Agenda item

The Chairperson welcomed all those present to the meeting:

 

Premises Licence Holders (and those acting on behalf of):

 

·         Matthew Phipps – Solicitor, TLT LLP acting on behalf of the Premises Licence Holders, Boomtown Festival UK Limited

·         Chris Rutherford – Founder, Director and Designated Premises Supervisor, Boomtown Festival UK Limited

·         Tess Wilson – Head of Events Operations, Boomtown Festival UK Limited

·         Poppy Phythian – Operations Director, Boomtown Festival UK Limited

·         Lauren Blackburne-Tinker – Event Operations Manager, Boomtown Festival UK Limited

 

Joined remotely via Teams:

·         Rob Miller – Acoustician, F1 Acoustics

·         Shula Rael – Brands and Communications Director, Boomtown Festival UK Limited

·         Anna Showan - Ecology Consultant for Boomtown Festival UK Limited

·         Kevin Instance – Crime Reduction Manager for Boomtown Festival UK Limited

 

Other Persons who made written representations and addressed the Sub-Committee:

 

·         Terence Jones (representation on Pages 39 – 51)

·         Alison Matthews (representation on Page 52)

·         Brendan Gibbs on behalf of Tichborne Parish Council (representation on Pages 53-54)

·         Councillor David Pain on behalf of Cheriton Parish Council (representation on            Pages 18 – 23)

·         David Pain (representation on Pages 25 – 26) and also speaking on behalf of:

Sue Herdman (representation on Page 15)

Michael Beer (representation on Pages 16 -17);

Elizabeth Newson (representation on Page 24);

John Silvester (representation on Pages 28 - 29);

Graham Tarbuck (representation on Page 30);

Simon Scott (representation on Page 31);

Martyn and Rosslyn Curwen-Bryant (representation on Pages 32 - 33);

Michael Curtis (representation on Page 34);

Alan Whetman (representation on Page 35); and 

Frances Warwick (representation on Page 36)

 

The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to the two supplementary agendas that had been issued following the publication of the agenda pack. These  contained additional information submitted by Boomtown Festival UK Limited that had been published prior to the meeting taking place and late evidence submitted by Terence Jones and David Pain who had made written representations as ‘Other Persons’ which contained additional material that was not made available until the day of the meeting, listed as follows:

 

(1)  Supplementary Agenda 1 to LR589 (Additional Info submitted by Boomtown) for Licensing Sub-Committee held on 30 January 2025  PDF 1 MB

(2)  Supplementary Agenda 2 - Additional information submitted by Other Persons and consented to at Licensing Sub Cttee held on 30 January 2025  PDF 887 KB

 

In respect of the late evidence submitted by Other Persons, set out in supplementary agenda 2 above, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified that additional information had been submitted by Terence Jones and David Pain. As the late evidence had not been received until the day of the hearing, the agreement of all parties present at the hearing would be required to whether the new material could be included for consideration by the Sub-Committee at this late stage. The Sub-Committee were reminded that in the spirit of the Licensing Act 2023 each party should have full disclosure of the case being made for or against them.

 

In response, Matthew Phipps, Solicitor on behalf of Boomtown Festival UK Limited addressed the Sub-Committee to confirm that, although it was unfortunate that the submission had not been received in adequate time for its full consideration to be given prior to the meeting taking place, any further delay to proceedings would not be satisfactory therefore, on balance, consent was given to the submission of the additional material by Terence Jones and David        Pain as ‘Other Persons’ who had made written         representations to the application. However, it was noted that the new material submitted by Terence Jones largely related to ecology and the Ecologist acting on behalf of the premises licence holder had joined the meeting remotely so had therefore not had sight of the additional material circulated.

 

The Chairperson announced an adjournment in proceedings to allow the Sub-Committee and all those present the time to read the additional material submitted at the meeting (published following the meeting as supplementary agenda 2).

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11.10am and reconvened at 11.20am.

