Agenda item
Parafest, Snowdonia Aerospace Centre, Llanbedr
To consider the above application
Minutes:
1.
Parafest, Snowdonia Aerospace Centre, Llanbedr Runway
The panel and the
officers were introduced to everyone present and it was announced that all had
up to 10 minutes to present their observations on the application.
On behalf of the premises: Mr Mark
Meadows (applicant)
Others invited: Councillor
Annwen Hughes (Local Member)
Councillor
Eryl Jones-Williams (Neighbouring Member)
Mr
Ian Williams (Anglesey and Gwynedd Licensing Co-ordinator, North Wales Police)
a)
The report and
recommendation of the Licensing Department.
Submitted – the report of the Licensing Manager giving details of the
application for a premises licence to stage a Parafest Festival situated on
land of the Snowdonia Aerospace Centre on the Llanbedr Runway. The applicant’s
intention was to hold an annual paragliding festival together with a social
event and other activities relating to paragliding for pilots and their
families. It was highlighted that it was intended to offer the sale of alcohol
and late night refreshments as part of the provision, together with live and
recorded music.
Attention was drawn to the details of the licensed activities and the
proposed hours in the report. It was noted that Licensing Authority officers
had sufficient evidence that the application had been submitted in accordance
with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003 and the relevant regulations.
Reference was made
to measures recommended by the applicant to promote the licensing objectives
along with the responses received during the consultation period.
It was noted that nine e-mails had been received with four of these
objecting to the application based on the four licensing objectives. Attention
was drawn to the noise conditions submitted by the Environmental Health
Officer. Reference was also made to a previous application submitted by the applicant
in January 2018, that had not been submitted in accordance with the legal
requirements. It was highlighted that
the applicant had responded to the concerns raised during the consultation
process on the original application, and had now agreed to stage the licensed
activities until 1:00 (Friday and Saturday nights) rather than 3:00 as
requested originally. It was added that the applicant had also submitted
observations to the Fire Service to try and satisfy their concerns.
b)
In considering the application, the following
procedure was followed:
· Members of the
Sub-committee and the applicant were given an opportunity to ask questions to
the Licensing Manager.
· The applicant was
invited to expand on the application.
· Consultees were
given an opportunity to submit their observations.
· The licensee, or
his representative, was invited to respond to the observations.
· Members of the
Sub-committee were given an opportunity to ask questions to the licensee.
· Members of the
Sub-committee were given an opportunity to ask questions to the consultees.
c)
In expanding on the
application, the applicant noted that he was happy with what had been submitted
and asked for permission to circulate photographs and further details about the
Festival. A decision was made to accept
a photograph of the location of the 2017 festival, however, the details and
observations of individuals were refused as consent had not been given for
these to be shared. He felt dissatisfied
that he did not have an opportunity to challenge the response of one of the
objectors, who had already included observations from other individuals. In response, the Licensing Manager noted that
these observations had received consent to be shared and had been submitted
within the consultation period.
He added the
following observations:
· The Festival was a small scale event and it should not be compared with
Festival No. 6
· No complaints had been received from the Parafest Festival that took
place at Caerwys in 2017
· Although they
expected less than 500 cars over a period of four days - he had contacted the
Environment Department
· He did not have the budget, sponsorship or the support of large
companies for the Festival and was dependent on ticket sales.
· The licensing
hours had been restricted to 11:00 outside and 01:00 inside, this was in
response to the concerns of the objectors
· Measures were in
place to control flights
· There was no intention to stage an intrusive festival - it would be a
community, family festival for paragliding only
· The festival was very dependent on the weather
· That music was
only an element of entertainment
· That he had no
intention to cause any disturbance
ch) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following
comments:
·
The event was welcomed for the benefit of the economy of the Llanbedr
area
·
Concerns about noise
·
Assurance was required that something would be done to reduce traffic
congestion in the area
d)
Taking advantage of the
right to speak, the neighbouring Member made the following points;
·
He was not content that the photograph had been
shared as there was no evidence regarding date or time on the photograph
·
Concern about traffic
matters, however, he understood that this would be the applicant's
responsibility
·
That the infrastructure of Llanbedr could not cope
with traffic problems of this size
·
He had no objection to
the festival specifically, only to the date when it had been organised namely
the busiest weekend of the year at the start of the school summer holidays
dd) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an officer from the Police confirmed that this
was a new application and there was no evidence to object to the
application. He noted that he had made
enquiries with Caerwys Police regarding the 2017 Festival, who confirmed that
no complaints had been received. He
stated that the Police supported the application and that the licensing hours
had been reduced. He noted that a site visit had taken place with the local
police sergeant. He accepted the concerns regarding noise and traffic, however,
he added that the Events Group had discussed the matter and although the
situation was not ideal, the applicant could not be held totally responsible.
