Agenda item

(building and grounds), Alexandra Park N22: To consider an application for a conversion and variation of a Premises Licence.

TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR A CONVERSION AND VARIATION OF A PREMISES LICENCE: Alexandra Palace (building and grounds), Alexandra Park N22 (Agenda Item 5)

 

 

               The Licensing Manager, Ms Barrett, presented this item and asked members to note an error under paragraph 5.2 of the application in that: the variation to the “Opening Hours for Public” should be 06:00 to 03:00 and not 10:00 to 02:00; and the variation of hours for the ”Sale of Alcohol for Consumption on the Premises” should be 10:00 to 02:00 and not 06:00 to 02:00.

 

               This application was the subject of a hearing as there had been 14 representations from local residents regarding noise nuisance from concerts and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) had asked that they be given at least 21 days notice on events.  The proposed Designated Premises Supervisor for Alexandra Palace advised that they would be happy to comply with the MPS requests entirely and said he would address the residents concerns about alleged noise nuisance during his presentation.

 

               The objectors set out their concerns about loss of amenity from noise disturbance and asked if the noise team’s conditions, as set out in paragraph 6.2 of the application, could be applied. They also asked if the number of events could be limited to 6 per year and if live music could cease at midnight.  When questioned by members, the residents confirmed that noise nuisance came from the concerts and not from clients leaving the premises after events.  An objector referred to a letter she had received from the noise team on 26 August 2006 and the Chair agreed to grant the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor time to consider and respond to this.

 

               The proposed Designated Premises Supervisor was satisfied and said he would also cover these points in his presentation to the sub committee but he could not comply with the request to cease live music at midnight nor predict how many events they would be hosting in the forthcoming year.

 

               The local ward councillor also spoke in an advocacy role on behalf of the Interested Parties, whom are his constituents, supporting their objections.

 

               The proposed Designated Premises Supervisor made his presentation and explained to members that, by its nature, this application sought to cover all events in the future and therefore eliminate the need to make separate applications (Temporary Event Notices) for all future events at the Palace.  He provided members with a breakdown of the nature and duration of all events with music over the past 2 years and invited his noise consultant, Capita Symonds Ltd, to address the committee.  The noise consultant explained to members that the use of limiters was inappropriate for the large scale events hosted by the palace.  Instead a method of ‘real time’ monitoring was used whereby monitoring took place at locations in and outside the grounds with immediate feedback to the sound engineers.  This methodology was recommended by the noise Council and Ms Barrett confirmed that this was the approved method for all large-scale events in the borough, including the Finsbury Park concerts.

 

               There were some concerns about what was considered a reasonable background noise level in a London suburb and the consultant satisfied the objectors and members’ queries.  The proposed Designated Premises Supervisor also confirmed that the Palace runs a shuttle service after events to local tube and rail stations to minimise noise and disturbance from clients dispersing after events.

 

               The proposed Designated Premises Supervisor confirmed that he was happy to comply with the noise conditions and would work with consultants, residents and the MPS on further improvements wherever possible.  He was prepared to install an extra line at the Palace to report noise disturbance (in addition to the noise team’s out-of-hours line and the Palace’s main switchboard number, which is open out of hours, during events.)

              

               Having retired to deliberate and receive legal advice, the Committee was concerned that the phrases in the operating schedule (sections B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, L, M and O) relating to ’pre-booked functions’ could give rise to ambiguity and leeway to unlimited events. 

 

               The Committee returned to the Hearing and expressed its concerns.  At this point, the Legal Adviser informed the Hearing of her advice on that issue.  The Legal Adviser’s advice was that the phrases in the operating schedule (sections B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, L, M and O) relating to ’pre-booked functions’ were too imprecise and non-specific to satisfy the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, ss.17(4)(b) and (c), thereby rendering the relevant parts of the operating schedule defective (as regards the “pre-booked functions” application only).  The Legal Adviser further advised that, although she accepted that it was unlikely that this was the Applicant’s intention, if the Licence were to be granted as asked, the Applicant could potentially open the Premises to the public for the carrying on of licensable activities for a period of 24 hours on every day of the year and this would potentially have the effect of rendering redundant other parts of the proposed Licence.  The Legal Adviser stated that the imprecision of the “pre-booked functions” application and the inability of the Licensing Authority, Responsible Authorities and Interested Parties to understand the potential dates that the Premises might be open to the public for the carrying on of licensable activities meant that neither the Licensing Authority, Responsible Authorities nor Interested Parties had been given an opportunity to consider the potential impact of the “pre-booked functions” application upon the licensing objectives.

