Agenda item

Application for a new premises licence.

(Report No.220)

RECEIVED the application made by A Man About A Dog Limited (AMAAD) for a new Premises Licence at the premises known as and situated at Trent Park, Cockfosters Road, EN4 0PS.

 

NOTED, that Councillor Chris Bond (Chair) referred to the ruling of the case of “AEG Presents Limited v London Borough of Tower Hamlets”. Councillor Bond stated that he did not have the powers to apply a time limited licence when the applicant sought an indefinite licence. If the sub-committee was satisfied that the conditions, times and activities were suitable for one year, they should be strong enough to grant the licence for any period of time – the test was the same, regardless of the length of period of a licence. The review processes were also noted as detailed in the minutes below.

 

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

 

a.    The application was for a new premises licence by A Man About a Dog Limited (AMAAD) for Trent Park, Cockfosters Road, EN4 0PS. The premises licence did not seek to be time limited. The application sought to operate annually with two event days taking place over one weekend but this year the event would last for one day only. The maximum capacity at any one time was 24,999. The operating hours and conditions were as set out in the report of the Principal Licensing Officer and the annexes attached to the report; and were outlined in detail at the meeting.

b.    The history of the premises licences held at Trent Park and examples of previous large scale events were highlighted as set out in the report. This application was for the largest capacity to date.

c.    Representations had been made, against the application, by 25 local residents, resident groups and park groups, and were referred to as IP1 to IP26 (IP18 had been withdrawn) and were attached as Annex 13 of the report. The grounds of representation had included the prevention of crime and disorder; the prevention of public nuisance; public safety and the prevention of children from harm. The Licensing Authority had not made any representations in respect of this application. The Metropolitan Police had made representations in respect of this application, namely seeking modification of conditions. The applicant had agreed those conditions, and subsequently the representation had been withdrawn.

d.    Annexes 6 to 11 of the report were noted.

e.    Annex 14 set out the proposed conditions.

f.     Enfield’s Safety Advisory Group (SAG) had produced a report for the Licensing Sub-Committee which was set out in Annex 12 of the report.

g.    That the address provided by the applicant had been amended to the address registered at Companies House, as set out in the report.

h.    That the following persons were present at the hearing on behalf of the applicant:

·         Alun Thomas (Solicitor), Thomas and Thomas Partners LLP

·         Alice Botham (Licensing Manager), A Man About A Dog Limited

·         William Harold (Director), A Man About A Dog Limited

·         Zofia Plonczak (Producer), A Man About A Dog Limited

·         Rhys Williams (UK Operations Manager), Elrow

·         Sean Williams (Crowd Management Consultant), Blue Owl Events

·         Paul Rooney (Event Manager), Slamming Vinyl

·         Simon Joynes (Director), Joynes Nask Acoustic Consultants

                       i.   The local residents present would be referred to as their IP reference number given to their representation. Councillor Edward Smith was also present to represent a number of the residents who had submitted representations.

 

2.    The statement of Councillor Edward Smith, Cockfosters Ward Councillor, on behalf of a number of residents, including:

 

a.    There had been a number of objections from local residents, as circulated within the agenda papers. A major concern was the size of the event, up to 24,999, which would be the largest event held at Trent Park.

b.    A specific concern was expressed regarding the proposed use of Cockfosters Tube Station and the potential impact on public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder if difficulties were experienced with the tube service on the day of the event.

c.    There had been no confirmation of the number of police officers that would be on duty at the event and in the surrounding area. It was essential to ensure that adequate police and security staff were present.

d.    Councillor Smith quoted from an ELROW blog site and highlighted issues of concern, a copy of the quotes from the blog were circulated to those present at the meeting. To clarify issues raised, Ellie Green confirmed that the application was for an indefinite period for 2 days each year but that this year the event would take place on one day only. In addition, Alun Thomas (Solicitor) (AMAAD) advised that the blog had not been written by the company and was a review of an agent. 

 

3.     The statement of IP13, Mr Peter Gibbs, as Chair of Friends of Trent  Country Park, including:

 

a.    Mr Gibbs acknowledged the constructive discussions that had taken place with representatives of AMAAD. He reiterated concerns regarding the size of the event; the largest event previously held had been for 15,000. He had previously requested an independent risk assessment for the event, which had not happened to date. He stated that the Council’s Events Strategy was a defective document.

b.    Concerns of public safety were highlighted in particular the physical constraints within the park and local area. The park entrance to be used was a 3 metre wide stone gate; which would be the same entrance for other park users as well as the attendees to the event. He outlined a further 4 metre wide area that could also be used but that was unpaved and would be muddy if the weather was wet.

