last year. However, comments had been made about anti-social behaviour, traffic management, etc. It was advised that the Police, as responsible authority of SAG would have been aware of those issues and would have attended those SAG meetings. The Police had commended the applicant, for last year’s event, at a SAG meeting.

The Chair further advised that SAG and review meeting minutes were not part of the Committees bundle of documents. As a committee this was noted but weight could not be given to it as it was not part of the Committees bundle of documents.

Councillor Pite further advised that the committee may need to think about whether or not review meetings’ and SAG meetings’  are minuted with those minutes coming to the Licensing Committee.

The Chair also advised that this would give more robust paperwork to subsequent events of this kind. This is something that may form wider discussions of the fuller Licensing Committee.

Action – Ellie Green (Principal Licensing Officer)

j.      In response to CLARA, about an agreement with the EMT and parks department regarding  the prevention of damage to the park, especially if the ground is wet. Hakema Kharoti (Senior Parks & Business Officer) advised that with regard to live major events in Enfield’ Parks the team liase with event organisers to identify key areas of concern and endure that trackway is put down. Meetings are held on site with event organisers including operations, and will make a decision on whether it is safe and practical for all organisers to leave the site. This would minimise impact on the park itself.

In response by the applicant, the council were contacted to ask whether they should continue to de-rig in light of adverse weather conditions and they were asked to continue, last year.

6.    The summary statement by Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including:

a.    Having heard the representations from all parties, it was for the Licensing Sub-Committee (LSC) to consider whether this new application was appropriate and in support of licensing objectives.

b.    The steps which the LSC may make were set out in Para 7 of the report.

c.    Relevant guidance and policy were highlighted, as set out in para 5 of the report.

7.    The summary statement of the interested parties, including:

a.    A sound procedure was required to be completed.

b.    This was an alien event to the park. It’s difficult for pedestrians, in the milling crowds, who don’t have a place to go and is uncomfortable especially at night. This was a suburban park and not Glastonbury or the Isle of Wight and the event did not fit into this park.

c.    Many of the same problems had occurred as in Leys Gardens (last year), notably after the event had closed. Dispersal would be made worse at this year’s event because Snakes Lane is not being used and by guiding large crowds of people to underground stations will make it difficult for people to get to where they are going.

d.    The proposed car park and taxi rank is un-workable. Dispersal and traffic management is critical and they thought that the application had come to the committee too early or the information provided is too late.

e.    There was an issue with policing, as people dispersing towards the east would be straying into Barnet’s Police area which is only 50 yards from Enfield’s Police area. The local neighbourhood policing team had denied knowledge of the event going ahead this year.

f.     Policing after the event has ended would create a huge dispersal problem with people hanging around the area, drinking, urinating, etc and is a public order risk. The problem is compounded where people used local roads as taxi pick up point locations (last year).

g.    Planning documents reflecting that extra portable toilets would be installed at this year’s event, makes things look nice but living in the modern era, reality is very different. Urination in public spaces would continue and this was not the right event to hold in the park.

h.    The applicant advised that this was a 1 day event which did not take place well into the early hours. It was not unusual to say that a license is granted subject to plans being approved by a relevant body. Although the documents are not complete, there are ongoing discussions with SAG and the event will not take place until the remainder of documents are finalised and approved.

8.    The summary statement on behalf of the applicant, including:

a.    The applicant had been in constant contact with all of the responsible authorities to ensure that this event is done responsibly, considerately and safely.

b.    The applicant had gone over and beyond what they have to do. Security personnel is usually 1 per 100 for this type of event, the organisers are suggesting 1 per 60, almost double.

c.    As reported, there are no representations from the responsible authorities and are happy to continue to work with the applicant for this event. They had proved they can run the event in the past.

d.    They had identified issues that had occurred and set out what measures they are putting in place to ensure that those are not repeated.

e.    It was in the applicant’s interest to make this event work as they want to continue to hold this event in the future. They take their responsibilities very seriously.

 

RESOLVED that

 

1.         In accordance with the principles of Section 100(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

 

The Panel retired, with the legal representative and committee administrator, to consider the application further and then the meeting reconvened in public.

 

2.         The Chairman made the following statement:

 

“Having considered all the written and oral submissions from parties, both present and those unavailable to attend today’s hearing, the Licensing Sub-Committee resolved to grant the application in full, but with modified and additional conditions.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted the well- articulated objections and genuine concerns from residents who come from the local area. However it was nevertheless persuaded that the applicant had taken appropriate steps for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

 

In particular, in learning from issues arising from previous years’ events, the applicant has changed its security advisors, added a second layer of security presence for ingress and egress from the Park, has negotiated more active involvement from Transport for London and British Transport Police, and for there to be enhanced and better trained marshals’ positioned at strategic residential locations, including east of Cockfosters station.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee was further satisfied by the assertion that additional portaloos will be positioned on the routes between the park exit and the controlled dispersal zone towards and at the station entrance.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee was concerned that many of these developments might have been better contained within a more developed Event Management Plan, even at this stage and had felt that the information we heard today about noise nuisance controls and measures, as well as the assurances that Parks staff would this year be located in the control room, would also have had more effect had they been incorporated into written submissions.  It is also regretted that the notice of the link to the drop box did not adequately prepare users for the absence of so many significant documents.

 

For this reason, the Licensing Sub-Committee decided that in resolving to grant, it would modify the condition previously agreed between the Licensing  Authority and the Applicant; and impose an additional time defined condition upon the submission of the Event Management Plan currently in progress.

 

 

3.         The Licensing Sub-Committee resolved that the application be granted in full, with a modification to Condition 2 and the addition of a new Condition 3.