           

Upon reconvening the meeting, the Licensing Manager introduced the report which set out an application for the review of the premises licence under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 for Boomtown Fair held annually at Matterley Bowl, Alresford Road, Winchester which had been submitted on 2 October 2024 by PC Brian          Swallow on behalf of the Chief Officer of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, a Responsible Authority as defined under section 13 of the Licensing Act 2003.

           

The Sub-Committee were advised that the application detailed concerns relating to the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety licensing objectives following the death of a 22-year-old male at this year’s event. No representations were received from any other Responsible Authority. 17 valid representations were received from ‘Other Persons’ which related mainly to the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

 

The Sub-Committee were reminded of the decision made by the Licensing Sub-Committee on 25 November 2024 to adjourn the previous hearing in the interests of justice following the decision of the Police to withdraw their application for the review of the premises licence for Boomtown Fair, Matterley Bowl on Thursday, 21 November 2024 via email on behalf of the Chief Officer             of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary.

 

Following the Sub-Committee held on 25 November 2024, it was reported that the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer and the Solicitor for Boomtown Festival UK Limited had considered the legal position in further detail and had both sought further advice. As the law remained silent in these circumstances, and in the interests of natural justice, it was considered that a Licensing Sub-Committee should be held to consider the representations from the 17 ‘Other Persons’ who were party to the review application only. A copy of the redacted report LR588 from 25 November 2024 (adjourned hearing) was set out in Appendix 3 to the report.

 

The Licensing Manager advised that Boomtown Festival UK Limited had held the premises licence PREM773 since 30 July 2019. The licence authorised regulated entertainment, late night refreshment and supply of alcohol on one occasion per calendar year for six consecutive days. A full copy of the premises licence was set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

 

The Licensing Manager reminded all parties that Matterley Bowl and surrounding land was in the South Downs National Park (SDNP), therefore the Sub-Committee had a duty to seek to further the purposes of the park when making a decision. South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA), as planning authority, had been consulted on the application, but did not submit a formal representation.

 

It was noted that several of the written representations submitted by ‘Other Persons’ related to the expiry of the planning permission and referred to  council policy at paragraph 1.4. In this case, Boomtown were not making an application, but should they hold an event without planning permission, would be subject to planning enforcement under planning legislation and not licensing legislation. It was emphasised that planning and licensing regimes were separate matters, subject to their own enforcement and may not come to the same conclusions.

 

The Licensing Manager stated that the Sub-Committee were required to balance promoting the provision of entertainment and addressing concerns relating to the licensing objectives.

 

Although not a formal party to the hearing, the council’s Environmental Protection Manager and Ecologist were in attendance to address any technical  questions of the Sub-Committee that may arise.

 

In conclusion, the Licensing Manager advised the Sub-Committee that, when making its decision, it must take the following steps it considered appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. These included:

 

1.    Modify the conditions attached to the premises licence either permanently or temporarily for a period not exceeding three months;

2.    Exclude a licensable activity from the premises licence either permanently or temporarily for a period not exceeding three months;

3.    Remove the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) from the premises licence;

4.    Suspend the premises licence for a period not exceeding three months; or

5.    Revoke the premises licence.

 

If the Sub-Committee were minded to amend the conditions attached the premises licence to promote the licensing objectives, this should be discussed during the hearing so the premises licence holder had an opportunity to respond and explain how this may affect their business operation.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer drew members attention to the statutory guidance and clarified that applying weight to the information contained in the officer’s report, all the material submitted, and the evidence given at the hearing was for the Sub-Committee to determine during the decision-making process.

 

The Chairperson then invited four ‘Other Persons’ who had made relevant written representations to address the Sub-Committee. In addition, David Pain also spoke on behalf of ten Other Persons who had made relevant written representations to the initial application.

 

Terence Jones addressed the Sub-Committee, speaking in relation to his written representation and the additional material submitted and consented to at the meeting. Mr Jones made reference to the points summarised below and responded to questions thereon:

 

·         Mr Jones thanked the Boomtown team for accepting his last-minute statistics.

