Agenda item

Committee to determine an application for a new premises licence report ENV905 from the Licensing Officer.

Decision

That the Premise Licence for the Ramroot Festival, Arena UK, Allington Lane, Allington be rejected.

The Chairman introduced those present and asked who was speaking in respect of the Premise Licence.  Mr Niall Walker on behalf of Lovis Media Ltd stated that he was speaking in respect of the application before the Committee.   

Councillor Robert Leadenham was speaking on behalf of a resident and therefore removed himself from the Vice-Chairman role during consideration of the item and took no part in the deliberations and decision making in respect of the licence.

The Licensing Officer presented the report which concerned an application for a new premises licence for the Ramroot Festival to be held at the Arena UK, Allington Lane, Allington.  The application was received on 15 April 2025.    At the time a management plan had yet to be finalised and during the consultation period, Lincolnshire Police liaised with the applicant and revised  Premise Licence conditions were agreed and a different Designated Premises Supervisor was named.  The application was also changed to a time limited premise licence to cover the event for the period 4 – 7 July 2025 only.  Any future events would require a new premise licence to be submitted.  

Environmental Health had also liaised with the applicant regarding the hours requested for live and recorded music and that a separate detailed noise management plan be produced and agreed with them. It was agreed by the applicant that the timings for live and recorded music would be scaled back to the following and this was confirmed in Appendix 3 to the report:

-        Outdoor stages – Performance of live and recorded music

Friday and Saturday 09:00 to 00:00 Sunday 10:00 to 00:00

-        Indoor stages – Performance of live and recorded music

Friday and Saturday 09:00 to 02:00 Sunday 10:00 to 02:00

The event management, noise management and site plan were still being revised and finalised, however a copy of the latest documents and site map at the time of writing the report were enclosed at Appendix 4.  The Applicant had confirmed that the hours for the sale of alcohol on the premise would be scaled back until two hours after the provision of live and recorded music had ended and was attached to the report within Appendix 4.

During the consultation period the authority had received one representation from a member of the public which the applicant offered mitigation for and was at Appendix 5 of the report.  A further representation was made but subsequently withdrawn after further information was provided by the applicant and Environmental Health.  A third resident representation was received but this was not accepted as it was outside the representation period.

Licensing Officers had delegated authority to decide whether a representation was relevant, vexatious, or frivolous however, Section 9 of the Revised Guidance issued under Section182 of the Licensing Act 2003 states:

9.9 It is recommended that, in borderline cases, the benefit of the doubt about any aspect of a representation should be given to the person making that representation. The Subsequent hearing would then provide an opportunity for the person or body making the representation to amplify and clarify it.

9.37 of the guidance stated that;

“As a matter of practice, Licensing Authorities should seek to focus the hearing on the steps considered appropriate to promote the particular licensing objective or objectives that have given rise to the specific representation and avoid straying into undisputed areas. A responsible authority or other person may choose to rely on their written representation.

They may not add further representations to those disclosed to the applicant prior to the hearing, but they may expand on their existing representation and should be allowed sufficient time to do so, within reasonable and practical time limits.”

A questions was asked for clarity in respect of timings to which the Licensing Officer responded.  A further question was asked about the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and it was confirmed that the applicant, Niall Walker would be the DPS as he had recently got his personal licence.  More clarity was sought in relation to the venue and what would be on site to which the Applicant, Mr Walker responded.

A comment was made about the distances within the documents and it was stressed by the Ward Councillor for the area that the venue was less than a mile from the village.

The Applicant, Mr Walker then made his representation and stated that some of the main concerns had been alleviated due to the reduction in timings of playing music and the supply of the alcohol.  He made reference to the current representation that had been submitted which concerned traffic through the village and noise from the event.  It was revealed that Allington village were also having a music event over the same weekend. Mr Walker then spoke about the event and made reference to when the majority of those attending were due to arrive, car park management, that a free shuttle bus was being put on every hour from Grantham station to the event. Reference was made to how the venue would be set up where it was in relation to the surrounding villages and the distances involved.  The front of staff being used were very experienced in relation to the type of event and noise management on site.  He spoke in relation to the direction of speakers and also that free earplugs would be available.  Capacity was 3,000 but they were expecting in the region of 1,000.  There was an extensive security policy in place which would deal with searches for weapons, drugs etc on entry.  Security would be available 24 hours on site with flexibility to employ more depending on numbers who attended the event and Mr Walker detailed where the security would be situated within the venue.

Following his representation Members asked various questions about security, the DPS and their experience, how bar staff would be trained and had the organisation been involved with any events of similar size to which Mr Walker replied.

