Decisions

Applicant: Mini V Ltd, represented by Daniel Hurring and Luke Hassell

Other Persons: Sally Monkhouse, Mr Keith Betton (Director, Chew Valley Caravan Park), Cllr Brent (Stowey Sutton Parish Council), and Mr and Mrs Harvey, represented by Cllr Vic Pritchard

Responsible Authority: Suzanne McCutcheon (Education and Enforcement Manager)

The parties confirmed that they understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Public Protection Team Leader summarised the application. He reported that a representation had been received from the Education and Enforcement Manager in respect of the licensing objective of public safety, and that eight representations had been received from local residents in respect of the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. He invited the Sub-Committee to determine the application.

The representatives of the Applicant stated their case. Mr Hurring said that he had been employed by Valley Fest to produce an event management plan and to manage the licence application process. He introduced Mr Hassell who would oversee operations on the site.

He said that Valley Fest would be based at Community Farm, Denny Lane. Events had previously held there in 2014 and 2007, which had been well-managed and had attracted 1,000 visitors. This time plans had been drawn to cater for 4,500 visitors, most of whom were expected to come from the South West. Previous events had been held under temporary event notices, but now it was desired to put Valley Fest on a more permanent basis by applying for a premises licence. Planning consent had been granted in January. The event was planned to take place in 5 stages, with the stepped closure of entertainment and refreshment outlets on the site. A traffic management consultant had been employed to produce a traffic management plan and there was a noise management plan, which had been approved by Environmental Protection.

He appreciated that the event would bring a large number of vehicles into the area. He thought that there might be 500 campervans. He had hoped that 500 people would come by public transport, but the local bus service was poor and this estimate had had to be reduced to 300. There would be separate parking areas for campervans and cars. Denny Lane is a single-track lane; a Traffic Regulation Order was in place to control it throughout the event. There would be many improvements compared with last year’s event, more fencing and more infrastructure. He regretted that he had been unable to attend meetings of Chew Magna and Chew Stoke Parish Councils to discuss the plans for the event.

The representatives of the applicant responded to questions from Members and the Other Persons.

The Other Persons stated their case.

Sally Monkhouse said that there had been no consultation with residents, and there had been none the previous year. She said that she thought the site of this festival was bonkers from every point of view except that it had a beautiful view. She was extremely concerned about noise: last year residents had been disturbed by intrusive bass music emanating from the event, which had been perceptible even indoors. Sound bounces back from the surrounding hills; the topography of the area amplifies sound. She failed to see how making noise after midnight could be called family-friendly. She felt that all activities should cease at midnight. The event would take place on the last bank holiday before Christmas, when families would want to sit out in their gardens. She felt that the infrastructure in the area was totally unsuited to the number of people expected. The bus service was poor, so most people would have to come by car, yet every access route to the site had pinch points. She was worried about the access to and exits from the car park, which was quite close to Denny Lane.

Cllr Brent said that he supported the event in principle, but had reservations about the numbers involved. The majority of people he had spoken to had expressed concerns about the potential number of attendees and the timings. Adverse impacts on neighbouring land should be prevented; last year damage had been caused to Mr Harvey’s land.

Mr Betton stated his case. He said that his caravan park attracted visitors because it was a quiet rural location. Noise from last year’s event had been very loud in the early hours of the morning, and he feared that the impact of this year’s event would be even greater, since a larger event would require a larger sound system. He thought that the noise management plan was deficient in terms of the monitoring points and the schedule of noise checks.

Cllr Pritchard stated the case on behalf of Mr and Mrs Harvey. He said that Mr Harvey’s farm was immediately adjacent to the event site. Last year when a smaller event was held, a gate to Mr Harvey’s field had been completely taken off its hinges. Litter had had been left on his land, and drink cans had ended up in his silage. Mr Harvey was concerned that his cattle would be upset by noise from the event and might escape if the gate was removed again or fences cut. Mr Harvey was pleased with the applicant’s offer of the erection of Heras fencing at the boundary of his land and a no entry sign on his gate, but would like the applicant to provide paid, not volunteer, security guards at the boundary of his land.

Suzanne McCutcheon (Education and Enforcement Manager) stated her case. She said that she had made a representation in relation to the licensing objective of public safety because of concerns about access to the event. She felt that the traffic management plan did not demonstrate how the number of vehicles expected could be managed, nor how emergency vehicles would gain access to the site during busy periods. The bus service was very poor.

The parties were invited to sum up.

Sally Monkhouse said that she had not made her concerns about public safety clear in what she had said earlier. A minute’s delay of an emergency vehicle could be life-threatening. She again urged that all activities should terminate at midnight.