 

               RESOLVED

 

               The Committee was concerned that the phrases in the operating schedule (sections B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, L, M and O) relating to ’ pre-booked functions’ could give rise to ambiguity and leeway to unlimited events.  Members agreed to adjourn the hearing and reconvene the following week to give the applicant the opportunity to take legal advice and strengthen the wording, where appropriate, to be more prescriptive.  The applicant was happy to do this but stressed to members that he couldn’t predict the exact number of forthcoming events.

 

At this stage in the meeting, the Committee adjourned until Wednesday 2 November 2005.

 

RECONVENED MEETING OF THE LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY 2 NOVEMBER 2005, at 18:00HOURS.

 

ADJOURNED FROM TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER  2005.

 

Present:  Councillors Rice (Chair), Patel, and Bloch

 

The Chair began proceedings by summarising why the hearing had been adjourned and subsequently reconvened on 2 November 2005. The Haringey Legal Services representative, Ms Benita Edwards, outlined the issues over the “pre-booked functions” section of the application and informed the Committee that this had been considered by all parties, including the applicants.

 

The Chair invited the Applicant to address the Committee. Mr Adonis, representing the Applicant, Mr Keith Holder, addressed the issues by stating as follows: -

 

1.      The Applicant’s Operating Schedule complied with s.17(4)(b) and (c) of the Licensing Act 2003, as the activities to be carried out and the times  had been specified.

2.      The 24 hours events are in relation to the non-standard timings for pre-booked functions with notice to be given to the Police and to the Council.

3.      It would be impossible for the Applicant to state exact dates and hours for functions as they do not have this information until the event is booked.

4.      The Applicant consulted with the Police who fully understood the impact of the 24 hours events.

5.      The other Responsible Authorities have no objections so long as the PEL conditions are adhered to.

6.      The Interested Parties had had time to consider the impact of the 24 hours events as Notice of the Application had been given.

7.      It was problematic to state how many functions there would be requiring a 24 hour license, and until what times. However, he offered the following amendments to the application:

 

·                That “up to 24 hours” would be substituted for pre-booked events, instead of a blanket 24 hour license.

·                That 28 days notice be given to the MPS and Council for all indoor events.

·                That three months notice be given to the MPS and Council for all large events with a statutory meeting beforehand.

 

 

Councillor Rice queried what was meant by “24 hours for pre-booked functions”?  Mr Adonis stated that events beyond 02:00 will be classed as 24-hours events and that the Applicant would be willing to modify its requests to “up to 24 hours for pre-booked functions”.

 

Mr Adonis explained the reasons for the “24 hours” requests in the application by reminding the Committee that the Applicant would no longer be able to apply for Occasional Licences and it was, therefore, constrained to making an application for variation in the requested terms, which would allow an automatic right to operate at late hours.  Mr Adonis added that temporary events notices would not usually be a suitable alternative as they were for events with no more than 499 people in attendance at any one time.  He also stated that the statutory meeting requirement offered by the applicant, if granted by the Committee, would decide the outcome of each application to hold an event at the premises.

 

Councillor Bloch asked the applicant how far in advance events are booked. Mr Holder replied that there is no clear period leading to the signing of a contract.  He added that events such as exhibitions might be booked 18 months or 2 years in advance.  Whereas, other events might be booked 3 or 4 months in advance.  Mr Holder stated that he cannot commit to how many times the Licence would be used.

 

Councillor Bloch asked for information relating to how many events had been held in the last few years.  Mr Holder stated that historic information had already been provided at the first Hearing and that the Applicant could not be constrained as to the future by reference to historic data.  Councillor Bloch stated that he understood that such information would only act as an indicator.  In response, Mr Holder stated that in 2005 there had been about 43 music events, 8 concerts, 1 dinner-dance and 2 weddings.  Mr Holder stated that of the concerts, about 4 had finished later than 02:00 hours.  Clarification was provided by the Applicant that the statistics provided related only to music events and not to other events.

