Agenda item

Hyde Park, Serpentine Road, London, W2 2UH (“The Premises”)

18/11180/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – On Sales

Monday to Sunday: 12:00 to 22:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee considered an application by The Royal Parks Ltd (“The Applicant”) for a new premises licence in respect of Hyde Park, Serpentine Road, London, W2 2UH.

The Licensing Officer introduced the application and confirmed that the Applicant had amended the application, which was now seeking to permit 7 concerts at a capacity of 64,999, 2 concerts at a capacity of 49,999 and 5 occasions per calendar year where the event capacity was extended from 5,000 to 19,999. It was also confirmed that the Police had withdrawn their representation following the agreement of conditions with the Applicant.

Ms Le Fevre, representing the Applicant, advised that there were four key characteristics to the application, namely: i) it was a targeted and specific application, ii) the scope of the application was limited, iii) the application was evidence based and iv) the conditions would have a wider economic benefit to the area. The Royal Parks wished to continue to attract a range of renown artists to its events and these artists would be carefully selected with events rigorously risk assessed. The nature of the events and entertainment would also be carefully considered and as part of this, a sound management plan had been formulated. The mid-week events had proven very popular and it was sought to increase the capacity for these going forward. The proposed conditions offered by the Applicant would have the effect of updating the Licence should the Sub-Committee be minded to grant the application.

Ms Le Fevre advised that a major events strategy had been put in place and this had been published following extensive consultation. The Applicant was keen to continue for its operation to strike the right balance in the local area and respect the needs of all stakeholders. The Royal Parks was not seeking to increase the number of events but was seeking permission to improve the events whilst maximising its financial income. The Sub-Committee noted that an existing licence had been in operation for many years and following a review of that premises Licence in 2012, the Applicant had volunteered to impose restrictions on its operation that included lowering its capacity and decreasing the number of major events held in the park. Another subsequent improvement included a change of promoter to AEG who had helped develop the modern sound technology now employed at the events. It was stated that enhanced operational management procedures had also been implemented and this had seen a drop in complaints per annum from 166 in 2012/13 to 13 in 2016/17.

In terms of the planned 19,999 capacity events, Ms Le Fevre explained that these would continue to be midweek events providing content for children, charity work, educational workshops and fundraising. The application hoped to expand these and provide for greater community involvement. The Applicant was of the opinion that the current 5,000 capacity limit on these midweek events was limiting and by increasing its capacity it would future proof the application. The events would take place within the same footprint of the major events that catered for 64,999 people, therefore there would be no increase in its footprint. All of the events only covered 13% of the parks area and its impact on park users was limited. There would be no increase in capacity at the major events and its capacity limit was significantly less than the 80,000 capacity it was originally allowed. It was also confirmed that no changes to the hours on the licence were being sought.

Ms Le Fevre highlighted that the application sought to increase the number of major events held within the park with a maximum capacity of 64,999 from four to seven. This was because the Royal Parks operated in a competitive market and this would help continue to attract world-class artists to Hyde Park. The application was evidence based and large amounts of time, expertise and money had been invested in ensuring Hyde Park was a first class venue with significant stakeholder consultation being carried out before submitting the application. This included the circulation of fact sheets, meeting local residents and arranging further meetings if necessary to address concerns. The consultation was considered successful and this was evidenced through the representation received from the Hyde Park Estate Association that supported the application. The Sub-Committee was advised that letters from local schools and theatres supporting the application had also been received, copies of which are contained within the body of the Licensing Sub-Committee Report. It was claimed this recognised the vast amount of work undertaken by the Applicant to consult with local stakeholders.

The Sub-Committee was informed by the Applicant of the large scale cleansing operation carried out in the local area following an event. Following suggestions from local residents, it was agreed that this operation could be extended to Connaught Square. The Applicant stated that it wanted to be a good neighbour to residents and this was evidenced by the reduction in the number of complaints received. This reduction was not due to good fortune or complaint fatigue but through improved engagement processes and an improved sound management strategy. For any complaint received, the Applicant would attend the resident’s address to measure sound levels and try to resolve any issues identified. For this engagement process to be successful however, it was important that feedback was received from residents. Details on the sound management plan were provided along with the advanced nature of sound controls in place on site. The Sub-Committee was advised that these controls provided a proper evidential platform to increase the number of events with a capacity of 64,999.

