Licensing Sub-Committee (Licensing Act 2003 Matters) - Monday 11 May 2026, 2:00pm

Licensing Sub-Committee (Licensing Act 2003 Matters)
Monday, 11th May 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Seat 24
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 24
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 25
Seat 1
Seat 40
Seat 41
Seat 23
Seat 1
Seat 8
Seat 1
Seat 25
Seat 8
Seat 1
Seat 25
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 8
Seat 25
Seat 8
Seat 25
Seat 8
Seat 25
Seat 8
Seat 25
Seat 8
Seat 1
Seat 25
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 24
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 24
Seat 1
Seat 8
Seat 43
Seat 8
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 24
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 8
Seat 1
Seat 8
Seat 1
Seat 8
Seat 8
Seat 8
Seat 8
Seat 8
Seat 8
Seat 8
Seat 8
Seat 8
Seat 24
Seat 8
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 8
Seat 8
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 25
Seat 43
Seat 8
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 25
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 3
Seat 25
Seat 3
Seat 25
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 25
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 43
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 28
Seat 30
Seat 1
Seat 27
Seat 1
Seat 30
Seat 1
Seat 30
Seat 1
Seat 30
Seat 51
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 24
Seat 24
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 28
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 1
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Seat 24 - 0:00:03

Thank you everyone for attending today's sub -committee, licencing sub -committee.

Today we are here to hear about the application for a new premises licence in relation to

the, what's the name of the station?

The Systems Festival.

We will first decide on the chair.

So if you could notify, who would the chair be?

And then I will hand over to the chair for the committee.

Seat 1 - 0:00:53

Yes, good afternoon. We have agreed that I will chair this meeting. So my name is Patrick

Coleman. I am currently the district Councillor for Stratton within Syrinsester and I've been

a member of this council since 2011 and have also served for 20 years on the old Wiltshire

County Council many years ago. And my colleagues, Councillor Michael Van from Fairford and Councillor

Julia Judd from I think Ermine Ward. I've got a welcome speech. We are not expecting

a fire alarm to sound. If it does, please exit the building using the signed fire exits

and make your way to the assembly point in the car park.

May I also remind all attendees to turn off their mobile phones or put them on silent

and to remain quiet as the meeting is ongoing to avoid disruption.

To those –

I will stay silent.

Thank you.

To those unfamiliar with the building, the toilets are just outside the chamber doors.

To the left up a couple of steps there is also an accessible toilet available by taking

the lift to the ground floor and turning immediate right.

Members, officers and members of the public in attendance are reminded that this meeting

is being live streamed and recorded.

Please can I remind members to turn their microphones on while speaking and turn them

off once they have sat down so they may be seen and heard as this meeting is being live

streamed.

It is wise to leave a couple of seconds pause after you press the button while the camera

adjusts.

At the end of the meeting, can I ask everyone that you take any paperwork with you or dispose

of it in the waste bins in the office building and any cups and glasses used are left on

the tables on the landing outside the chamber for staff to clear.

Thank you very much.

We will be starting the meeting shortly.

Seat 1 - 0:05:20

Thank you for your patience while we cheque through the documents there.

I want to stress how much your attendance is appreciated.

Licencing is not a simple business.

It doesn't happen very often to any of us.

We don't even have that many meetings of our own licencing subcommittee.

When we get a big attendance like this, it's really encouraging, I think I speak for all

of us to see that for all the stresses and problems and challenges we face in our lives,

people have at least enough trust in the system that exists. It must be imperfect, but it's

the best we've got. To spend their own time and resources coming here today to go through

this process with us. It's my intention to ensure that at the end of the day

everybody will feel that their points and their views have been clearly made

and clearly heard and listened to and that's going to be my attempt. It is our

intention to have a comfort break somewhere shortly after an hour and a

necessary, we can break earlier. There is a formal agenda and I will start it off with

apologies. We have no apologies. Therefore, there are no substitutions. I don't believe

any of us have any declarations of interest as members and I have not received any declarations

of interest from council officers under the Code of Conduct for officers.