·         He asked for the licence to be revoked on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective, specifically that the festival harms protected red-listed birds.

·         He stated that the act of Boomtown was harmful to protected birds, and that the area has 44% of the UK’s red-listed birds, some of which are seen regularly.

·         Referred to a 2023-2024 survey he carried out of nesting skylarks in this area and on adjoining farmland.

·         Mr Jones advised that he was permitted to obtain data from the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre, which was hosted by Hampshire County Council.

·         He noted a discrepancy in bird numbers and concluded that the activity leading up to, during, and after the festival was the potential cause of this discrepancy.

·         He stated that the UK government tracked 19 farmland birds and this index had dropped 61% over the last 50 years.

·         The Chairperson reminded Mr Jones that reiteration of points that had been set out in the information already provided to the Sub-Committee was not necessary.

·         In conclusion, Mr Jones stated that by letting the festival proceed, Boomtown were being permitted to contravene the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

 

Alison Matthews addressed the Sub-Committee, speaking in relation to her written representation and raising concerns in respect of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. She made reference to the points summarised below and responded to questions thereon:

 

·         Spoke as a local resident she asked the Sub-Committee to consider the impact on local residents in respect noise and lighting whilst the festival was in situ. She asked members to consider a terminal hour of midnight.

 

During the course of the representations set out above, the Council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer reminded those ‘Other Persons’ addressing the Sub-Committee that they could not raise any additional points that were not included within their original written submission or the supplementary information that had been granted consent by all parties.

 

Brendan Gibbs spoke on behalf of Tichborne Parish Council, addressing the Sub-Committee in relation to their written representations raising concerns in respect of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. He made reference to the points summarised below and responded to questions thereon:

 

·         The Parish Council submitted a representation after Hampshire Constabulary applied for a review of the license, commenting on the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety licensing objectives.

·         He noted that Hampshire Constabulary withdrew their application, so the Parish Council’s comment was now based on the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective which they believed was still valid.

·         He clarified that Tichborne was a linear parish that wrapped around the Boomtown area, with some areas less than a mile away and those residents living closest to the event in the hamlet of Sevington most inconvenienced.

 

Councillor David Pain spoke on behalf of Cheriton Parish Council in relation to their written representation, raising concerns in respect of the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. He highlighted the points summarised below and responded to questions thereon.

 

·         Councillor Pain thanked the committee for allowing him to address them on behalf of the parish council, and on his own account and behalf of other residents.

·         Cheriton Parish Council made a representation on the grounds of the prevention of public nuisance, specifically regarding noise pollution from amplified music.

·         He stated that the review enables the Sub-Committee to take into account its revised licensing policy, the amended 1949 Act, and government guidance, all of which had been published since the existing licence had been granted in 2019.

·         Stressed that applicants should ensure appropriate current planning permission was in place.

·         He noted that Boomtown was attempting to rectify this with an application for a further five-year permission, and to increase attendance to 76,000.

·         He stated that Boomtown wished to increase public ticket holders by 31% and reduce crew by 28%, which included people involved in public safety and those responsible for drug searches.

·         He suggested the council should consider amendments to the 1949 act, which strengthens the duty of relevant authorities when making decisions about land in a national park.

·         He emphasised that the government had issued guidance that the council to seek to further the South Downs National Park purposes.

·         He stated that Boomtown submitted a planning application in January 2021 that was recommended for refusal by the Director of Planning at SDNP in December 2022.

·         He stated that the application was withdrawn shortly after the report.

·         He asked the Sub-Committee to consider revoking the licence.

·         If minded not to revoke the licence, he requested that the level of disturbance caused by amplified music be reduced to further the licensing objective for prevention of public nuisance.

·         He referred to noise nuisance to residents over several years and noted the special quality of the park was relative tranquillity.