Ms Le Fevre then set out four reasons why the application would promote the licensing objectives. Firstly, the extensive dispersal policy in place was designed to cater for events with a 64,999 capacity with an established egress plan. Secondly, the duration of Park Lane closures was provided and the Sub-Committee was advised how there was no correlation between the size of the event and the closure times. Thirdly, there was no correlation between the number of complaints and the scale of the events held. Fourthly, a condition had been agreed with Environmental Health (EH) limiting the noise levels for the midweek events. This condition was supported by the acoustic report produced by Vanguardia. The condition was designed to ensure there could be no abuse of the midweek events and would ensure they continued to cater for children, charities and community events.

Ms Le Fevre highlighted that the Police had withdrawn their representation as they were satisfied that the application would promote the licensing objectives following the agreement of conditions with the Applicant. The application had received local support and this recognised the amount of work carried out to ensure the events could be successful as well as respectful to residents so as to minimise any impact in terms of nuisance. Finally, if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application the conditions to be imposed had been updated and amended with assistance from stakeholders to ensure they were appropriate for the local area.

Mr Jim Griffiths, representing Vanguardia Acoustics, was invited by Ms Le Fevre to address the Sub-Committee regarding the sound technology used at events. Mr Griffiths explained that he worked closely with EH on the noise control procedures used at Hyde Park. An active monitoring system was used which allowed changes to be made immediately and a new MLA sound system had been introduced which had undergone extensive testing and subsequently made a significant reduction in sound propagation off site. Acoustic modelling had also been undertaken and the introduction of delay towers all helped distribute the sound. The results from the testing had been shared with the Council and this formed an important part of the exercise. The location of the stage had also been altered which had reduced noise levels off site. Where the stage location could not be altered noise levels would be reduced to meet the designated off site level. The innovations utilised to reduce noise levels off site had been successful and this was evidenced by the significant reduction in complaints received. The Sub-Committee was advised that moving the location of the stage, upgrading the sound system, changing the profile of the artists performing and liaising closely with the Council and other interested parties had all helped minimise any noise disturbance. It was considered that it was these factors and not the reduction in capacity at the venue that had created the improved situation.

Mrs Fabbricatore, representing Environmental Health, explained that since the review hearing in 2012 various changes had been implemented, some of these were not conditioned but were instigated by the Applicant. The direction of the stage had been altered resulting in a significant improvement on offsite sound levels. New sound technology had been introduced and the implementation of more proactive community engagement all resulted in an improvement in the situation. Regular meetings with the Royal Parks and the event organisers took place to discuss the choice of artists, assess the noise management plan and suggest any changes. When events were being hosted EH met with the organiser’s everyday to proactively manage any issues. A noise management hotline was in place to compile in live time any issues arising as well as to monitor off-site noise levels. The capacity of events was not taken into account when measuring noise levels as this did not affect the off-site noise levels. The agreed noise levels were restrictive, with offsite levels limited to just above what was regarded as ambient noise. It was recognised that the rigorous assessment in artist selection had also been a large factor in the reduction in the number of complaints received.

In terms of public safety Mrs Fabbricatore explained that a multi-agency group entitled the Licensing Safety and Advisory Group (LSAG) regularly met to manage the event process on an operational and day-to-day basis. No concerns had been raised in respect of public safety, there was adequate WC provision and the food and bar units provided were sufficient for the proposed capacities. With regards to public nuisance an offsite noise limit was in place and as such the main concerns were related to dispersal and the impact on residents. For the midweek smaller events, there was not a hard egress which occurred during concerts, instead it was a gradual dispersal and this limited any potential public nuisance issues. It was also noted that the condition proposed by the Police regarding the bar use onsite had been agreed with the applicant.

Finally, with respect to the protection of children from harm licensing objective EH confirmed that a children management plan was in place. EH advised it was a very comprehensive document and the Sub-Committee was assured that licensing site visits were undertaken to the site each year.

Mrs Karen Scarborough, a local resident, explained she lived in the vicinity of Hyde Park and was aware of the issues arising from the events held. The Royal Parks had been very helpful in trying to resolve any issues and had engaged with residents but problems still existed. Noise disturbance from the concerts remained a problem, the issues was generally dependent on the wind direction but it was acknowledged that the change in the location of the stage had helped. It was also understood that funding to the Royal Parks had been reduced and the application would help generate income. However, this income would be shared amongst all the Royal Parks and therefore local residents did not experience the full benefit from a large portion of the park being closed. A large issue centred on the capacity of the events. The Sub-Committee was advised that the larger capacities resulted in more people dispersing through residential areas and the related anti-social behaviour this created. Residents had been enduring these issues for many years and having complained about the issues continuously were now experiencing complaint fatigue. It was therefore suggested that as a compromise the number of major events be limited to 5 or 6 with the midweek capacities increased but restricted to 10,000. Residents also experienced parking issues on event days and it was suggested the Royal Parks help fund extra parking enforcement in residential areas during the holding of the events. Finally, it was recognised that the event organisers, AEG, had worked hard with regards to sound monitoring and the selection of suitable artists, however concerns still remained over dispersal routes and issues such as cleansing.

Mr Hauschildt, a local resident, informed the Sub-Committee that he lived in close proximity to Hyde Park. He advised that he did not have an issue with Hyde Park holding events, however increasing the capacity of the midweek events from 5,000 to 19,999 would significantly increase pressure on the local area. Traffic problems were a particular issue for residents during these events and it suggested that the Royal Parks should fund additional parking enforcement during these times. It was understood that the Royal Parks had experienced a reduction in funding but it was queried whether this could be offset by increasing the price of the tickets for the events. Mr Hauschildt also suggested that the events be allocated between the Royal Parks and not just Hyde Park.

Ms Peltz, a local resident, was of the opinion that whilst the Royal Parks operated as a charity in reality it functioned as a business. Events held at Hyde Park resulted in various problems associated through dispersal. Local residents and the Park were suffering as a result of the events and residents had given up complaining. The noise from concerts filtered a long way through the local area causing a nuisance. The events were too big and bulky for the Park and very onerous for the residents.

Mr Dunn, a local resident, confirmed that he had been in discussions with the Royal Parks since 2005. Since the review hearing in 2012, the situation around concerts held at Hyde Park had improved considerably. Despite this improvement however, residents living in close proximity to the Park still suffered from noise nuisance, anti-social behaviour from dispersal and disruption through road closures. Many residents had given up complaining as even though they had been advised that noise levels were within agreed limits it was still affecting them. Residents had accepted the balance struck in the local area following the hearing in 2012 but the application before the Sub-Committee would upset this balance and create disturbance. Increasing the capacity of the events would only exacerbate the nuisance already experienced. The suggestion that the increase in capacity was required to attract world-class artists was not agreed and it was important for any artists to abide with the conditions on the licence. Therefore, the Sub-Committee was requested to take into consideration the current nuisance that existed, the increase in capacity was likely to increase levels of nuisance and any changes to the licence would negatively impact on the balance struck in 2012.

Mr Richard Cutt, representing The Residents Society of Mayfair and St James’s, explained that residents currently tolerated the inconvenience created through the hosting of events at Hyde Park. It was recognised that the Royal Parks needed to raise funds but it was suggested that any events be distributed across all the Royal Parks. Mr Cutt was of the opinion that the proposed increase in capacity would affect issues relating to dispersal. For the midweek events this would result in an increase in traffic, a constant steady flow of people filtering through residential areas and the negative effect this would have over a wider area. Cleansing was highlighted as a significant issue that required addressing as littering from attendees of the events often occurred over a large area. Finally, the efforts by the current event organiser to carefully select appropriate artists was welcomed but the licence did not control who performed. Concern was therefore expressed that in future there could be a different organiser who might potentially change the style of artist performing at the events.

Mr Brown, from the Citizens Advice Bureau Licensing Advice Project, representing the South East Bayswater Residents Association and Mr Mike Dunn, addressed the Sub-Committee. It was advised that the events currently held at Hyde Park were a source of nuisance, but admittedly, the levels of disturbance were not at the levels historically experienced. Members had been advised that at the hearing in 2012 a series of measures had been volunteered by the applicant that now appeared on the licence. Mr Brown advised that to provide some context the measures, which included both a reduction in the number of events and a reduction in capacity, had actually both been requested by EH. It was clear from the decision in 2012 that the Council thought the measures imposed were appropriate at that time in order to strike the correct balance in the local area. Residents recognised that the situation had improved since the change of operator and also were aware of the need to hold events in the park to offset funding cuts. However, it was felt that an increase in events would increase disturbance to residents and these factors could not be mitigated satisfactorily. The increase in capacity expected from the proposals was detailed and concerns over dispersal were highlighted. Evidence had been provided by the Applicant regarding dispersal times but this did not take into account that more people would be dispersing into the wider area for a significantly longer period of time. The Sub-Committee was advised that the result of this would be to increase nuisance for residents.

Mr Brown advised that the midweek events were of less concern to residents because, despite the proposal to quadruple their capacity, their nature and the fact they were not standalone events meant they were likely to have less impact. It was also recognised that the current operator was ensuring more appropriate artists were performing in the park than previously. There was a concern however that when the current promoter’s contract ended a different promoter could take over the running of the events and introduce less appropriate artists. Concern was also expressed that the applicant had produced a major events strategy but this did not form part of the licence and could therefore be changed without any consultation with the Council. It was therefore proposed that the strategy be tied to the licence to provide residents with some reassurance. With regards to the events with a maximum capacity of 19,999 the Applicant had described that these would be finished by 22:00. This was not reflected in the conditions however and it was requested that this time restriction be imposed if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application. It was also requested that the capacity of these midweek events be restricted to 9,999, which was considered more appropriate for the area. Finally, the Applicant had stated that the application was not causing any policy related concerns, as it was not located within a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). Section PN1 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy did however refer to the impact of dispersal and litter, two areas of concern relating to the application, and then therefore this section of the Policy should apply.

Mr Zamit, representing the South East Bayswater Residents Association, raised a concern over the capacity of the midweek events. Their capacity was proposed to be increased to 19,999 but this related to any one moment of time so in reality there would be much more than this figure attending the events throughout the day. The area where the Royal Parks carried out cleansing operations following an event also required extending due to dispersal into the wider area.

Ms Le Fevre addressed the Sub-Committee to respond to some of the concerns raised. In terms of dispersal, the Applicant had provided extensive evidence detailing dispersal times from the Park and the duration of Park Lane road closures during events. The evidence highlighted that there was no significant distinction between dispersal times and the different scales of events. The road closures were necessary to allow pedestrians to cross the road and ensure emergency vehicles were able to depart the site. With regards to dispersal and noise a comprehensive management plan was in place to deal with these issues. Advice was taken from the Responsible Authorities and marshals were placed on the street as necessary. The Applicant was a member of the Licensing Safety Advisory Group (LSAG) who provided advice when events were being held at Hyde Park. The Applicant stressed the importance of residents contacting them if they were experiencing issues so that they could respond and assist in resolving them. No issues had been raised by EH or directly with the Applicant, but if there were issues, residents needed to raise them.

The Sub-Committee took the views of all those resident objectors into consideration when considering the matter.

Mr Mainwaring, representing the Royal Parks, described the complex egress plan in place when events were held at Hyde Park. The same plan that was used for 64,999 capacity events was used for all events. The extensive use of signage and stewarding was described with the LSAG agreed the stewarding deployment plan 28 days before an event. Concerns relating to dispersal and litter were noted and increasing the area of the cleansing operation would be assessed.

Ms Le Fevre explained that the conditions would prevent any of the midweek events from becoming stand-alone concerts. As such, a proposed condition restricting the events to form part of the British Summer Time series would be accepted. Hyde Park had a capacity of 100,000 with the events footprint only consisting of only 13% of the Park’s area. No changes to the nature of the entertainment provided was anticipated. In terms of public toilets, all facilities would be open and free during events with considerable investment in infrastructure that supported toilets being undertaken. It was stated that the Applicant carried out a very extensive cleansing operation but this could be expanded to other areas such as Connaught Square if deemed necessary. Concerns over residents parking during events was noted and ongoing dialogue with the Council was taking place to explore increasing enforcement patrols. To provide further reassurance to residents the Applicant was content for a condition to be placed on the licence requiring the midweek events to cease by 22:00. It was acknowledged that the current promoter was of a very high calibre and had worked hard to attract appropriate, world-class artists to Hyde Park. However, it would not be possible to condition which artists could perform at the venue.

The Applicant confirmed that if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application the current licence would be surrendered.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and noted that with regards to policy terms the application was not situated within a Cumulative Impact Area and therefore had to be considered on its own merits in light of the licensing objectives. In this regard the application had to promote the licensing objectives and the Sub-Committee had particular regard to the protection of children from harm, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives. The significant concerns raised in relation to the impact of the proposed events, in particular with regards to noise disturbance, dispersal, littering and anti-social behaviour had been considered by the Sub-Committee. Following previous large numbers of resident complaints in 2012, a licensing review hearing had taken place and it was acknowledged that residents were experiencing a degree of complaint fatigue. As such, the promoters of the events were encouraged to continue to interact with residents and ensure there were clear lines of communication between all parties to address any issues arising at an early stage. The Council reminded residents that it could only take action if complaints were submitted. The Sub-Committee also noted suggestions made by interested parties regarding spreading the burden of events amongst all the Royal Parks. However, the application before it related to Hyde Park only and the ability of other parks to host events was not relevant to the application and was not considered by the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee, duly noted that this was a new application for a premises licence and although a review of the Premises had been undertaken in 2012 its decision had to be based upon the evidence presented before it now and was therefore not bound by the previous decision made.