So the next bit takes me to the procedure for licencing hearings.

The most important single, there are many important parts of this process, but the most

The important part is the first four dots, if you've seen this, I don't know.

The four licencing objectives.

We as members have to keep, have been, I won't say this has been drilled into us, but we

all know this is the important thing.

The four licencing objectives given by the licencing act of 2003, prevention of crime

and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of

children from harm.

Each application that comes before the committee will be determined on its own

merits and the licencing authority will take its decision based on four points.

The merits of the application, the promotion of the licencing objectives,

the council's statement of licencing policy, which I'm going to come to in a

minute, a copy of which can be obtained from the licencing section of Cotswold

District Council and the amended guidance issued by the Home Office in

in April 2018 under section 182 of the Licencing Act 2003.

Now the Council's statement of licencing policy comes towards the end of the pack.

It starts at page 213.

And it suggests that we should have had a new one by now.

I therefore will make my first request of our legal officers and I'm going to save time,

I hope, by asking each officer to introduce themselves as they're called to speak, rather

than doing a round robin of all of you, which will only lead to some of us forgetting the

names immediately.

So we do have a strong team, I'm pleased to say.

Seat 24 - 0:09:30

Good afternoon.

In relation to the policy, it is currently being reviewed.

There is no anticipation of much amendments because legislation has not really been amended

since then.

So, we are going with the current licencing policy that you have in your packs.

Seat 1 - 0:09:59

Seat 1 - 0:10:06

Thank you very much.

I am very relieved to hear that.

I had this difficult feeling that we might all have to come home and come back another

day.

But that is not the case.

Next I think I need to introduce Kevin Dunford, one of our officers.

You introduce yourself.

Seat 25 - 0:10:34

Good afternoon.

My name is Kevin Dunford, licencing officer for Cotswold district.

Thank you for attending.

We're here to review the application for a new premises licence for Anthropus Experience Limited for existence festival

At the land east of Baldridge farm quite well Lane

Long Newton and the activities applied for can be viewed within the report as section 1 .3

Many representations have been received and all of those can be viewed in annex C

along with a few representations in support

No representations have been received from the responsible authorities under Licencing Act 2003.

The Crime Prevention Team for Gloucestershire Constabulary logged no objections and proposed conditions to the applicant, which have been accepted and can be viewed in Annex D.

The technical pollution team stated that they reviewed the application and reviewed the

noise management plan and they have no objection after agreeing conditions, which were also

consulted on with Wiltshire Council, noise departments and they can also be viewed within

Annex D.

The licencing authority will only apply terms and conditions to licences to promote one

or more of the four licencing objectives that are relevant to the individual circumstances

of the application, which as you stated are prevention of crime and disorder, public safety,

prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm.

The licencing authority will always seek to ensure that the conditions are necessary,

proportionate and reasonable and will avoid the use of conditions which duplicate other

legal requirements that apply to an employer or operator of a premises.

A licencing authority will consider every application on its individual merits and will

seek to balance the needs of the local community and commercial premise and activities against

those who may be concerned about the adverse impacts for a licence premises.

The options for consideration by the subcommittee are to grant the application as requested,

to grant the application subject to such conditions that are necessary to promote the licencing

objectives or to refuse the application in whole or in part where it is necessary to

promote the licencing objectives.

Seat 1 - 0:12:53

Thank you very much.

Now I think we have some other officers to introduce themselves.

Let's see.

I think the rest of our legal team, perhaps.

Seat 40 - 0:13:11

Good afternoon, my name is Marie Barnes. I am observing this committee in training. Thank

you.

Seat 41 - 0:13:20

Hello, my name is Sophie Drew and I am also observing this in training.

Thank you.

Seat 23 - 0:13:30

Hello, I'm Naomi Hunt.

I'm a career grade licencing officer and I'm observing this meeting.

