Agenda item

Applicant: Brand Events TM Ltd, represented by Patrick Toland (Operations Manager), Neil Levene (Operations Director) and Jim Davey

Witness for Applicant: Peter Nash (sound consultant)

Other Persons: Cllr Sue Craig, Cllr Andrew Furse, Stephen Huard (Chairman of Marlborough Lane and Buildings Residents’ Association)

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

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. Representations had been received from Other Persons relating to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the protection children from harm. There were no representations from the Responsible Authorities. Additional information from the applicant and other persons had been received and circulated before the meeting.

Mr Levene stated the case for the applicant. He said that Brand Events had been in operation for nearly twenty years and organised indoor and outdoor events throughout the UK as well as many events throughout the world. They had organised Pub in the Park in the Royal Victoria Park in June of this year. The company prided itself on putting on events to the very highest of standards. The Pub in the Park series of events had been awarded the National Outdoor Events Association 2018 award for the best live event. Pub in the Park was originally launched in Marlow by the river. The event had worked well, and the company felt that it would work well in other towns. They were planning to do eight events next year, including in Bath, St Albans, Leeds and Warwick. Pub in the Park is a unique event; it was not just a food festival or a music festival, but a combination of the two. Besides the pub, there are eight restaurants allowing attendees to sample conveniently-sized portions. Music is presented on stage in the evening. There are two music acts on Friday, each of about forty minutes in length. and about two hours of live music on Saturday morning, afternoon and evening. Generally about 3000-3500 people attend on a day. He drew attention to the conditions they had offered as detailed in paragraph 5.2(8) of the report. A noise management plan would be submitted to Environmental Health for them to approve it writing. The noise levels achieved at this year’s event were lower than those agreed in the noise management plan. Twenty-five stewards had been employed on site to keep people safe. No adverse reports about noise levels had been received after this year’s event. He noted that the Responsible Authorities had made no representations to this application.

Members put questions. Mr Levene said that he considered that the location that had been selected for the stage in Royal Victoria Park was the best possible from the noise control point of view. Mr Nash said that there were national guidelines for this type of event, with which the company complied. They also worked with the Environmental Health Department to minimise noise. An effort was made to focus sound for the benefit of attendees and to prevent noise nuisance for those outside the venue. He would attend the event and take noise measurements offsite. If he felt the level was too high, he would advise management of this. The control of the overall level of sound would be taken away from the musicians if this was necessary to ensure compliance with the limits.

Mr Levene stated that currently attendees were not permitted to leave events with alcohol. There is generally little or no litter on the routes to and from event sites. Routes are checked about half an hour after an event to see if there are any people who have not been able to find their way home.

The Senior Public Protection Officer asked Mr Levene for clarification of his statement that attendees would not permitted to leave the site with alcohol, given that the application was for sales on and off the premises. Mr Levene explained that people were not permitted to take alcohol off the premises in open vessels. Most off sales are for wine or craft gin; very little beer is sold for consumption off the premises. In response to a further question, he said that he would be willing to accept a condition that alcohol in open containers could not be taken from the premises.

Mr Huard stated his case. He began by asking whether there was any point in today’s proceedings, given that the Bath Pub in the Park event for 2019 was already being advertised. The Chair assured him that the Sub-Committee had the power to grant or refuse the application.

Mr Huard said that he was representing six different residents’ associations. There had only been a short time to prepare for today’s hearing and people who might have liked to attend had had to go to work.

One resident had complained about vomit in the street after last year’s event. The Q&A sheet from the Cabinet meeting of 27 June stated that there had been 15 complaints about last year’s event. He though this considerably understated the impact on residents. He himself had made a complaint about the Saturday evening session. A number of the representations from residents focussed on Sunday evening. This was also one of the issues raised by residents’ associations. Last year the Sunday session event went on till 22:00 or 22:30. There are children living in the vicinity, who need to go to bed early on Sunday evening to get ready for school the next day. Some of them were preparing for exams at that time of year. yet the event had actually been advertised as family-friendly. He submitted it was neither sensible nor responsible to have a Sunday evening session. The circus which regularly comes to the common does not have a Sunday evening performance, nor does the fun fair. He noted that large stores are restricted to six hours trading on a Sunday. He requested that a six-hour limit should be place on the Sunday session of Pub in the Park to protect children. He also requested that the permitted noise levels should be reviewed. Some of the objectors present had recordings of last year’s event taken at Sion Hill, which is half a mile from the venue, which show that the stage is actually located in the worst possible position from the point of view of local residents, however convenient it may for electrical power connections.

Councillor Furse stated his case. He said that he was objecting on three main grounds:

1.  Noise and nuisance to neighbouring properties;

2.  Noise and nuisance to other park users;

3.  Protection of children from harm.

He said that people do like a quiet Sunday night to prepare for work and school, and some children needed to prepare for exams. He submitted there was a strong case for limiting the hours on Sunday and that 18:00 would be a reasonable terminal hour. He had made his views known to Cabinet about the appropriateness of this type of event in Royal Victoria Park. He questioned whether any normal pub would be allowed to put on outdoor music all weekend. He knew of pubs that had wanted to have events in their gardens in residential areas at the weekend that had been refused. This gave rise to perceptions of inconsistency in the Council’s policy. The event might last only three days, but there was also a setting up period and a packing up period, which also impacted on residents. Sound did tend to travel in the evening when the normal background noise of the City had died down. The Grade I listed properties nearby do not have double glazing. For occupiers of nearby flats the Park was the equivalent of their back garden, where they went for rest and recreation. There are bye-laws banning drinking in the Park; how can it be fair to say to local residents that they cannot enjoy a bottle of wine in the Park on a Sunday afternoon and yet grant a licence for Pub in the Park? There is a cumulative impact on residents from the number of events that are held in the Park, including the circus and the fun fair. It is good that there are events in Bath, but the impact on residents should be diluted by holding them at other locations around the City as well as the Park.

