Agenda item

The Chair advised that there would be seven deputations made by local residents.

Konrad Borowski – Stroud Green Residents Association

Mr Borowski had previously addressed the Cabinet at the meeting on 17 December 2013 where the decision had been made.  He felt that the consultation seemed to have been ignored, and it had been presented to residents as a Finsbury Park consultation, not as a wider policy.

The Stroud Green Residents Association requested that the decision be referred back to the Cabinet for them to reconsider the policy and reduce the days back to the 2002 policy, which was for five one-day events.  This generally resulted in the five days being spread over two weekends, rather than five separate events.

The income target for Finsbury Park was £165k.  Based on Mr Borowski’s calculations (using figures from the report), a two day event would produce an income of £378k, and a three day event would produce £450k – a total of £828k, which was significantly more than the income target.  It was therefore difficult to understand why the number of event days needed to increase when the existing five days more than met the income target.

 Each event also required set up and take down time – increasing the event days to fifteen would result in an extra ten weeks of disruption.

Martin Ball – Friends of Down Lane Park

Mr Ball raised deep concern over the exploitation of park areas in the borough.  Parks were public places for residents, and should not be for sale.  Consideration should be given to local people.

Events in parks had not been well managed and had caused disruption to the local environment and people.  It was unrealistic to expect that events were not going to take place, but they needed to be managed in a better way.  The scale of events currently being held was out of context with the size of the parks.

If the policy was not sent back to the Cabinet, it would set a precedent for other events.

Lynn Percival – Friends of Finsbury Park

Ms Percival presented the Committee with a petition containing over 400 signatures from local people who felt that the consultation had not been carried out correctly.

Friends of Finsbury Park were not completely against events in the park, but there were concerns that the recreational use of the park was lost when events took place.  There were also safety issues, accessibility issues, and the affect on wildlife.

The local community already had to put up with five event days in a year, increasing this to fifteen was excessive.  The set up and take down of events was extremely disruptive to park users – the trucks destroyed the grass, fence panel and trees had been broken, and people were unable to use large areas of the park.

Friends of Finsbury Park were keen to work with the Council in order to protect the park.

In response to a question from the Chair, Ms Percival explained that although Simon Farrow had attended a couple of FoFP meetings, it was very difficult to engage with the Council.  It would be useful to have a senior contact within the Council.

Sally Billot

Ms Billot explained that she was the Vice-Chair of the Finsbury Park Trust, and a former Haringey Councillor (although she was no longer a member of any political party).

Finsbury Park is a public amenity, surrounded by residential areas.  The use of the space for large events would lead to a deterioration of the park, and eventually could lead to the park ceasing to be a public place and becoming a dedicated music venue.

50,000 people attended the Stone Roses concert in July 2013, and there was extreme disruption for local residents.  The promoters, SJM, had not managed the concert well.

The policy made no financial sense.  SJM made millions from the Stone Roses concert, whereas Haringey Council made £130k.  Haringey Council should charge more money to promoters, and hold one large event per year in the park so that local people could have full use for the rest of the time. 

Note – since the meeting, Sally Billot contacted the Chair to clarify that she was speaking in her capacity as a local resident.

Carrie Anker

The impact on residents was more than could be imagined.  However well the Council tried to manage events, there were always issues.  The policy should remain as it was until the current levels were managed better.

The information in the report was disingenuous.  The report stated that 75% of the park was available to use when events were taking place.  This was not strictly true, as some of the space included areas which could not be used for general use, such as the cricket ground.

There were many issues with regards to events in the park – litter, broken trees / branches, burned areas of grass, anti-social behaviour and disruption to the use of the park.

Sarah Caton – Chair of Governors, Stroud Green Primary School

Major events in the park had a huge impact on the school.  The set up and take down of events limited the use of the park, which was a main route for children walking to school.  People attending the Stone Roses concert had congregated near the primary school, and children were subjected to abuse when they had to walk past these drunk people.  The school had suffered from the huge numbers of people walking past it after the concert had finished, with rubbish and beer bottles being thrown over the fence, and people had urinated around the perimeter.

It was not acceptable that young people should be subject to this behaviour, and until existing problems had been resolved, the policy should stay the same.

Amanda Smith

Noise was a major issue for local residents.  Regardless of the size of the event, noise affected all local residents.

Live Nation, who now had a licence for Finsbury Park, had previously held the licence for Hyde Park.  The residents in the area had experienced the same issues as residents in the Finsbury Park area.