 

The Applicant stated that it was difficult to establish lead-up times and that this was one of the reasons for the statutory meetings, in order to  allow statutory partners to engage in the process of agreeing the exact terms of each application to hold an event at the premises.

 

Councillor Patel asked if the Applicant would accept the comments and recommendations submitted by the Responsible Authorities and especially with reference to paragraph 6.2 of the Licensing Officer’s Report. The reply was that the Applicant would be happy to adhere to these. Ms Barrett confirmed to the Committee that the premises would fall outside of the 12 temporary events notices regime because of the nature of the events it held, and thus the applicant was required to apply to vary their hours accordingly.

 

At the request of Councillor Rice, Ms Edwards sought clarity on a number of points from Mr Holder.  Namely: the definition of “large” events; whether the Applicant would be willing to give notice to the Council for all prospective 24 hours events regardless of the number of people expected to be in attendance at the event; historically, once notice of an event had been given, when in that process did the “statutory meeting” occur; if a contract had been entered into for the holding of an event, and the Licensing Authority were to determine that the event should not go ahead, would the Applicant be willing to cancel the event?

 

Mr Holder confirmed that in the past, where he had been unable to reconcile objections to certain applications for events at the premises, he had “pulled-the-plug” on them and that this had occurred even once contracts had been signed. Mr Holder added that he had defended claims brought in the County Court by people whose events had been cancelled after the signing of contracts.  Mr Holder emphasised that he did not go ahead with events where for example the Police were not in agreement and that in future he would similarly be willing to cancel an event where consensus has not been reached.  He also stated that he would give notice to the Licensing Authority for all events applied for and that historically the “statutory meeting” occurred as soon as practicable after the giving of notice of the events.  Mr Holder clarified that large events were those where there were expected to be more than 2000 people in attendance.

 

Councillor Rice asked Ms Edwards to clarify what would be her advice to the Committee and specified that he would like the advice to be delivered in public.  Ms Edwards stated that her advice remained as stated in her memo dated 31 October 2005.  Ms Edwards also confirmed that having considered the evidence, the Committee is entitled to grant the licence as requested or to impose such conditions as it considers necessary to promote the licensing objectives.

 

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Committee agreed to grant the application in full and subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)                 Standard Mandatory Conditions as set out in ss 19, 20 and 21 of the Licensing Act 2003.

(ii)               Conditions to enforce the recommendations of the CPA.

(iii)             Conditions to Enforce the provisions of the Operating Schedule

(iv)              That 28 days notice be given to the MPS and the Licensing Authority for pre-booked functions outside normal licensing hours. And that for large* indoor and outdoor events, a minimum of three months notice in advance be given to the MPS and Licensing Authority and that a statutory meeting** be held for each large event and for pre-booked functions of more than 500 people. The notice period may be varied on written application to the Licensing Authority. In the event of an objection to a proposed event, the Licensing Authority will determine whether the said event shall proceed.

 

*”Large events” shall mean events at which more than 2000 people are expected to be in attendance.

**”Statutory meeting” shall mean a meeting to be held as soon as practicable and shall be a meeting to which all of the following persons have been invited to attend: the Licensing Authority, London Borough of Haringey Building Control, London Ambulance Service, London Transport, the Responsible Authorities, the Promoter of the Event and the Designated Premises Supervisor of Alexandra Palace

 

(v)                That conditions on the Public Entertainment License will be carried over, apart from condition 34.

(vi)              That music noise from events held at the premises shall not be audible within any noise sensitive premises*** between the hours of 23:00 and 09:00 the following morning, and that acoustic engineers be present on site to monitor noise levels regularly during events.

 

***”Noise sensitive premises” has the same definition as in Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Environmental Noise Control at Concerts published by the Noise Council.

 

(vii)            To publish in local newspapers dates and times of large events.

(viii)          To publish in local newspapers a telephone number for members of the public to contact the Designated Premises Supervisor (or his representative) during all events.