Thank you.

Seat 1 - 0:13:43

Now, I think I'm at paragraph three on page three, which says members, that's us three,

may ask any relevant questions of the licencing officer.

I don't think this will be our only opportunity

to ask you questions.

Colleagues, do you want to ask anything at this stage?

Is the licencing officer?

Seat 8 - 0:14:06

Well, just I think it would be appropriate

if you just ran through in a bit more detail

the application and the ramifications of that for us

and the public and more to the point

for those watching on video.

Seat 1 - 0:14:23

Of course, that's not a problem.

Speak slowly and take as long as you like.

Seat 25 - 0:14:29

And loudly, please.

Okay, so the application has sought the following licenseable activities.

So it's provision of place.

That's Thursday 10 until 23 .59.

Friday midnight until 23 .59.

Saturday midnight until 23 59

Sunday midnight until 23 59 and Monday midnight until 4 p .m.

provision of films

Just going to be Thursday 10 a .m. Until 23 59

Friday midnight until 23 59 Saturday

midnight until 23 59

Sunday midnight or 23 59 and Monday midnight until 4 p .m.

live music is Thursday 2 p .m. until 2 a .m. Friday is 11 a .m. till 4 a .m. Sunday 11

a .m. until 11 p .m. and then the recorded music just Thursday 2 p .m. until 2 a .m.

Friday 11 a .m. until 4 a .m. Saturday 11 a .m. until 4 a .m. Sunday 11 a .m. until 11 p .m.

Provision of performance of dance. Thursday 10 a .m. until midnight. Friday midnight until 23 59.

Saturday midnight until 23 .59, Sunday midnight until 23 .59 and Monday midnight until 4pm.

There's provision of anything of a similar description to regulated entertainment, which will be from 10am until 23 .59 on a Thursday,

Friday midnight until 23 .59 Saturday midnight until 23 .59 Sunday midnight

till 23 .59 and Monday midnight until 4 p .m. late night refreshment it's Thursday

11 p .m. until 5 a .m. and that is the same for Friday Saturday Sunday and Monday

We have a supply by retail of alcohol on sales only Thursday 2 p .m. till 2 a .m. Friday 11

a .m. till 4 a .m. Saturday 11 a .m. till 4 a .m. and Sunday 11 a .m. till 11 p .m.

Seat 8 - 0:17:02

I'm afraid to put you through all that but I think it's pretty important fundamental

basic from where we are going.

Seat 1 - 0:17:13

Thank you. It does say, I think maybe I missed this,

that we ask you to outline any relevant representations.

Now, given that we have, I hope, in not too much longer from now,

get to hear some of the representations made by the people representing them,

Perhaps you could give us a summary of the areas covered so that we can make progress towards people speaking for themselves

Seat 25 - 0:17:45

Sorry, can you just confirm that the area is covered by the representatives?

Seat 1 - 0:17:50

I think that's what this means the licencing office outlines any relevant representation. So I think that's

Can I interrupt?

Seat 1 - 0:18:00

Oh, Councillor Jutland.

It's the consortees.

Seat 8 - 0:18:02

I think we need to go run through the consortees and understand the relationship between the

licencing, the council district council licencing and the responses you're getting from the

constabulary and the fire and rescue and the health and safety executive, etc.

I think that's incredibly important to make clear to anyone who's watching what that

relationship is and how you are able to interpret that

relationship within your recommendations.

Seat 25 - 0:18:35

Okay, so firstly with regards to recommendations to ourselves,

we would not recommend an outcome for the hearing.

We would put the case before the committee with regards to

our representations responsible authorities that have consulted

on so we have the police the noise pollution team, but the

Health and Safety, the Planning Department, you have the noise team and

there are a number of other responsible authorities who attend the Safety

Advisory Group meeting where things that are maybe out of scope of the licencing

regime are discussed further. With this being sent out no responsible

authorities contacted us with any objections other than the police to let

us know that they were in communication with the applicants and through that communication

they had agreed conditions which are found within the annex and also the noise pollution

team made us aware that they were objecting until they had resolved any concerns that

they had. Those concerns have been resolved and conditions have been agreed. As part of

their due diligence they contacted the Wiltshire noise team and they agreed those conditions

also with the team and that was accepted by the applicant.