·         He stated that Cheriton and surrounding villages are scored as intermediate or high tranquillity.

·         He stated that the Parish Council had engaged an acoustics consultant who found noise levels above 45db.

·         He requested that the terminal hour be amended to midnight on all nights of the festival which he said would redress the imbalance between commercial interests and the rights of residents.

·         He stated the primary outdoor stages shut down at midnight, but large stages at Boomtown continued until 3am and 4am.

·         He made a request to change all references of 0400 hours in the licence to 0000 hours.

·         He stated that appropriate planning permission did not exist, and parts of the licensing policy were not being followed.

·         He stated that residents chose to live in Cheriton for a variety of reasons, including transport links, the variety of housing and the primary school, with the bonus of being positioned within the SDNP.

 

During the representation, the Council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer reminded Councillor Pain that as he was addressing the Sub-Committee on behalf of Cheriton Parish Council, he could only represent the points and parameters that the Parish Council had resolved, as set out in their original written representation, and could not raise any additional points that were not included within their submission.

 

David Pain then addressed the Sub-Committee in a personal capacity, making reference to his written representation and to the additional material submitted and consented to at the meeting. He also spoke on behalf of ten ‘Other Persons’ (namely those set out above) who had made written representation to the initial application and responded to questions thereon. A summary of the points raised are set out below:

 

·         Mr Pain reiterated the points he made as a member of Cheriton Parish Council: planning permission did not exist; the licensing policy was not being followed; the 1949 National Parks act required the council to seek to further the purposes of the SDNP; and the Director of Planning for SDNP stated he did not believe it conserved and enhanced the natural beauty and wildlife.

·         He requested that if the licence was not revoked, the terminal hour for live and recorded music on Friday and Saturday nights should be changed to 00:00 hours.

·         He believed that the festival was being held in the wrong part of the country and should not be held in a national park.

 

In response to questions of the Sub-Committee, the Council’s Environmental Health Protection Manager set out details of monitoring locations agreed annually with Boomtown via the noise management plan, as set out in the report. The officer clarified that a 45db level of noise was based on the World Health Organisation guidelines for the prevention of sleep disturbance and that the 45db figure was probably around 30db inside properties with windows closed, with a difference between steady state noise and bass noise. In addition, it was noted that background levels could vary quite considerably so a background survey would be required to check that background levels were representative with a number of different areas surrounding the site and road traffic noise also influencing this.

 

At the invitation of the Chairperson, Matthew Phipps, acting on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder, Boomtown Festival UK Ltd, addressed the Sub-Committee making reference to their written representation, set out in Appendix 4 of the report, and the additional material submitted prior to the hearing, set out in supplementary agenda 1, and responded to questions thereon.

 

In summary, Mr Phipps made the following submission:

 

·         It was confirmed that Boomtown had agreed to admit the evidence submitted at the hearing by Mr Jones and Mr Pain who had made written representations as ‘Other Persons’, although Boomtown were not happy about the lateness of this. He stated that the ecology expert for Boomtown had not seen the document that Mr Jones submitted regarding ecology issues due to its late submission.

·         He said the planning application did not result in a formal decision because it was withdrawn and that the hearing was adjourned before Christmas due to unfortunate circumstances.

·         He proposed to walk the committee through the document rather than reading it.

·         He addressed the materials produced by Boomtown for the review, which include a statement of engagement with Hampshire Constabulary, and details about crime management policies and procedures.

·         He also referred to an event management plan, a commentary on the representations, and a noise management plan.

·         Mr Phipps confirmed that there was no officer representation before the committee and that none of the responsible authorities have served representations, including the Environment Agency.

·         He emphasised the point that if a responsible authority does not serve a representation, they are effectively saying they have no concerns.

·         He stated that Mr Jones's representation suggested that the premises was damaging wildlife and intentionally killing birds. He highlighted that Boomtown does not intentionally kill birds, there was no evidence of this (as Mr Jones confirmed) and to make such a claim was outrageous.