c.    The event would in effect cover a 2 week period, would 1 week to set the event up and 1 week to dismantle. During that period there would be a lot of traffic through the entrance and local area. This would have an impact on regular users of the park at the busiest time of year. Trent Park was the most visited park in the Borough and the event was planned for the school summer holiday period. It was felt that this would increase the level of risk to public safety.

d.    Mr Gibbs highlighted issues regarding the responsibility for the safety of the event. It was stated that the Council did not take responsibility for the event and that this would rest with ELROW. He expressed particular concern regarding the number of attendees at the event and the narrow entrance/exit to be used.

e.    Reference was made to the report of Enfield’s Safety Advisory Group (SAG) attached as Annex 12 of the report. This was an advisory group which the Friends of the Park did not attend. He felt that the report was unsatisfactory.

f.     Mr Gibbs outlined the specific safety concerns due to the size of the event including the physical limitations of the site; the capacity at Cockfosters Tube Station; the potential for disruption to the tube service and the impact that this could have. Everything had to work smoothly for public safety to be maintained.

g.    The police figures for the event were unconfirmed with only a potential low representation anticipated. Concern was expressed that the safety marshals at the event would have no authority to intervene. This was a major unanswered concern. It was noted that events with a smaller number of attendees had been managed well in the past; it was felt that a figure of 24,999 was too high for Trent Park and a major public safety risk.

h.    In response to a question from Councillor Bond (Chair), Esther Hughes (Team Leader – Consumer Protection) confirmed that the Police were unable to commit the level of their resources to the event at this time.

           

4.     The statement of IP5, Mr Colin Bull, Co-Chair of the Cockfosters Residents’ Association, including:

 

a.    Concern was expressed that the application for a 2 day licence each year for an indefinite period. It was not the approach that had previously been taken to grant a licence that was not time limited. It was felt that it would be unacceptable to grant a licence for an indefinite period without the experience of the first event having taken place. It was felt that this was also in breach of the Council’s own events strategy.

b.    Mr Bull highlighted instances of anti-social behaviour that had been experienced in the local area with previous events, the maximum capacity of which had been 15,000.

c.    The potential adverse impact on local residents was highlighted.

d.    The uncertainty regarding police numbers was a concern.

e.    The limitations of Cockfosters Tube station were reiterated.

f.     The need to effectively review the event if it took place and to ensure that community representation was involved in any review.

 

5.     The statement of IP1, Mr Norman Summerfield, a local resident and member of the Cockfosters Residents’ Association, including:

 

a.    Mr Summerfield reiterated the earlier comments that had been made. He highlighted the instances of anti-social behaviour that had been experienced with previous events. It was felt that an event for 24,999 would overwhelm the area. Mr Summerfield reiterated concerns regarding the physically limited entrance and exit to Trent Park; the potential lack of police presence and the limited powers of marshals at the event. The frequency of the tube trains and the pressures on Cockfosters Tube station to deal with the volume of users was noted. It was felt that the local infrastructure could not cope with an event of this size. The granting of a licence that was indefinite would be unacceptable.

 

6.     The statement of Mr Alun Thomas, Solicitor, on behalf of AMAAD including:

 

a.    Mr Thomas thanked the residents present for the recognition of the work which had been carried out to date with local residents. Work would continue to take place. There was a clear communications strategy in place. The comments which had been made to today and received as part of the licence application process were acknowledged.

b.    Mr Thomas introduced all of the AMAAD representatives that were present at the meeting, as outlined above, and explained their individual roles and responsibilities and, the experience that they held. This was a strong team of experts and a well-prepared licence application had been submitted. The SAG report (Annex 12 to the report) was highlighted. A thorough process had been followed including, a full risk assessment; contingency arrangements; transport plans; and compliance with the licence conditions. Detailed references were made to the SAG report and issues of clarification highlighted. The documents that had been provided to the SAG were noted. 

c.    Attention was drawn to the Event Safety Plan. The concerns regarding Police numbers were acknowledged. The security arrangements to be put in place and the number of staff to be employed were outlined in detail. There was 3 dedicated security companies to be responsible for defined areas of the event, as set out in paragraph 4.1.4 of the SAG report. The number of SIA security staff was outlined. Mr Thomas explained the proposed security arrangements in detail. The security staff would be experienced. In addition, there was a comprehensive search policy and CCTV provision. Mr Thomas explained who would be in charge of the safety of the event and outlined the experience that the team and company had in conducting such events. In addition, it was noted that the SAG had commissioned a desktop exercise to test the proposed arrangements.

d.    It was proposed that for this year the event would take place on one day, 17 August 2019. It was anticipated that there would be phased entrance and exit times. Detailed information was provided on the evidence gained from previous events and the management plan of closing the stages at different times. Based on the information provided it was expected that there would be a gradual egress from the event. Sean Williams (Crowd Management Consultant) provided information in relation to crowd control and safety arrangements. It was anticipated that by 10.00pm, 44% of attendees would have left the event. Detailed discussions had taken place and would continue to be held with TfL and Transport Police. The pedestrian management plan and queue management were explained in detail.

e.    The Event Management plan would have a range of contingencies in place should it not be possible to use Cockfosters Tube Station on the day. Ongoing work would continue with SAG, TfL, and the emergency services as necessary.

f.     The exit gates to be used were outlined; there was provision for 9 metres of exit from the Park in total (this would equate to an anticipated 46 minute exit time for the whole capacity of the event). In addition, there were additional exits in other areas of the Park that could be used if necessary. All eventualities would be considered.

g.    Discussions continued on the arrangements for pedestrian management; anti-social behaviour; security along various exit routes; toilet provision; and sign posting. There would be no reason for attendees to stray into residential areas unless they were local residents themselves. It was proposed to use Bramley Road open space as a taxi/private vehicle pick up area.

h.    Alice Botham (Licensing Manager) outlined the detailed traffic management plans in place and the road closures in the local area to accommodate the event safety and with the least disruption to local residents. Full details had been provided as part of the licence application process. The arrangements in place with TfL and taxi provision with regard to drop off and pick up points were outlined.

i.      Mr Thomas drew attention to the comprehensive noise management plan which had been prepared. Simon Joynes (Director – Joynes Nash Acoustic Consultants) explained that required standards would be fully complied with. Environmental health had raised no objections. The management arrangements on the day were outlined in detail, including a managed hot line and event control room.

j.      Alice Botham (Licensing Manager) explained the communications strategy and the work which had been done and would continue to be put in place leading up to the event. The company would be sending information to local residents and stakeholder events covering all relevant aspects of the event and arrangements being put in place, including road closures. The required statutory notices would be displayed.

k.    Mr Thomas stated the benefits of such an event. Funds would be fed back to Trent Park through the environmental levy. There would be employment opportunities for local residents. In addition, there would be support provided to chosen local projects and charities.

l.      The ELROW brand was explained, it was popular worldwide. The proposals for the Trent Park event were outlined to those present.

m.  Mr Thomas, in response to representations received, reiterated that communication would continue with local residents. There was 9 metres of egress at the main entrance and two other means of escape that could be used if necessary. Detailed emergency plans were in place. There would be adequate toilet and lighting provision.

n.    Detailed preparations had been made and would continue. This was a professional team and a lot of time and effort had gone into the event. The SAG had a lot of expertise also. The event was deemed safe by the relevant experts and mitigation measures were in place. The event would be well managed and controlled.

o.    In response to the “blog” extract that had been circulated, it was noted that only 5.3% of the Park would be used. Mitigation measures would be in place to reduce the upheaval of vehicle movement in the preparation and dismantling of the event.

p.    The transport plan and pedestrian management plan were noted. Discussions would continue with TfL. The concerns raised with regard to the indefinite licence application were noted. It was hoped that the experience and review of this first event would provide reassurance and evidence in going forward for similar events in future years. It was further noted that the Licensing Sub-Committee did not have the power to put a time limit on a non-timed limited application. There would be an effective review mechanism in place.

q.    Significant advance costs had been incurred.

 

5.    Councillor Chris Bond (Chair) invited questions from the Licensing Sub-Committee Members.

 

6.    Councillor Sinan Boztas asked a number of questions seeking clarification, including:

 

a.    The event would be one day only this year and two days in subsequent years. The maximum number of SIA trained staff at the event was questioned and clarified to the Sub-Committee. Members were advised that the number of security staff would be in excess of the required minimum figures. The average age of attendees at the event was also taken into consideration. All tickets were pre-sold; there were no ticket sales on the day.

b.    Mr Thomas outlined the proposals for the event including the various stages, performances and interactive activities.

c.    The discussions with TfL and plans in place were reiterated including the management of the queues leading to Cockfosters Station and the local road closures.

d.    All attendees would be searched by SIA staff; this would be a condition of entry. Clear terms and conditions would be provided on the website with appropriate measures in place to deal with medical conditions.

e.    In response to a question raised by Cllr Boztas, the number of medical and welfare staff to be on duty at the event was outlined.

f.     The applicant would continue to work with SAG regarding the use of fireworks; this would not involve a full display.

g.    In response to a question raised, the management of the event attendees was outlined in detail including access to the various stages and the order of the closure of the various stages and how this would help in managing a staged egress from the event. There would be flexibility at the event to seal off various areas as and when necessary.

h.    Sean Williams (Crowd Management Consultant) advised how any incidents would be dealt with at the event and reassurance provided on the plans in place and staff that would be available at the event.