So there are other areas that were dealt with at the safety advisory group meeting that

wouldn't be relevant to the licencing application necessarily.

So the highways department were in attendance at the safety advisory group meeting.

They're in ongoing conversation with the applicant.

I haven't received an update on that to be able to provide you any information, but the

applicant may be able to clarify where they are with that.

The water pollution team are in discussions with the applicant also.

That was raised during the safety advisor group meeting about water provisions for those

attending.

That's still ongoing as far as I'm aware.

Again, I haven't had any update with anything being resolved yet.

The applicant may be able to clarify the situation in relation to the half -four year.

Those responsible authorities that were consulted with have commented and are included in the

with the agreed conditions.

Seat 8 - 0:20:50

Just to clarify, so although conditions are recommended by some of these groups, not one

of them has got any outright.

I mean the Special Advisory Group is a bit of a, it's a sort of interesting, interestingly

hidden from us all, including us elected members, where the public are not allowed to make representations

to them and we don't attend their meetings.

So we're not necessarily aware of how that has functioned in the background, but we can't

as a licencing committee, we can't actually draw upon anything other than their final

response or their recommendations for conditions, is that correct?

Seat 25 - 0:21:42

Yes, that would be correct.

Some of the areas that are being brought up within a safety advisory group meeting might

not be directly related to the licencing objectives or a licencing application.

It may be relevant and covered under alternative legislation, planning legislation.

So it might be in that area that that would be covered in the safety advisory meeting.

But it is just an advice group.

The applicant is well within their right to not take on that advice, but heaven forbid

something happened and they haven't taken on that advice, then that would obviously

be an issue for the applicant.

So it is advised that they do work with the advisory group and those members that attend

to put everything they can in place.

Seat 8 - 0:22:28

And the other complication is because we're half Gloucestershire, half Wiltshire on this

application, have the Wiltshire authorities, all of those, you know, the Wiltshire police,

for example, the Wiltshire fire, you know, the Wiltshire ambulance and all those other

consortees within the special advisory groups, have they been consulted about this and have

they come back with any different responses to the Gloucestershire groups?

Seat 25 - 0:22:55

I won't be able to confirm all those that were in attendance, but there were multiple

agencies from Wiltshire that were at the safety advisory

meeting, it was a cross -border work there, yes.

Seat 8 - 0:23:08

No question about the special advisory group is that I

understood that following Manchester bombings that they

were going to be tightened up and this would be more

clarity.

Has anything changed in the approach to the special

advisory groups?

This is a nationwide question.

it's probably unfair to ask you but I but you know that it's on my mind

Seat 25 - 0:23:31

absolutely um it's not as an attendee to the advisory we haven't had anything

come down to ourselves with regards to being any changes being made we are

Seat 8 - 0:23:45

operating in the same way we have done on our feeling post disappointing but

thank you

Seat 1 - 0:23:50

Councillor Judd, thank you very much. Now I'm looking at the bit now that says the licencing

officer introduced the applicants. If you're happy to do so at this point, I think that's

Seat 25 - 0:24:06

it now is the time. I'm afraid I've written all the names of the people in attendance,

but I do know Sven, so I will introduce Sven if then I could ask Sven to maybe introduce

that you should have attended with you.

Seat 28 - 0:24:18

Great. Yeah, hello.

My name is Sven Mates.

I am the Festival Director of Existence Festival

and also the proposed designated premises supervisor.

And here with me today is Ms. Moran, who is our representative.

Yes, good afternoon. My name is Ms. Moran.

I'm representing the Applicants' Day.

And then as well, we've got Dan Wilde

as the festival promoter.