·         He stated that the police application for two additional conditions were no longer relevant as the application had been withdrawn.

·         He discussed the nature of the representations, noting they all seek revocation of the licence due to planning permission issues and a perceived failure to deliver the purposes of the South Downs National Park. It was highlighted that the South Downs National Park had not made a representation.

·         Mr Phipps considered that the 2020 officer’s recommendation to refuse a planning application was irrelevant because it was 5 years ago, to a different Authority, about a different legislation.

·         He referred to the planning application documents, including statements on ecological evidence, conservation, and landscape enhancements.

·         It was noted that the representations claimed that nothing has changed since the previous application, but many festivals had taken place since then.

·         Mr Phipps stated that in the planning document, it said the officer recommended refusal without referencing the fact that it was “in the absence of sufficient ecological evidence gathered over a meaningful period covering a number of festivals.”.

·         He stated that Boomtown's current planning application provided comprehensive materials to address the previous officer's concerns.

·         He stated that Boomtown delivers to the purposes of the South Downs National Park and said that it was impossible for the committee to conclude that the purposes of the National Park were being undermined.

·         He recognised that there will be an inevitable impact on the local community, but that this did not constitute a public nuisance.

·         Advised that there was no legitimate evidence to conclude the licensing objectives were undermined.

·         17 representations received out of a community of thousands was not considered to be significant.

·         He noted that the licensing objective was not the protection of tranquillity; it was the prevention against public nuisance.

·         The survey data provided by Mr Jones was from 2022 and therefore was not relevant to the hearing.

·         He stated that on the basis of the statistics provided by Mr Jones, the lack of a festival during Covid appeared to reduce the number of yellowhammers and not increase it.

·         Mr Phipps clarified that Boomtown was willing to engage with local residents, emphasising there was no benefit for Boomtown to annoy their neighbours or local residents.

·         He discussed the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective, the conditions of the licence as set and emphasised that the standards of the event were nationally recognised and accepted.

·         In conclusion, Mr Phipps stated that there was no evidence that the licensing objectives had been undermined and considered that Boomtown could not support a condition that was withdrawn by the Police.

 

During his submission, Mr Phipps called upon the following witness and expert who responded to specific questions thereon:

 

Rob Miller (Acoustician, F1 Acoustics) addressed the Sub-Committee remotely in relation to noise issues and in respect of the F1: Acoustics report submitted by Boomtown Festivals UK Ltd (Appendix 4 refers). A summary of the points raised are set out below:

 

·         F1 Acoustics were the noise acoustic consultants for Boomtown.

·         He provided commentary on the issues of noise and clarified that monitoring points were amended as circumstances and knowledge changed.

·         Mr Miller confirmed that he and other Boomtown staff worked closely with the Environmental Protection Team at Winchester City Council.

·         He confirmed that there was an office on site next to event control for the local authority, where close dialogue took place.

·         He stated that the Environmental Protection Team and the Noise Management Team worked together, but separately, one as an enforcer, and one as a deliverer, throughout the entire event.

·         Mr Miller clarified that there was a meeting every day to discuss the previous evening's noise levels, and to review the evening ahead, considering weather conditions.

·         He stated that they have people roaming in the local community, who regularly visit each of the monitoring positions. Static monitors were used as an early warning system to detect if noise levels were increasing.

·         He said they keep the sound levels offsite to the conditions set in the licence.

·         Mr Miller emphasised that the noise management plan was agreed and approved, and has been for many years.

·         He confirmed that the music was dynamic and changed depending on the act or DJ.

·         In response to questions about a sound breach, he stated that when they discovered a sound issue on the Wednesday evening of the last event, they reacted immediately to rectify the situation within 10 to 15 minutes. He clarified that the issue was not that the front-of-house person exceeded the agreed level, but more likely a change in the atmosphere or the music source.