Cllr Pritchard emphasised Mr Harvey’s concern about the consequences of his cattle escaping from his land.

Mr Betton reiterated his concerns about noise.

The Applicant referred to the additional document which he had submitted in response to the representations which had been circulated to Members and the parties. He pointed out that there would be a 24-hour event hotline for residents to report complaints and concerns about noise and other issues. There would be noise monitoring points 1600 metres from the site. He gave an assurance that there would be no access to Mr Harvey’s land. He said that he would happy to reduce the maximum capacity for the event from 4,500 to 3,000, reduce the number of vehicles on site by 600 and reduce the terminal hour for regulated activities by one hour on Sunday. He drew attention to the lack of representations by the police and the fire service. He submitted that the event would bring significant economic benefits to the local community.

Following an adjournment it was RESOLVED to grant the application with modifications and additional conditions.

Decision and reasons

Members have today determined an application for a premises license for Valley Fest, Denny Lane, Chew Magna. In doing so they have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of evidence and must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives based on the information put before them.

The applicant produced some additional information in relation to the application for the music, arts and food festival which is to be held over 3 days in the Chew Valley. The aim of the event was to provide quality family entertainment and education on the Community Farm, Denny Lane and is produced in conjunction with Yeo Valley, who are interested in supporting local businesses. It was stated there had been previous events in 2007 and 2014, which catered for 1,000 people, but that this year the festival is planned to attract 4,500 people with 5 stages and 5 bars each closing at different times managed by an experienced team.

Whilst in public nuisance terms it was accepted there will be an impact on the locality, it was stated that last year’s event did not attract any record of complaint. Regarding this year the applicant had produced a Noise Management Plan in consultation with the Council’s Environmental Health Officer aimed at reducing any negative impacts. For example noise limits will be imposed, the noise monitored throughout the event on and off the site and limits adjusted immediately should the need arise. It was also stated that the orientation of the venues and PA systems were to be altered, there will be no unauthorised PA systems on site and security will deal with any noise arising from the campsite. It was further suggested that although inaudibility could not be achieved the steps proposed would reduce the noise to a general hubbub after 23:00 with the closure of the outdoor. The applicant suggested that the hours of regulated entertainment could be reduced if the committee considered it appropriate.

With regard to public safety and traffic management the plan was for 1,300 vehicle movements and a shuttle bus was in place for those wishing to use public transport. Further, a traffic regulation order will be in place to control access and egress to the site and there will be active traffic management of the closure and on site. It was stated that a lot of time and energy had gone into producing a Traffic Management Plan, Event Safety Plan and Major Incident Plan & Evacuation Procedure and talks were continuing with Bristol Water for emergency access over their land if necessary. In conclusion the organisers considered the main issues was access and egress on the opening and closing days but that they had in place a robust plan should an emergency arise. In any event the access road could be cleared using a tow truck and vehicles could use other gates if necessary. It was however suggested that the capacity of those attending could be limited to 3,000 with the vehicle capacity being reduced by 600.

With regards to crime and disorder there is a no drugs policy and a robust Security Plan and Communications Plan to be agreed by Responsible Authorities. With regard to last year’s criminal damage issue the applicant suggested conditions as follows: Mr Harvey’s land as it borders the festival site shall be guarded by Heras fencing, and an SIA registered member of security staff will be stationed at the entrance to Mr Harvey’s land.

The Interested Parties made representations under the objectives of public nuisance and public safety. It was said there had been an absence of consultation, but in any event this was the wrong place due to the highway and topography issues. Last year’s smaller event had unacceptable noise levels affecting neighbouring properties and for those in Bishop Sutton, given the peculiar topography, sound travelled and bounced off the surrounding hills. It was stated the application should be refused or if granted limited in its hours, or moved to a more suitable venue. Some concern was raised about last year’s event as no noise monitoring was carried out and it was noted that the Noise Management Plan did not contain a schedule of monitoring nor had the monitoring sites been fixed.

The Education and Enforcement Manager made a representation under the objective of Public Safety as access to the event was along a single track lane with two gates off. The only vehicle access to the site is via the Blue gate with access to the parking areas being beyond that gate. There are steep gradients throughout and around the site and access may be hampered in the event of bad weather and the lack of regular public transport. The site and location is therefore considered unacceptable and poses a serious risk to public safety both in the event of an emergency and to vehicles and pedestrians using the lane when leaving the site on Monday.

In determining the application Members took into account all relevant representations, disregarded the irrelevant and noted there were no representations from the police, fire or environmental health services.

With regard to policy it was noted that the Statement of Licensing Policy recognised the need to encourage live music for the wider cultural benefit of the community and that performances of live music had further been encouraged by the Live Music Act. However, Members recognised that licensed premises have a significant potential to adversely impact on communities through public nuisance and were therefore careful to balance the competing interests of the applicant and objectors.

Whilst noting there had been no recorded complaints about last year’s event, Members heard that Interested Parties had been affected by nose nuisance and feared this would increase. Members further noted, however, that there was a proposed stepped closure of venues beginning at 23:00 with the outdoor stage and unlike last year all PAs and venues will be orientated towards the hill away from both the lake and village of Bishop Sutton where the majority of Interested Parties were located. Whilst acknowledging there would inevitably be some noise Members considered that the steps set out in the draft Event Management Plan would go some way in furthering the licensing objectives. However, it was considered that to authorise the provision of regulated entertainment to the extent applied for may lead to the likelihood that the objective of the prevention of public nuisance could be undermined, given the event’s size, location and duration. Having noted the applicant’s suggestion that there could be a reduction in hours, numbers of people and vehicles, Members resolved to grant the application on a limited basis with additional conditions as appropriate and proportionate, preferring the preventative approach to that of dealing with nuisance and safety rather than an after the event approach which in the circumstances would not suffice. Accordingly the following conditions are imposed to further the prevention of public nuisance objective:

• The capacity shall be limited to 3,000 people attending the event
• The vehicle capacity shall be reduced by 600
• The premises shall have an Event Management Plan agreed by all Responsible Authorities and the Safety Advisory Group for Events.
• The Event Management Plan shall include a Noise Management Plan.

• Noise levels at monitoring points must not exceed 60dB LAeq (over 15 minutes) between 12:00hrs and 23:00hrs.
• Noise levels at monitoring points must not exceed 45dB LAeq (over 15 minutes) between 23:00hrs and 02:00hrs
• The Noise Management Plan shall include the monitoring location points and a time schedule for noise monitoring.
• Event noise monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the Noise Management Plan.
• A record of all sound measurements shall be maintained and produced at the request of a licensing officer.
• Live and recorded music shall cease on the outside main stage at 23:00hrs Fri-Sun.
• Live and recorded music shall cease in the Tutti Frutti Tent at 01:00hrs Fri – Sun.
• Live and recorded music shall cease at the Tipi Valley Fri – Sat at 01:00hrs and 00:00hrs Sun.
• Live and recorded music shall cease at the Folk Café at 02:00hrs Fri – Sat and 00:00 Sun.
• Live and recorded music shall cease at the Circus Valley at 00:00hrs Fri-Sat and 23:00 Sunday.
• 1 member of SIA registered security staff shall be stationed at the entrance to Mr Harvey’s land
• Mr Harvey’s land as it borders the festival site shall be guarded by Heras fencing.

With regard to public safety Members impose the following condition.

• An Event Management Plan including a Traffic Management Plan, Event Safety Plan and a Major Incident & Evacuation Procedure shall be agreed by all Responsible Authorities and the Safety Advisory Group for Events.

Members considered in all other respects the application should be granted as applied for together with the mandatory conditions and those consistent with the operating schedule.

Authority delegated to the Public Protection Officer to issue the licence.

The report captures the cabinet’s priorities to inform and lead the development of the Councils future plans and its engagement with its stakeholders (its residents, staff and partners). In order to consider its future budget plans the Council will need to agree a new Corporate Strategy for the period up to 2020.

RESOLVED (unanimously):

1)  To AGREE the aims and priorities set out in section 5 of the report and to;

2)  To further develop these into the Council’s Corporate Strategy for 2015 - 2020 to be brought to Cabinet in September.

The B&NES CIL Charging Schedule was adopted by the Council on 17th February 2015 and came into effect on 6th April 2015. Following the adoption, it is necessary to agree the process for allocating and releasing funds raised through CIL. The CIL Strategic Spend Protocol proposed in this report sets out the process, timetable and infrastructure prioritisation criteria.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:

1)  The B&NES Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Strategic Spend Protocol is approved;

2)  Responsibility is delegated to the Divisional Director for Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Homes and Planning, to make any minor amendments and to correct any errors to the documentation.

The report provides and update on the process to review the Council’s spending and budgets in support of developing the Medium Term Financial Plan for 2016/17 to 2019/20 in light of the significant financial challenge that the Council is likely to face over this period.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:

1)  Work should be undertaken to produce a 4-year Medium Term Financial Plan covering the financial years 2016/17 to 2019/20.

