Agenda item

i)          Report of the Monitoring Officer TO  FOLLOW

ii)         Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability TO  FOLLOW

iii)       Appendix (for information only)

 

a)    Copy of the ‘call-in’

b)    Draft minute extract of the Cabinet decision of 17 December 2013

c)    17 December 2013 Cabinet report - HARINGEY OUTDOOR EVENT POLICY

 

A decision on the above item was taken by Cabinet at the meeting on 17 December 2013.  The decision has been called in, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Council’s Constitution, by Councillors Wilson, Winskill Solomon, Allison and Reece.

 

Councillor Reece introduced the call-in:

 

·                The damage to the park from major events was extensive.  Information on how the damage would be repaired was required.  Hyde Park had reduced the number of events in the park due to the damage caused by them.

·                Objections to the policy had been received from both Islington and Hackney, yet this did not seem to have been taken into account.

·                Cross-borough co-ordination was required.  The Police have stated that they would not be able to cope with an event at Emirates and Finsbury Park at the same time.

·                A consultation had been held with the Stroud Green Residents Association, but this had not been advertised to all members of the public.

·                There were issues around the budget – what would happen to the income from events? 

·                Had benchmarking exercises been carried out with other comparable parks with regards to charges?

·                The policy states that there would be no major events in the school holidays, but this would probably lead to events taken place over a 10 week period from May-July, which would restrict the use of the park for local residents.

·                The closure of the Oxford Road gate would not necessarily stop people from congregating in that area, as many would visit the Faltering Fullback pub on that road.

·                It was suggested that the policy should be put on hold, to see how the next two events were managed, and then the policy could be revisited after this time.

 

Councillor Bevan responded to the call-in, and the deputations made:

 

·                Since becoming Cabinet Member for Environment, he had become aware of the deterioration in Finsbury Park.  It was clear that investment was required to maintain standards in parks.

·                The Council was taking independent advice to ensure that the charges to hire the park were high enough.

·                7000 leaflets had been distributed to local residents – only 262 responses had been received, with only 182 from Haringey.  This indicated that there were not many people who had concerns.

·                Privatisation of the parks had been considered to save money, and then decided against.  Therefore it was important to make money to maintain the standards.  Finsbury Park alone cost £350k per year to run.

·                With regard to event clashes, there was a process to check whether events were running at the Emirates at the same time as Finsbury Park.

·                He offered residents the opportunity to be involved in the monitoring of events.

 

Councillor Bevan and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

 

·                The assumptions in the policy with regard to set up times was based on the theory of having 15 event days, in order to set up the policy.  In reality, it was not known how the events would work i.e. 15 separate days or 5 events over 3 days.  In the last five years there had not been many large concerts – an increase in the policy did not necessarily mean that all 15 event days would be used.

·                The average income over the past five years for Finsbury Park was £41500, and it cost £350,000 to maintain the park.

·                If there was extra damage caused to the park which required extra spend, this would be charged to the promoter.

·                The Cabinet Member had the authority to agree to an additional event if the maximum number of days had been reached.

·                A yearly report was produced as part of the budget to show the income generated from the parks.

·                The consultation predicated three things – income target, supporting community events and putting money back into parks.

·                Whenever there were events in Finsbury Park, residents would be able to access an area as big as any other park in the borough.

 

Councillor Wilson addressed the Committee:

 

·                The parks service did not make use of the existing policy over the past five years.  There was no need for extra concerts to meet the income target, the target could be met using the existing policy.

·                It was disingenuous to imply that there was no impact.  Residents and local ward councillors had raised concerns.  These concerns should be listened to.

·                The problem with the process of the consultation was that it gave the impression that extra event days were required to generate income, when this was not the case.

 

Councillor McNamara made a number of recommendations which could be taken forward:

 

·                That a stakeholder group be introduced, chaired by Councillor Bevan, and comprised of-

-       Friends of the Parks

-       Local Residents Associations

-       London Borough of Hackney

-       London Borough of Islington

-       Ward Councillors

-       Officers

·                Increase of small / medium events to generate income in place of major events.

·                To carry out licensing reviews of each event.

·                To investigate how better to deal with noise and anti-social behaviour – possibly increase the use of Fixed Penalty Notices.

·                Increase the number of bins and toilets at events.

·                Provision of tickets for local young people.

·                To investigate the use of protective surfaces, to prevent damage to the park.

·                To look at increasing the charges per event.

·                A report to be provided to OSC each year to see if the policy was still meeting its objectives.

 

Councillor Newton proposed that the report be taken back to Cabinet with a recommendation that the implementation of the policy be postponed until after the two events had taken place and been subject to a review. Councillor Newton further proposed that in the meantime, that recommendations put forward by Cllr McNamara including the introduction of a stakeholder group and seeking to increase small / medium events to generate income in place of major events should be taken forward.  

A vote was taken, with 2 Members in favour and 3 against.

The chair MOVED that no further action be taken, and the Cabinet Member to take on board the recommendations as set out by Councillor McNamara.

 

A vote was taken and carried; 3 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

 

RESOLVED that no further action be taken.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

·                That a stakeholder group be introduced, chaired by Councillor Bevan, and comprised of-

-       Friends of the Parks

-       Local Residents Associations

-       London Borough of Hackney

-       London Borough of Islington

-       Ward Councillors

-       Officers

·                Increase of small / medium events to generate income in place of major events.

·                To carry out licensing reviews of each event.

·                To investigate how better to deal with noise and anti-social behaviour – possibly increase the use of Fixed Penalty Notices.

·                Increase the number of bins and toilets at events.

·                Provision of tickets for local young people.

·                To investigate the use of protective surfaces, to prevent damage to the park.

·                To look at increasing the charges per event.

·                A report to be provided to OSC each year to see if the policy was still meeting its objectives.

 

The chair thanked all for attending.