·         Mr Miller confirmed that there were 10 to 15 people on site as part of the noise management team who had direct communication with sound engineers at the major stages.

·         Communication and logs of the actions taken were submitted to Winchester City Council at the end of the event.

·         In conclusion, he stated that low frequencies were monitored and adjusted  according to the time of day, noting there were different conditions for these and equipment that separated out the frequencies.

 

In response to further questions, the Licensing Manager drew the Sub-Committee’s        attention to the conditions referred to in the report that referred to a security plan which was a working document adapted every year and provided to the Police prior to the event.

 

In conclusion, Mr Phipps stated that the Boomtown Festival UK Ltd had an established licence that had been in place for a number of years at the hours previously agreed. Residents had brought to the attention of the Sub-Committee concerns in relation to noise, but that, in his opinion, there was nothing that would constitute sufficient evidence to conclude that the promotion of the licensing objectives would be best served by reducing the licensing hours on Friday and Saturday.

 

The Sub-Committee retired to deliberate in private.

 

In his closing statement, the Chairperson stated that the Sub-Committee had carefully considered all of the written representations made by the Other Persons, as well as the oral submissions made today by those who attended and registered to speak.

 

The Sub-Committee had taken into account the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Home Office Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the duties under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the rights set out in the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

The Sub-Committee received extra materials submitted by two of the interested parties on the day of the adjourned meeting. This material was admitted with the consent of all parties pursuant to Regulation 18 of The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 and has been considered when reaching its decision.

 

In exercising its function, the Sub-Committee also duly considered and assessed the review application against the duty specified in section 11A(1A) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as amended).

 

The Sub-Committee has concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Premises Licence should not be amended.

 

1.         The representations received reflected indirectly the concerns of Hampshire Constabulary. Nevertheless, the Sub-Committee placed substantial weight upon the fact that the Constabulary withdrew its representation. It was therefore not satisfied that references made in the representations met the threshold which required any intervention in the current conditions placed on the licence concerning the Prevention of Crime and Disorder. In reaching this conclusion the Sub-Committee also placed weight upon the fact that the Respondent Premises Licence Holder is currently engaging with the Constabulary concerning matters pertaining to drugs and the prevention of crime and disorder. This does not however preclude the fact that the Constabulary may of course instigate a further Review if required.

 

2.         The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that there has been any evidence placed before it which establishes that there have been crimes committed pursuant to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Sub-Committee to this end acknowledged that the Premises Licence Holder currently is applying for planning permission and as part of those             considerations is engaging with the South Downs National Park Authority in submitting detailed ecological reports. Furthermore, in making a finding of fact it was conceded by the Interested Party that they had not referred any of the concerns raised to Sub-Committee to the Police. The Sub-Committee was unable therefore to conclude that the Prevention of Crime and Disorder objectives of the 2003 Act had been undermined by the bare unsubstantiated assertion that crimes had been committed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

 

3.         The Sub-Committee were concerned that the Premises Licence Holder      had breached PN21 concerning the control of Regulated Entertainment       and its requirement to be inaudible at the monitoring locations on            Wednesdays. However, upon assessing and evaluating the             representations made by the Licence Holder's noise expert and the             submissions made, the Sub-Committee were satisfied that there were        current measures and controls in place to ensure the effective          monitoring and reaction to audible instances outside of those permitted       by the condition. In reaching this conclusion the Sub-Committee also             acknowledges that condition PN22 requires the submission of a post-         event Noise Evaluation report to the Licensing Authority, which       includes the disclosure of an events log stating the noise readings made and an explanation for the breach.

 

                        RESOLVED:

           

                                    That, on the balance of probabilities the Premises                                Licence should not be amended, as set out above.

 

The Chairperson advised that all parties would be formally notified of the decision in writing in due course and of their right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days from the date of notification of the decision.

 

 

The meeting commenced at 11 am, adjourned for lunch between 2.15 pm and      3 pm and concluded at 3.45 pm

 

 

 

 

Chairperson