Agenda item

To consider an application for a variation of a premises licence.

 

Ms Daliah Barrett, Licensing Team Leader, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         This was a variation application to increase the capacity of all the events from 6000 patrons to 8000 patrons.

·         The application also sought to add regulated entertainment such as live music and display of film on Saturday and Sunday.

·         Large events were subject to due process via the Safety Advisory Group (SAG) meetings. These had been attended by blue light agencies and the responsible authorities. The applicant provided the Event Management Plan (EMP) as it was being updated. Meetings were held on a monthly basis in the run-up to the event.

·         Representations could be found from pages 329 and were on the basis of all four licensing objectives.

·         The representation made by Public Health had been withdrawn.

·         There were two distinct processes that needed to be complied with by the applicant. This included the park hire process and the application for a premises licence.

 

In response to questions from Members, Ms Barrett informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The infrastructure for the event would be increased and there was likely to be an increase in toilet facilities, security staff, food vendors, medical staff and other areas.

 

In response to questions, Mr Butterfield, Mr Bowles and Mr Clancy representing the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         There was a slight overlap between the event planning and the event licensing process.

·         In relation to the licensing process, the applicant had to demonstrate that adequate systems were in place to promote licensing objectives.

·         For the SAG process, it was important to outline the details of how the event would be managed and operated.

·         The site area was just under 21,500 square metres. In terms of audience capacity, the footprint did not need to be increased. The industry guidance allowed for two people per square metre and this would allow for 8000 people in addition to the infrastructure.

·         The principles in relation to the management process had been set out. The relevant documents would be reviewed by the responsible authorities but this was a separate process to the licensing process.

 

In response to questions, Ms Barrett informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         Page 318 of the agenda papers set out the conditions that the applicant believed were sufficient to accommodate the application. 

 

Mr Tom Graham, representing the Friends of Finsbury Park, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         It was not clear exactly what issues were relevant with regard to the consideration of the application.

·         He would ask that the capacity crowd not be increased from 6000 to 8000 patrons and that no films be displayed during the afternoons when the park was not being used to screen live music and other activities.

 

Mr Butterfield, Mr Bowles and Mr Clancy, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant had no intention to screen films during the afternoon.

Ms Dianne Burridge, resident, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         It was not clear how the vehicle movement along the road would be managed for the 20 days in which the applicant would occupy the area as the road was used by joggers and walkers.

·         It was not clear how disturbance would be managed by staff when patrons were turned away from the event.

 

Ms Barrett stated that the park service would work to resolve with the applicant timings for vehicle movement. There would be curfew times to allow children to be able to get through the park without vehicle movement. This was a conversation that would take place between the applicant and the park representatives. 

 

Mr Konrad Borowski informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         It was not clear how the increase in the capacity crowd of 6000 patrons to 8000 patrons would not increase the sound levels.

·         The introduction of live music was also likely to increase the volume of the event as musical artists often desired to be able to hear the music that was played at a loud level.

 

Mr Butterfield, Mr Bowles and Mr Clancy, representing the applicant, stated that they were confident that noise levels would not increase despite the increase in patrons. There would be no need to increase the volume and any playing of live music was not likely to be any louder than the regular levels of noise at the event. There were often regular breaks in live music due to band change overs in any case. Furthermore, leafleting to local residents with the complaint line details and any additional conditions would be sent to residents from this year and every year in the future. 

Ms Barrett stated that there was already a condition on the licence which stated that the premises licence holder would take all reasonable steps to ensure that a leaflet drop was carried out locally in advance of the event advising of the complaints line.

Mr Hutchinson, resident, stated that no leafleting had been done by the applicant in the previous year.

In response to questions, Mr Butterfield, Mr Bowles and Mr Clancy informed the Sub-Committee that:   

·         Mr Bowles would be attending an Ask Angela and Welfare Officer training driven forward by Tower Hamlets and Hackney councils. The training would be brought into his team for the events being run at Haringey and event staff would be sent forward to attend the training.

·         The applicant had agreed with Public Health that they would address the matters that Public Health had raised as part of the planning process.

·         The applicant would not object to a condition requesting the implementation of the Ask Angela policy.