Hi everyone, my name is Daniel Wilde, thank you for joining us today.

I am the festival promoter and the lead investor behind the festival, working with SPEND to deliver an effective and safe event.

Thank you.

Seat 1 - 0:25:03

Could I just cheque, I didn't write the names down.

One of you is the legal representative perhaps?

Seat 28 - 0:25:08

Yes, good afternoon. My name is Ms Moran. I am the legal representative. I am a barrister

Seat 1 - 0:25:19

Seat 1 - 0:25:22

at One Pump Court, Chambers. Thank you very much. I think it is time for

me to invite you or the applicant or the person representing the applicant to present their

application to the committee and to clarify any information arising from the officer's

Seat 28 - 0:25:43

outline if necessary. Are you okay for that? Yes absolutely, thank you. So as

stated my name is Ms Moran and I'm here to represent the applicant in their

application for premises licence. I'm accompanied by the proposed designated

supervisor and by the promoter Mr. Wilde who will be able to, if there are any

more specific questions, assist me on that. But as a brief introduction to the

festival. As a brand, Existence Festival has existed for four years, but as an applicant

and as an application, it's very important to emphasise that this is a fresh application

by a new legal entity. Existence has, the festival has existed in the past, but the

company which previously operated the festival was struck off in 2025. None of the individuals,

Certainly Mr Matters was not involved with the operation of that festival.

So this is a fresh application for a new licence and should be treated as such.

I raise that at the outset because a number of the representations you have before you

refer to previous incidents of previous festivals.

But this is a clean slate with new operation, new ownership, new management.

There is no tie to what has gone before.

Now, Mr Matus brings considerable relevant experience to his role as premises supervisor.

He's currently the premises licence holder for a licenced festival site in Hertfordshire,

which has an established capacity of 2 ,000 attendees, and he has no negative regulatory

record.

He has a track record in safe and compliant events management.

And, of course, we do appreciate this is an application which has generated a significant

number of representations from the community and we appreciate how important

it is that those representations are heard and that people feel reassured

that this event goes ahead in a way that is safe, compliant and promotes the

licencing objectives. However, I also note that the purpose of the legal framework

around licencing, the purpose of it is to allow arts and cultural events to go

ahead unless they are going ahead will interfere with those objectives. The test set out section

18 3A of the Licencing Act 2003 in fact says that an application must be granted unless

its grant would interfere with one of the four licencing objectives. And the Cotswold

District Council statement of policy reinforces that presumption. So it's section 3 .3. There

There is a presumption that applications will be granted, particularly where there are no

relevant representations.

And at 2 .11, the Council recognises the importance of encouraging and promoting cultural events

for the wider benefit of communities.

The purpose of needing to apply for a licence is to make sure that licencing objectives

are promoted and to make sure that the conditions proposed, the agreed conditions, filed at

will ensure that all four objectives are met.

But unless an interference with one of the objectives

can be established, and unless conditions would not

be able to meet and address that interference,

the licence must be granted.

The representations which have been received centre

around four significant areas of concern in my assessment.

There are some residual concerns, but primarily,

Residents seem to be concerned about noise nuisance,

traffic nuisance, including concerns around emergency

access and parking, the risk of increased crime and disorder,

and concerns around the water supply.

Now, of course, you will be aware that there is intended

to be in the statutory scheme no overlap between the licencing

regimen and planning regimen, and some of these concerns

in my submission do fall properly into planning. So, for example, the concerns around water

are a planning matter rather than a licencing matter. Similarly, the concerns around traffic,

parking, and a number of concerns raised around the use of the countryside are all properly

the provision of, for example, the highways manager and the planning team who, as you've

heard, have raised no objection. But in my opening statement, I intend to address the

four main areas of concern in turn so that hopefully then when those who have attended

are able to give their own representations they can focus on anything they feel hasn't

been properly addressed already. Because I do believe through our documents which of

course are not within the public purview, the event management plan, the noise management

plan, which sets out the incredible amount of work that the applicant has done to ensure

this event is safe and compliant. And I hope that what I have to say will provide some

reassurance to those who have attended.

