Paul Taylor wrote:
I applaud the CDC Committee for making what for many will be an umpopular but nonetheless the right decision. Any event such as the one proposed has to be professionaly planned and organised.

Jack wrote:

Paul Taylor wrote: I applaud the CDC Committee for making what for many will be an umpopular but nonetheless the right decision. Any event such as the one proposed has to be professionaly planned and organised.

Erm, what do you think people have been doing??? We\\\\\\\'re well aware that festivals need to be planned and organised! The problem with craven council is the majority of it\\\\\\\'s members have absoloubtly no concept of reality. They\\\\\\\'ve all been in their positions far too long and need replacing with younger, brighter members (and no, i\\\\\\\'m suggesting put a load of so called yobs on the council). Please go to appeal Mark, put some life back into this area!!!

music lover wrote:
<b> What Scott-Smith fails to say is that he was at the hearing and spoke out as a strong objector. He was boring then too.</b>

C. Niall Dekkay wrote:
Poor Mark Dale – all together now – aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh! All that hard work and selfless community spirit devoted to dragging Settle and surrounding area out of the Dark Ages and save its fun-starved young folk from death by boredom at the hands of the mind-munching Zimmer Zombies. Instead, the Salvation of Settle lay in resurrecting such over-the-hill acts as Madness, Status Quo and The Stranglers. Forget the crap about a \"Family Event\" – of the expected 20,000 visitors daily how many would come to hear a poetry-reading or watch a play by a group of frustrated local thespians? Or to spend their moolah in Settle\'s shops and pubs? **** few, believe it. The aim of Mark and his low-profile businessmen supporters was to keep as many people as possible onsite in order to milk their booze and catering monopoly. But while yammering long and loud about \"regenerating\" the Settle area Mark and his commercial partners have kept mysteriously quiet about the fact that their overriding aim was to enrich themselves to the tune of (potentially) several hundreds of thousands of pounds. Credit where it\'s due, though. Mark has done a darn fine job of whipping up public support via MySpace, Bebo, eFestivals and other sites – most of whose visitors couldn\'t even find Settle on a map. I\'ll grant you Mark, you put a helluva lot of time and effort into this. But its wasn\'t for the benefit of Settle and its young people. Wrong site, wrong acts, wrong business plan (if there was one?), wrong partners and wrong motives. Back to the drawing board!

7. The Committee considered that it was necessary to reject the application for the premises licence so as to promote the four licensing objectives under the Act –

1) The prevention of crime and disorder

2) The prevention of public nuisance

3) Public safety

4) The protection of children from harm

8. In reaching this decision the Committee had regard to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, guidance issued under the Act and the CouncilÂ’s licensing policy

9. In arriving at its decision, the Committee disregarded any information and/or submissions which were not relevant to the licensing objectives under the 2003 Act.

10. In reaching this decision and in considering the application, the statutory representations and the oral evidence presented, the Committee were mindful of the scope to address issues through conditions and that any condition had to be necessary.

REASONS

11. In terms of the licensing objectives, a large number of issues were raised in the relevant representations, and considered. The Committee considered that the following were the principal issues that had been raised by the representations -

1) Roads and the Suitability of the Site.

2) Congestion.

3) Issues of Flooding, the River Ribble, Watercourses and Culverts.

4) Sound levels and Nuisance.

5) Planning and Management of the Event.

6) Staffing, Security and Stewarding.

7) Criminal Activity (On and Off the Site).

8) Children and Vulnerable People.

12. In terms of those issues, the Committee determined the following –

1) Roads and the Suitability of Site. Although a traffic management plan had been submitted, the Committee considered this to be inadequate . The plan did not properly address the A65 and pedestrians. The Committee was of the opinion that although Mr Dale had stated his intention to provide crossing points, lighting, traffic lights and stewards, there was nothing in place before them which provided certainty regarding the content of any amended traffic plan and in so far as it could, intended to address the dangers posed to festival goers, pedestrians and other road users on the A65. The suitability of Rathmell Road was also a concern to the Committee bearing in mind the absence of pavements/pedestrian
s walk areas and associated dangers to pedestrians. In reaching this view, the Committee accepted the points raised in this regard by the North Yorkshire Police and interested parties.

2) Congestion. The A65 is the main spinal route within Craven and also links West Yorkshire to Kendal and the Lakes. The Committee was of the view that the Festival would lead to congestion on this route and measures such as the introduction of temporary traffic lights on the Settle Bypass would add to this congestion. The Committee was concerned and accepted points raised in the representations that the resulting congestion could impact on the ability of the emergency services to respond to a road traffic accident or other medical emergency in the area concerned to an unacceptable degree . Again, the Committee considered that a clear traffic management plan was not available to the Committee .

3) Flood issues, River Ribble, Watercourses and Culverts. The Committee accepted that the risks posed by the presence of culverts and water courses within the site could be addressed by conditions and the use of fencing and other measures. However, having received and heard submissions from those familiar with the site, they were of the view that in the absence of risk assessments and site evacuation plans the risks and dangers posed to persons on the site, particularly the campsites, as a result of flooding and standing water were not adequately addressed within the plans and the documentation before the Committee.

4) Sound Levels and Noise Nuisance. Having considered representations and the evidence presented by Mr Pickles (the Senior Environmental Health Officer) and Mr Fairclough and whilst acknowledging Mr DaleÂ’s response to those representations and evidence, the Committee concluded that they did not consider that Mr Dale would be able to control noise from the event to the extent that it would not cause nuisance to residents. The Committee noted that Mr Dale said that he would engage the services of Capita Symonds to assist with sound levels but again the Committee had not seen any information and/or plans to allow this to be considered.

5) Planning and Management of the Event. Given the scale and extent of the event, the Committee concluded that the event safety management plan and operating schedule before them was too generic , was not sufficiently advanced and contained insufficient data in terms of policies, procedures and plans to enable them to be assured that Mr Dale was able to satisfy the four licensing objectives under the Act. Mrs Longfield on behalf of the Festival Action Group submitted that the policies were generic and not site specific. The Committee agreed with that. Examples of the policies/documents etc not available to the Committee, or incomplete are-
a) Traffic management plan (including pedestrian plan).

b) Risk assessments.
c) Site evacuation plans .

d) Health and safety plan.
e) Eviction policy.
f) Drugs policy .

g) Major incident plan.
6) Staffing, Security and Stewarding. The Committee was concerned at the absence of information in relation to issues highlighted within the representations submitted by North Yorkshire Police . Again, they concluded that the application and supporting management plan contained insufficient detail to give them satisfaction as to the arrangements to be put in place. No site specific arrangements existed.

7) Criminal Activity (On and Off Site) . Again in the absence of sufficient detail within the management plan, absence of clarity on the likely audience profile and taking account of the representations submitted and presented by the North Yorkshire Police , the Committee concluded that they were not in a position to adequately judge at this time Mr DaleÂ’s ability to address the concerns of the Police and residents in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder. Mr Dale referred to the offer of policing from British Transport Police, but again the Committee had not been provided with any detailed information or procedures in this regard.

8) Children and Vulnerable People . Bearing in mind the scale and extent of the event applied for by Mr Dale and the representations submitted by North Yorkshire Police , the Licensing Committee concluded that the management plan lacked clarity on how issues associated with the safety and welfare of children and vulnerable people are to be addressed.

13. North Yorkshire Police and the Interested Parties in particular had raised substantial issues and objections based on all four of the licensing objectives. The Committee heard little from Mr Dale that would rebut those concerns. The Committee decided that it was not workable to address, what was a substantial number of, concerns with conditions and therefore determined that it was necessary to reject the application. Furthermore, the Committee was of the view that it was not able to assess what would be workable conditions given the inadequacy of the documents produced by Mr Dale and the absence before them of important information . The Committee concluded that it was necessary to reject the application to promote the objectives.

14. The application by Mr Dale for a premises licence is therefore rejected.