 

Ms Barrett stated that when Public Health raised queries about high strength alcohol, this was in relation to high strength beers, ciders and lagers. It came about as a result of incidents of street drinkers in a given area. This was something Public Health put on all representations and was better utilised for small off licences where there may be street drinking issues to stop selling high strength alcohol to street drinkers. In relation to the officer training, it was called Wave Training and was being delivered by the Police.

 

Mr Butterfield, Mr Bowles and Mr Clancy informed the Sub-Committee that:   

·         The applicant was looking to increase capacity from 6000 to 8000 patrons.

·         There would be no significant increase in the footprint of the event area.

·         The event management plan would be similar to the one used in 2021.

·         There would be some differences in the application due to the increase in capacity but the specific operational measures would be covered at the SAG meetings. These would be attended by the responsible authorities and the applicant would work closely with them.

·         The whole planning process would be appropriate to the application of the event if the licence was granted.

·         He would take on board the comments made by residents.

 

In response to questions, Mr Butterfield, Mr Bowles and Mr Clancy informed the Sub-Committee that:   

 

·         Consideration of the viability of the event would be taken into account if the Sub-Committee did not approve the increase in capacity from 6000 to 8000 patrons.

 

Ms Barrett stated that there was a condition on the licence which stated that a licensable area would be dedicated to dealing with vulnerable adults.

To summarise, Mr Graham stated that he understood the difficulties of the process. However, there was a challenge regarding holding large events at Finsbury Park. He understood that although festivals would continue to go ahead at the park and until the Council updated its major events policy, he would encourage the Sub-Committee that the applicant be restricted to holding the event to 6000 patrons in addition with the conditions outlined at the meeting. It was difficult have a structured discussion around the application due to the drip-feeding of information, withdrawal of representations and the consideration of what could or could not be discussed by the Sub-Committee.

To summarise, Ms Burridge stated that on behalf of Friends of Gillespie Park she was concerned regarding the use of Finsbury Park for the event and the disturbance it would cause. She was concerned for the cyclists and joggers who wish to relax and experience a peaceful atmosphere.

To summarise, Mr Borowski stated that he did not agree to the increase of capacity from 6,000 patrons to 8,000.

To summarise, Mr Hutchinson stated that the applicant’s website appeared to promote environmental credentials but the applicant was aware of the substantial environmental impact of music festivals. The use of Finsbury Park, especially in the area the applicant was proposing to hold the event, was a totally inappropriate area to hold the event. The area of the park was prone to flooding and the grass put in last year had died. The site was surrounded by 100 year-old London Plane trees and the soil compaction could negatively affect the life of the trees.

At 9:23pm, the Sub-Committee adjourned to consider the application.

 

RESOLVED

The Licensing Sub Committee carefully considered the application for a variation to the premises licence for Krankbrothers at Finsbury Park, London N4. In considering the application, the Committee took account of the London Borough of Haringey’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Act 2003 section 182 Guidance, the report pack and the applicant’s and objectors’ written and oral representations.

 

Having considered the application and heard from all the parties, the Committee decided to grant the variation by increasing the capacity under the licence from 6000 to 8000 and by adding the following licensable activity:

 

Regulated Entertainment: Live Music and Films

 

Saturday                     1300 to 2200 hours

Sunday                                    1300 to 2130 hours

 

 

In addition, the Committee has imposed the following conditions:

 

1. The Licence holder must ensure that staff undertake WAVE (Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement ) training
2. The Licence holder must implement the ask for Angela Scheme or a similar Policy to deal with recognising and addressing vulnerability and sexual violence.

 

Reasons:

 

The Committee heard that for the increased capacity the infrastructure would be increased and there was likely to be an increase in toilet facilities, security staff, food vendors, medical staff and other areas. However, the industry guidance allowed for two people per square metre so the footprint of the site would not need to increase to accommodate the increase in capacity.

Concerns about harassment and violence to women   would be addressed by the above 2 conditions to promote the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

Residents raised concerns about increased noise because of live music and a larger audience but the Committee was assured by the applicant that although the capacity under the variation would be larger, the noise level and disturbance would not increase as a result. The same noise limits from previous events would be in operation as they have been agreed as part of the licence conditions. The Committee accepted this and noted that local residents would be leafleted with details of the complaint line.

 

The Committee concluded that the licensing objectives would not be undermined by granting the application with the existing conditions and those imposed on the variation.