e)
In summarising his
application, the applicant noted that the enterprise was a family Festival and
he had no intention to cause a disturbance to local residents or visitors to
the Festival. He added that it was a
small scale Festival and the intention was to move the music inside to the
hangar from 11:00 until 01:00. He
highlighted that discussions had taken place with the Fire Service and they
were content with the arrangements.
In response to a question from the Chairman to the
applicant regarding his intention to accept the conditions of the Environmental
Health Officer, he agreed to ensure that the Sound Managers would keep to the
agreed level and would monitor noise levels.
f)
In considering the application, the Licensing
Officer's report was considered, in addition to the application form, the
written comments that came to hand from the interested parties, and the verbal
comments presented by all parties present at the hearing. The Sub-committee was
also requested to consider the Council's Licensing Policy, Home Office guidance
and the principles of the Licensing Act 2003.
·
Crime and Disorder
·
Public Safety
·
Preventing Public
Nuisance
·
Protection of
Children from Harm
RESOLVED - to
approve the application subject to proposed conditions agreed upon between the
Environmental Health Officer and the applicant in terms of noise impact.
Specific
consideration was given to the following comments and concerns:
Noise - in response to the concerns that approving of the application
would lead to an increase in noise problems, the Sub-Committee accepted that
any noise problem in principle could be tantamount to a public nuisance.
However, no evidence was received about the nature, frequency and density of
noise that would be generated as a result of approving the licence or the
number that would be affected as the Festival only took place on one weekend a
year. No evidence had been received that
the noise generated by the Festival would reach levels that would be harmful to
public health according to the World Health Organisation Guidance. Whilst the Sub-committee sympathised with
the concerns regarding noise they had not been persuaded that approving the
licence would be likely to lead to such a serious noise problem that could be
described as a 'public nuisance'.
It was highlighted that the Council's Environmental Health department
had submitted a series of proposed noise conditions. In the opinion of the Sub
committee these conditions were reasonable and provided the appropriate
protection measures to prevent any noise that would stem from the festival from
being a public nuisance. The Sub-committee was satisfied that incorporating the
conditions would ensure that the licence would be in accordance with the
licensing objectives of preventing public nuisance.
Traffic - in response to concerns that approving of the application
would lead to traffic problems, the Sub-Committee accepted that traffic
problems in principle could be relevant to the licensing objective of
protecting public safety. However, no objective evidence was received regarding
the nature of the traffic that the event would generate, and if that traffic
would maximise the capacity of the local network. It was noted that observations from the
Highways nor the Police did not highlight concerns regarding the level of
traffic as a result of approving the licence.
The Sub-committee was not convinced that granting the licence was likely
to lead to a traffic problem that would undermine public safety.
Drinking Water - in response to concern that approving the application
would have a detrimental impact on water pressure in the catchment area, the
Sub-committee accepted that a significant fall in water pressure could mean a
lack of supply, and consequently cause a public safety problem. However, no objective evidence has come to
hand highlighting that staging this festival would cause such a problem. It was added that no observations had been
submitted by the Council's Environmental Health Section or from Welsh Water
highlighting this concern. Under the circumstances, the Sub-committee had not
been persuaded that granting the licence would cause a water supply problem
that would undermine public safety.
In
reaching their decision the Sub-committee did not consider the further
documents submitted by the applicant in the hearing as they were satisfied that
permitting the application would not be likely to lead to problems that would
undermine the licencing objectives.
The Solicitor reported that
the decision would be confirmed formally by letter sent to everyone present. He
also notified that they had the right to appeal the decision within 21 days of
receiving the letter.
Supporting documents: