Agenda item

a.         Deputation by the Friends of Finsbury Park on the Finsbury Park Events Scrutiny Review (Agenda Item 14)

RECEIVED a deputation from members of the Friends of Finsbury Park in relation to the Finsbury Park Scrutiny Review. The following points were noted:

·         that a letter had been sent to the Leader of the Council and local Member of Parliament from Sarah Caton, a governor at Stroud Green Primary School, concerning the effects of the Wireless event at Finsbury Park on children at the school.

·         various schools in Islington had their sports day on the same day as Wireless and the festival had disturbed this;

·         the Friends of Finsbury Park were disappointed and disagreed with some of the conclusions of the scrutiny report;

·         acknowledgment of the need to raise income for the park and recognition that the report touched on how such income should be spent;

·         concern of the impact of such events at the park including the social costs to people’s lives and the enjoyment of their homes and the ability to get to school;

·         the impact of 50,000 people on local people, whose gardens had been used as litter bins and toilets;

·         such events excluded local people from the park and also resulted in damage to the park.

b.          NOTED in response to questions from the Committee:

·      the Friends of Finsbury Park made a number of suggestions. For example, the deputation explained the Friends’ had consistently welcomed dialogue with the council about other revenue schemes, tri-borough control of the park and the nature of the Wireless event.  The deputation emphasised that the Friends welcomed alternative events;

·      during the Wireless event much of the park had been unavailable for exercise/.sport at the same time as the Wimbledon tennis tournament and a local obesity conference;

·      further consideration should be given to mitigate the effect such large events had on children during school hours.

b.         Public questions on the Finsbury Park Scrutiny Review (Agenda Item 14)

RECIEVED the following questions in relation to the Finsbury Park Scrutiny Review, which the Chair responded to:

1.         Given anti-social, dangerous, and illegal activities which took place in Finsbury Park as a direct result of the Council hosting Wireless Festival and other events, I would like to ask what sort of image the Council wishes to project of Finsbury Park as both a recreational space and residential area (Hackney resident)

Response: the scrutiny review panel believed it to be possible to mitigate the impact of such events on the local community and that a balance needed to be struck between the disruption to the area and the income generated.

2.         I live in Hackney and so have no political representation in Haringey and no choice regarding the event policy you have put in place for Finsbury Park. Why then do I have to suffer from excessive noise pollution/disturbance during inappropriate events, from the prolonged loss of amenity with a park encircled by intimidating security fencing and watchtowers and the use of my front garden as a place to urinate, defecate and vomit when this would not be tolerated by anyone on this scrutiny committee? (Hackney resident Jeremy Llewellyn-Jones)

Response: the review panel had received evidence from significant parties, and the final report alluded to extending community engagement. Councillor Hearn confirmed that she lived close to Finsbury Park and had herself expressed concerns about the anti-social behaviour.  The report recommended looking at ways to improve crowd control including ways to ensure better stewarding.

3.       My partner and I are forced to vacate our home every year due to these large scale festival events taking place due to the light & noise pollution that causes us and our pet great distress as well as my partner experiencing heavy anxiety attacks as result of said pollution. This imposes a large financial and mental burden on us and other families in the area.

Our question is would you willing and how would you justify subjecting your partners, children, pets and families to the same stresses and strains that we and others are being subjected to year on year. (Hackney resident)

Response: The Chair reiterated his response, emphasising that the income generated was a significant factor given the current austerity measures but that a balance needed to be struck between the disruption to the area and the income generated. The Committee considered that there was scope to mitigate the impact of large events and had set out recommendations to that effect.

4.       Why does the council believe it is appropriate that events should finish by 10pm on Sunday evening's prior to school days?  My children were deprived of sleep and at 2140 on Sunday 5th July I called the "Control Centre" to complain that the sound levels were harming my children and to request that the music be stopped.  This was ignored.

Furthermore owing to the chaotic egress onto Seven Sisters Road 100's of revellers were allowed into the adjoining streets where they nosily loitered to wait for taxis.  If Seven Sisters Road is to be closed during the egress why not allow taxi collections for there instead of allowing this widespread anti-social behaviour? (Hackney resident )

Response:  The review had looked at the timings of events and had made recommendations in terms of days, and numbers of events during summer holidays.  On balance the panel had felt that the operating times of the Wireless event were appropriate.  The Chair acknowledged the good point about allowing taxis on Seven Sisters Road but evidence had shown that completely closing the road was the most appropriate option.  Egress was constantly under review for large events.

5.       Do members think it is acceptable to hold such large scale events in a densely populated area which impacts both audibly and physically on local residents and users of the nearby transport hub.  In addition such events inevitably lead to increase in anti-social behaviour including drug dealing and abuse.  Laughing gas cylinders were left in the playground, and security levels were worrying. (Haringey Resident

The scrutiny review panel had held in-depth discussions with Wireless organisers and it was broadly accepted that there had been issues with security at various points. Policing and security levels would be under review for any future events. 

With regard to laughing gas, the panel considered recommending the introduction of a ‘public spaces protection order’. However, it was noted that the use was not of a frequent and regular nature. In addition, it was recognised that the Government was due to bring in new legislation in relation to psychoactive substances that would effectively ban the use of these as a legal high.