Councillor Leadenham then asked various questions in relation to the fencing of the venue, CCTV, security and noise from the event.  The Member was reminded that he was there in relation to the representation he was giving not as a Committee Member.

A further comment was made in relation to the issuing of wristbands to children and how this would be undertaken, was ID being asked for to which Mr Walker stated that no ID for children would be required but Challenge 25 would be undertaken in the bar area.

Councillor Leadenham then made the representation on behalf of Martin Carton a resident of Allington.  The representation covered noise from the event, that no public transport was available to the village, the numbers involved and the ensuing traffic this would cause, security and fencing of the site and the risk of drink driving from those attending the event and the narrow roads around the venue and asked the Committee to consider not allowing the event to take place.

The Licensing Officer gave their closing statement. Each application should be determined on its own merits taking into account all relevant guidance and the representations made. The Committee should give appropriate weight to:

-          The steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives.

-          The representation presented including any supporting information

-          The guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003

-          South Kesteven District Council’s Licensing Policy

Mr Walker then gave his closing statement and referred to at least three over festivals that had taken place in Allington.  That the security that had been proposed was in line with guidelines and was flexible and could be increased at short notice. There would be an accurate number of how many people would be on site at any one time.  Policies would be in place in relation to drink driving and that alcohol being brought on site would be closely monitored with no glass containers being allowed.  Times that music was being played had been scaled back together with the supply of alcohol and at the present time it was difficult to predict numbers attending.

Councillor Leadenham did not wish to give a closing statement.

(12:33 the Licensing Officers, Councillor Leadenham and Mr Walker left the meeting)

The Committee considered the new Premise Licence having regard to all relevant guidance under the Licensing Act 2003 and policies including the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy together with the representations made.  In discussing the application before them the Committee felt that there was not adequate security in place, that alcohol entering the premises would not be controlled, the DPS appeared to be inexperienced as they had only recently received their personal licence.  The location of the First Aid section was inadequate and did not appear to allow for access by emergency services.  That the use of straw bales was a potential safety risk and the proposed training of staff did not appear to be sufficient or adequate. Further concerns were expressed by the Committee in respect of access to the site and what was felt as a lack of organisation in relation to the event with management plans and other plans still yet to be finalised.  It was proposed and seconded that the Premise Licence application be rejected and on being put to the vote this was unanimously agreed.

(12:55 the Licensing Officers, Councillor Leadenham and Mr Walker returned to the meeting)

The Legal Advisor read out the Committees decision.  The Committee considered the new premise licence having regard to all relevant guidance under the Licensing Act 2003 and policies including the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy together with the representations made. 

Mr Walker had presented the application to the Committee. In addressing the representations regarding traffic and noise. Mr Walker noted that during the same time there was another music event in Allington during the weekend. Parking tickets that had been sold to date gave an indication of how many vehicles would be travelling to the site and the event was offering a free shuttle bus between the site and Grantham station. The speakers used were  directional, and a noise management company would be joining them on site and assisting them with the setting up of the festival. There would also be a residential hotline.

Security on site set was as set out in the event plans. ID would not be required to enter the site and there would be wristbands for children to wear. Challenge 25 would be in operation at the bar area. Depending upon the numbers attending, the number of security staff was flexible and could be called on to increase security as required. People would be clicked in on site so the organisers would be aware of the number of people on site. 

People would be limited to what alcohol they could bring to the site with no glass being allowed. The DPS at the site is Niall Walker who had only recently gotten his personal licence and had no experience as a DPS. In terms of access to the site, the site would not be fenced in but controlled via CCTV towers and smaller fencing at access gates.

Councillor Robert Leadenham represented an objector who could not attend the meeting and advised the Committee that the village was closer to the site than indicated by the Applicant and there was a likelihood of impact at the village from noise from the event. Serious issues were raised in respect of  traffic, noise and security and not knowing the figure of attendance.

The Committee considered all options available to them. They had very serious concerns regarding the level of security for the site - the access to the site which given the lack of fencing could be accessed by others without checks and would potentially lead to unknown numbers. They also had concerns regarding the provision of straw bales and potential concerns relating to them. There were concerns about the level of alcohol being brought onto site and checks determining the amount of people on site and the subsequent provision to ensure public safety.   The Committee did not consider that the applicant had provided a level of detail which would adequately promote all four of the licensing objectives. The Committee also had concerns about the experience of the DPS. They did not consider there were further conditions which could be imposed that would adequately address their concerns. The Committee did not consider whether to exclude a licensable activity as that would not adequately address their concerns or promote the licensing objectives. The Committee therefore decided to reject the Premise Licence application.

There was a right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of the licence decision being received.