Councillor Sue Craig said that she fully supported what Councillor Furse had said. She noted that the applicants’ noise compliance report stated that “the noise impact must be considered low for an event of this type”. That was all well and good, but she questioned whether an event of this type was appropriate for a Sunday evening during term time in the summer when people had to go to work and school the next day. She therefore urged the Sub-Committee to limit the hours on Sunday.

Members put questions to the Other Persons to which the following answers were given:

·  Few of the neighbouring properties are in single occupation. Most are divided into flats, some of which are occupied by families with children or by older people.

·  The vomit had been deposited about half a mile from the Park. This was the first time that vomit had been found in that area, according to the resident who had complained. More people had passed through that area during Pub in the Park than is usual.

In response to a question from the Senior Public Protection Officer explained that in a 4.5 hour music slot, there would be only be about 2 hours of live music, because of a change of bands and equipment. Mr Huard noted that the application was for live and recorded music. Mr Levene responded that the recorded music would only be background music played between acts.

The parties summed up.

Councillor Furse said there was a substantial impact on residents from this kind of event. He thought the Park was the wrong place for it. However, if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application, he urged a reduction in the permitted hours for Sunday evening.

Mr Levene asked for advice on the licensing objective of the protection of children from harm. His understanding was that this referred to harm on licensed premises. The Team Leader (Legal) confirmed that this was the case, and that therefore the Sub-Committee should disregard the impact on children off the premises of activities on the premises.

Summing up, Mr Levene said that there had been a total of 16 complaints relating to last year’s Pub in the Park. These events generally attract 13-14,000 people from the local area. 3,000-3,500 had attended on Sunday in Bath last year. Local residents who had attended had demonstrated their support for the event. He submitted that what was relevant was Brand Events’ use of the Park, not any other event organiser’s use of the Park. Pub in the Park had been managed successfully last year and there were no representations from the Responsible Authorities.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application with conditions as detailed below.

Decision and reasons

Members have determined an application for a new Premises Licence for the Pub in the Park, Royal Victoria Park, Marlborough Lane, Bath. In doing so, they have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Policy, Human Rights Act 1998 and case law.

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 information put before them. Members noted that an application must be considered on its own merits.

The Applicant

The applicant stated they have run high standard events for over 20 years. It was stated that the event is a food and drink festival with music over a number of sessions throughout the 3 days. The applicant further stated there will be a 6 month lead in period with key dates for notification and sign off purposes. This would ensure maximum engagement with Responsible Authorities. 

The applicant stated that whilst they had recorded a number of complaints during this year’s event their monitoring records showed there were no breaches of the agreed Noise Management Plan. This together with there being no objections from Environmental Health demonstrated the event was well managed. The applicant also expressed surprise by the representations relating to security as the security team on site had incidences reported to them.

In terms of noise the noise management company stated they worked within national guidelines and given the duration and nature of the performances the noise impact was considered low. In the circumstances it was felt the levels were correct and the stage was correctly located.

Interested Parties

Representations were received from a number of individuals, resident groups and Councillors.

The representations centred on noise nuisance from this year’s event and referred to a Cabinet paper which stated 15 complaints were made to the Council. The Interested Party suggested a number of other complaints had been made although these appeared not to have been recorded for unknown reasons. It was stated the noise impacted on residents’ ability to enjoy their properties as volume levels were loud and sustained throughout the 3 day period. This was particularly so on the Sunday evening. Residents were fearful, therefore, that absent severe noise restrictions noise nuisance would continue to be experienced during future events. It was also stated that noise from crowds leaving the area was experienced and this was due to poor crowd control. Moreover, it was felt that organisers failed to consult adequately, the stage was placed inappropriately and this led to more residents being adversely affected.

Members

Members reminded themselves of the Statutory Guidance. This recognises the important role licensed premises play in the local community and states the Act is a permissive regime that minimises the regulatory burden. Members further noted the Council’s Events Policy which advocates the need to support and facilitate events as these contribute to economic development and vibrant sustainable communities that are active, lively and inclusive. Members also reminded themselves of their Statement of Licensing Policy which aims to facilitate a healthier economy that feels safe and reduces alcohol related crime and anti-social behaviour.

In terms of representations Members noted all written and oral representations. Members also noted an absence of representation from Responsible Authorities in particular the Local Safeguarding Children Board, the Police and the Public Protection Service. In any event, Members were careful to take account of all representations received and to balance the competing interests. Nevertheless, Members were bound to disregard irrelevant representations which on this occasion related to the need and frequency of events, cumulative impact, traffic, the necessity for a quiet Sunday evening and any competition that events might pose to other licenced premises. In terms of the protection of children from harm Members reminded themselves that this is limited to the effects licensable activities have on children on licensed premises rather than those living near licensed premises.

In all the circumstances Members found the application reasonable in extent and the applicant a professional company who on balance managed a successful event with very low level of complaint in accordance with the Event and Noise Management plans. Members therefore resolve to approve the application with the imposition of conditions consistent with the operating schedule, Mandatory Conditions and that offered by the applicant.

Members, however, would encourage greater communication between the applicant and residents with a view to resolving issues going forward for example the closure of Cow Lane. The Interested Parties were also advised of the Licensing Act Review process which is the key protection mechanism for the community and must be supported with evidence.

Authority is delegated to the Licensing Officer to issue the licence with the addition of the condition offered by the applicant:

• No open containers of alcohol to leave the premises.