Therefore, having considered all the evidence provided the Sub-Committee agreed to grant the application. The conditions proposed were considered very comprehensive, in particular conditions relating to the cleansing after events and the deployment of sufficient stewards all provided reassurance that necessary controls were in place to ensure the licensing objectives were promoted. The Sub-Committee was pleased to note that the Applicant was a member of the Licensing Safety Advisory Group and this would help ensure any potential issues could be identified and resolved in advance of an event being held. The importance of this Group was highlighted and provided significant reassurance to the Sub-Committee. Concern was expressed over the issue of dispersal but it was noted that a comprehensive dispersal plan was in place. The Applicant was urged however to take into account changing transport patterns in the local area when formulating future plans along with efforts to try and encourage dispersal away from residential areas. In terms of the capacities and the number of events proposed the Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the increase to 7 concerts at a capacity of 64,999 and 2 at 49,999 was appropriate and proportionate. The Sub-Committee had regard to the stringent conditions in place which would reduce any noise disturbance to residents and help control issues relating to dispersal, littering and anti-social behaviour. The proposal to extend the capacity for the smaller midweek events from 5,000 to 19,999 was also granted subject to further conditions and again the Sub-Committee considered these to be appropriate and proportionate. The Sub-Committee required four of the five events to be held in a 21-day period during the British Summertime concert season. These events would also have a terminal hour of 22:00 and be subject to a condition requiring noise levels to be restricted to a maximum of 65dB. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that these restrictions would mitigate any impact on the local area from the increase in capacity.

The Sub-Committee noted the various strategies and plans put in place by the Applicant to address any potential issues including a noise plan and a major events strategy. It was acknowledged that these documents were drafted to provide for a degree of flexibility depending upon the nature of the events held and welcomed the levels of consultation with stakeholders when formulating these. The Applicant was encouraged to continue this consultation going forward, particularly with local residents. The importance of artist selection in considerably reducing levels of noise nuisance to local residents was recognised and it was requested that this careful selection continue in the future. Having taken into account all the evidence, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the application was suitable for the local area and had addressed the concerns raised.  The Applicant had demonstrated that the proposed conditions would ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives.

2.

Performance of a Play

Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 22:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application but placed the following restrictions on the 5 events per calendar year when the capacity was extended to 19,999:

• the terminal hour be reduced to 22:00 hours;
• 4 of the 5 events had to be held during the British Summertime concert season; and
• The noise limit for the 5 events be restricted to 65dB.

3.

Exhibition of a Film

Monday to Thursday: 10:00 to 23:30

Friday to Saturday: 10:00 to 00:00

Sunday: 10:00 to 22:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

Sundays before Bank Holiday Mondays 10:00 to 00:00.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application but placed the following restrictions on the 5 events per calendar year when the capacity was extended to 19,999:

• the terminal hour be reduced to 22:00 hours;
• 4 of the 5 events had to be held during the British Summertime concert season; and
• The noise limit for the 5 events be restricted to 65dB.

4.

Live Music

Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 22:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application but placed the following restrictions on the 5 events per calendar year when the capacity was extended to 19,999:

• the terminal hour be reduced to 22:00 hours;
• 4 of the 5 events had to be held during the British Summertime concert season; and
• The noise limit for the 5 events be restricted to 65dB.

5.

Recorded Music

Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 22:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application but placed the following restrictions on the 5 events per calendar year when the capacity was extended to 19,999:

• the terminal hour be reduced to 22:00 hours;
• 4 of the 5 events had to be held during the British Summertime concert season; and
• The noise limit for the 5 events be restricted to 65dB.

6.

Performance of Dance

Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 22:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application but placed the following restrictions on the 5 events per calendar year when the capacity was extended to 19,999:

• the terminal hour be reduced to 22:00 hours;
• 4 of the 5 events had to be held during the British Summertime concert season; and
• The noise limit for the 5 events be restricted to 65dB.

7.

Anything of a Similar Description to that of Live Music, Recorded Music or Performance of Dance

(In the application form, the applicant stated that this entertainment of a like kind would include clowns, puppet shows, mime artists, circus performers, jugglers, arena acts and street artists.)

Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 22:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application but placed the following restrictions on the 5 events per calendar year when the capacity was extended to 19,999:

• the terminal hour be reduced to 22:00 hours;
• 4 of the 5 events had to be held during the British Summertime concert season; and
• The noise limit for the 5 events be restricted to 65dB.

8.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Monday to Sunday: 05:00 to 00:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application but placed the following restrictions on the 5 events per calendar year when the capacity was extended to 19,999:

• the terminal hour be reduced to 22:00 hours;
• 4 of the 5 events had to be held during the British Summertime concert season; and
• The noise limit for the 5 events be restricted to 65dB.