2)  Work that has already commenced to review the Council budgets and spending as part of the Strategic Review to support the development of this Medium Term Financial Plan is noted and should continue to be progressed.

The report presents the revenue and capital outturn for 2014/15, highlighting an underspend of £54,000. This represents a significant achievement in the context of the government’s public sector deficit recovery plan which resulted in a revenue savings requirement of over £10 million for 2014/15.

The report refers to requests to carry forward specific revenue budget items to 2015/16 and to write-off revenue overspends where recovery in future years would have an adverse impact on continuing service delivery.

The report also refers to requests to re-phase specific capital budget items to 2015/16 and to remove net capital underspends.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:

1)  The revenue budget outturn underspend of £54,000 for 2014/15 is noted.

2)  The revenue carry forward proposals and write-off requests listed in the report are approved.

3)  Transfers to Earmarked Reserves are agreed as set out.

4)  The revenue virements for 2014/15 are approved.

5)  The resulting reserves position shown in the report is noted and that unearmarked reserves remain at the target level of £10.5m (excluding Invest to Save drawdowns).

6)  The provisional outturn of the 2014/15 capital programme, and the funding as laid out in the report, are noted.

7)  The capital re-phasing and write-off of net underspends are approved.

8)  The adjustments to the 2014/15 to 2019/20 capital programme, and the final capital programme for 2014/15 are noted.

In February 2012 the Council adopted the 2011 edition of the CIPFA Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice, which requires the Council to approve a Treasury Management Strategy before the start of each financial year, review performance during the year, and approve an annual report after the end of each financial year.

This report gives details of performance against the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy and Annual Investment Plan for 2014/15.

Council on 16^th September noted the treasury management report and indicators for 2014/15.

In February 2012 the Council adopted the 2011 edition of the CIPFA Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice, which requires the Council to approve a Treasury Management Strategy before the start of each financial year, review performance during the year, and approve an annual report after the end of each financial year.

This report gives details of performance against the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy and Annual Investment Plan for 2014/15.

The Council adopted the Getting Around Bath Transport Strategy in November 2014.  This report provides an update to some of the key issues within the Strategy and how they are being taken forward.  A key recommendation of the Strategy included the need to develop a new Park and Ride (P&R) to the east of Bath.  This report recommends that a public consultation be undertaken on the options for the delivery of this facility.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:

1)  The Cabinet noted the progress being made on the Getting Around Bath Transport Strategy, and agrees the additional measures proposed within paragraphs 5.3 to 5.7 to support the delivery of this Strategy.

2)  The Cabinet agreed to undertake a public consultation on the options to help identify a preferred location for a new P&R east of Bath.

The Local Authority has a statutory duty, in consultation with the partner agencies, to produce an annual Youth Justice Plan. The Plan sets out how youth justice services are to be composed and funded, how they will operate and what functions they will carry out to prevent youth offending and re-offending across Bath and North East Somerset.

RESOLVED (unanimously):

1)  The Cabinet recommends adoption of the Youth Justice Plan as part of the Council’s Policy and Budget Framework and notes this can be accommodated within the Council budget;

2)  Cabinet recommends the Youth Justice Plan to Council as fulfilling the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and can be submitted to the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.

 The first Bath and North East Somerset Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy (JHWS) was published in November 2013.  The approval of the CCG 5 year strategic plan, publication of NHS England’s ‘The 5 Year Forward View’, publication of the first Health and Wellbeing Board annual report and work on a new Council vision and corporate plan means a lot has changed since November 2013. The Strategy needed to be refreshed in order to reflect this change.

Council on 16^th September adopted the refreshed strategy.

RESOLVED:

1)  To adopt the refreshed Bath and North East Somerset Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

2)  To note that a final Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy will be submitted to Council for approval as forms part of our policy and budget framework.

The Council’s Adopted Core Strategy identifies Keynsham for growth of more than 2,000 dwellings together with over 1,000 new jobs. This represents a significant increase in the size of the town which at peak times suffers from delays and congestion. Although the Council has an overall Transport Strategy in 3rd Joint Local Transport Plan 2011 to 2026, a more detailed Transport Strategy for the town is required to ensure the growth proposed can be accommodated.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:

1)  The Cabinet noted the responses to the consultation process and the amendments made and approve the adoption of the ‘Getting around Keynsham Transport Strategy’.

2)  The Cabinet agreed the Strategy be subject to a period of engagement within Keynsham to allow the public a further opportunity to understand the proposals within the Strategy.

3)  The Cabinet delegated any further minor changes to the Getting Around Keynsham Transport Strategy to the Divisional Director Environmental Services, or the Strategic Director Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport.