Settle Festival decision notification (From Craven Herald)

Settle Festival decision notification

3:30pm Thursday 28th February 2008 in

• Skip social links
• Print
• Email
•  

This is the full adjudication on the application for a licence for Settle Festival

BACKGROUND

1. On 7 February 2008 and 13 February 2008 the Licensing and Appeals Sub-Committee (the Committee') heard an application by Mark Dale for a premises licence to stage the Settle Festival' on land within the Craven district. A plan was submitted with the application outlining the site and the Committee attended at the proposed site for a visit on 16 February 2008.

2. The application sought authorisation from 14 August 2008 although the licensable activities applied for were from 28 August 2008 to 1 September 2008. The exception being late night refreshment, in which no specified dates were given. At the hearing, Mr Dale submitted that the application was for a premises licence, not just for 2008, but for following years so as to enable him to stage the festival on an annual basis. Following legal advice, the Committee considered that Mr Dale had applied for a premise licence to carry on the licensable activities for the specified dates in 2008 only. The exception to that was the provision of late night refreshment.

3. The application by Mr Dale received statutory representations from the North Yorkshire Police, the Council's Environmental Health Office and Interested Parties.

4. At the hearing, the Committee heard from the following people - 1) The Applicant, Mr Dale who was accompanied by Simon Bell, Advisor; Stephen Bell, Showtec Security, Tom Algie and Chris Leach MBE, Northern Rail.

2) The North Yorkshire Police, represented by Mrs Wintermyre together with Superintendent Payne and Sergeant Wilson. Area Commander Taylor was present on 13 February 2008 instead of Superintendent Payne 3) The Council's Senior Environmental Health Officer, Mr Pickles 4) Rathmell Parish Meeting (represented by Mr Stone, Chairman) 5) Giggleswick Parish Council (represented by Dr Friar, Chairman) 6) Ramblers Association Craven Group (represented by Mr Gibson) 7) Mrs Longfield of Walker Morris Solicitors representing those interested parties comprising the Festival Action Group. Mrs Longfield called several of the interested parties that she acted for to give evidence together with a Mr Fairclough as an expert in acoustic and noise control. Mr Fairclough had been instructed by Mr R Crabtree, an interested party 8) Mr P Scott-Smith 9) Mrs S Birkin 5. All parties were allowed an opportunity to ask questions so as to ensure that all issues that had been raised were properly, fairly and fully addressed by those at the hearing.

DECISION 6. The Committee have decided to reject the application.

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 Council'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/pedestrians 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 Dale'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 Dale'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.