 

7.    Councillor Maria Alexandrou asked a number of questions seeking clarification, including:

 

a.    Councillor Alexandrou sought clarification on how any damage to the Park would be rectified and litter cleared from the event. It was explained that the applicant would have a Bond with the Council. The applicant would have 5 days after the event in which to rectify any damage and undertake a full clean up both inside and outside of Trent Park. Tracking would be laid down for vehicles in order to protect the parkland as much as possible.

b.    It was noted the number of temporary toilets being provided would be in excess of the guidelines.

c.    In response to concerns raised regarding the management of the queue to Cockfosters station and anticipated waiting times, it was stated that it was expected the majority of the queue would be cleared by 11.30pm with an average waiting time of 30 minutes.

d.    Esther Hughes confirmed that the SAG was an advisory body and the safety of the event was the responsibility of AMAAD. Attention was drawn to the comprehensive ELROW Event Safety Plan and the forecast models from TfL as set out in Annex 12 of the report.

 

8.    In response, Councillor Edward Smith responded to a number of issues raised, including:

 

a.    The police provision at the event was still to be confirmed; concerns were expressed about the safety of the event and the resources to respond in an emergency situation. In response it was noted that the police were unable to confirm their number at this stage, the likely provision was outlined at the meeting.

b.    Continued concerns regarding the management of the egress from the event via Cockfosters Station were stated.

 

9.    Mr Peter Gibbs (IP13) questioned the review process. In response, Councillor Bond outlined the review processes. A review of the licence may be sought by any person, should the need arise following the first event. Residents will need to gather actual evidence that one or more of the four licensing objectives were prejudiced by the carrying on of the licence. This was a significant event financially and Mr Gibbs noted that a contribution of £5,000 to Trent Park was anticipated. He encouraged the event organisers to be generous to the local area. He expressed continued concerns at the negative impact that the event would have on other park users. The size of the event and the safety concerns previously expressed were reiterated.

 

10. Mr Colin Bull (IP5) stated that SAG was not confirming the safety of the event as they were an advisory body. In addition, TfL only gave recommendations on the management of the event and did not give specific approval of the plans.

 

11.  Mr Norman Summerfield (IP1) acknowledged the expert advice provided and comprehensive plans in place, however, he felt that in reality there would be instances of anti-social behaviour in the local area in view of the number of people involved and the amount of alcohol likely to be consumed at an adult only event.

 

12. The closing statement of Mr Alun Thomas, Solicitor, on behalf of the applicant, including:

 

a.    The management had been and would continue to be taken very seriously. A significant amount of resources had already been invested. The plans in place were in excess of guidelines and conditions including for example, the number of security staff and toilet provision. A number of experts were involved and a strong team to manage the event. Contingency plans were in place. Assumptions were based on evidence, knowledge and expertise. A full review process was in place and would be effective and transparent.

b.    There were no outstanding representations from the responsible authorities or adverse comments from SAG. The planning of the event mitigated the risks and prioritises the licensing objectives, as set out in the conclusion of the SAG report (Annex 12 of the report referred).

c.    Mr Thomas thanked the members of the Licensing Sub-Committee for their consideration.

 

13.       The closing statement of Ellie Green, Principle Licensing Officer. Members’ attention was drawn to the relevant law, guidance and policies for the Sub-Committee’s consideration, as outlined in the report.

 

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 Chair made the following statement:

 

The Chair thanked everyone present for their attendance at the hearing and the representations that had been made. The Licensing Sub-Committee agreed to grant the application in part with all the conditions previously agreed by the Responsible Authorities plus those outlined in Annex 14 of the report with one change. That the SIA security staff provision to be set at a ratio of 1:70 as a minimum to promote the licensing objectives of, in particular, crime and disorder, public safety and prevention of public nuisance.

 

 

3.            The Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED IN PART as follows:

 

(i)                    The maximum capacity at any one time is 24,999

(ii)                  The licensable activities and times are:

Activity	Saturday	Sunday
Hours the premises are open to the public	12:00 – 23:00	12:00 – 22:30
Supply of alcohol (on supplies only)	12:00 – 22:15	12:00 – 21:45
Live music (indoor and outdoor)	12:00 – 22:30	12:00 – 22:00
Recorded music (indoor and outdoor)	12:00 – 22:30	12:00 – 22:00
Performance of Dance (indoor and outdoor)	12:00 – 22:30	12:00 – 22:00
Plays (indoor and outdoor)	12:00 – 22:30	12:00 – 22:00
Films (indoor and outdoor)	12:00 – 22:30	12:00 – 22:00
Anything else of a similar description (indoor and outdoor)	12:00 – 22:30	12:00 – 22:00

 

Conditions (in accordance with Conditions in LSC Report – Annex 14):

 

(iii)                 Conditions 1 to 8, which are not disputed.

 

(iv)                 AND that the ratio of SIA security staff be a minimum of 1:70