So, to begin with noise management,

there are proposed conditions which have been set,

as it's been said, can be found in Annex D.

One of those proposed conditions relates to decibel levels.

There were initially some concerns by environmental

health around this application, but following the agreement

of these conditions, those concerns have been withdrawn.

Both Environmental Health and in consultation

with the Wiltshire Council Noise Department

have no objections to this licence being granted,

provided these conditions are met.

These teams are the experts.

They've been provided

with a comprehensive noise management plan

and they have no concerns.

And so whilst of course it's appreciated

that residents have made these representations,

the experts in the case are content

for this event to go ahead.

Some of the measures which are proposed, well, let me begin with addressing, there was an

incident in the festival's previous iteration, as I say, under different ownership and different

management on the Chiltern Park site last year in which a noise abatement notice was

served on the festival.

My understanding of what occurred there is that there was a contractor engaged to manage

noise levels across the festival, but that contractor did not fulfil their duties appropriately.

When that became apparent to the stage management teams, all volume was reduced quickly, but

nonetheless, noise nuisance did occur, and that is, of course, unacceptable. But what's

been done in response to that is a significant restructuring of the operational team. So

The individual who held the premises licence, the 2025 Chawton Park event, has no regulatory

responsibility whatsoever for this event.

As I've emphasised, this application is a fresh slate with different individuals involved.

There will be a new contractor, Sustainable Festivals

Limited, who have experience in managing noise across large scale events with tens of thousands

of attendees much greater than this who have proposed

comprehensive noise management measures.

All noise management measures are addressed assuming

that windows will be open.

I note that some of the concerns and representations were,

well, what are we going to be expected to have to close

our windows in June?

That's not the case.

Noise levels have been assessed assuming windows will be

at least partially open.

and measure to the facade of residential buildings and not to the internal rooms.

And so the noise is going to be within compliant levels as approved by the noise management

team and by environmental health for those with their windows open in their homes.

Our noise manager, Chris Selkirk, is available on call and is able to answer any technical

questions or give evidence on those technical matters, which you, the committee, may have.

But broadly my submission is that Mr. Matters has an entirely clean regulatory and compliance record in respect to his previous experience

as a Prime Minister supervisor and

experience running these sorts of events and there are no professional concerns

within the concerns raised by residents. Well, can we open our windows?

There's simply no evidence that there will be any sort of concern. We've also proposed, the applicant has proposed,

filing a worst case hot weather negative wind etc plan so that even in the worst

case with the course weather conditions being unpredictable all of all relevant

limits will be met

Seat 1 - 0:34:53

secondly in relation to concerns around traffic and road safety excuse me it's

not clear to me whether traffic and road safety are issues for this committee

getting an agreement there from my licencing officer in that slightly legal phrase.

I'm keen to make progress, as they say.

Yes.

Have you, are you perhaps approaching the end of your statement?

We apparently have somebody who wishes to speak from online.

I don't know any more details.

And I know we have people here waiting to speak.

Of course.

Your speech has been very acceptable so far, of course.

Sir, excuse me, apologies. I haven't been introduced. I'm Sallister on behalf of the

Long Newington Parish Council and also the Ashley Parish meeting. In relation to the

point, in relation to traffic, sir. Yes, it's too early to take that.

No, no, sir, I think it's relevant. It's just in relation to the point about traffic, whether

you consider it or you cannot consider it. In your policy, indeed, it does make reference

to traffic. Now where it causes a nuisance then there is an ability for

you to consider that. Now obviously that will be in our submissions but I just

want to speak to that. Thank you. I take your correction in the spirit it was

meant. I apologise to the Speaker in attempting to speed things up. I

Seat 28 - 0:36:15

appear to have slowed them down. Please continue. No, not at all. It's a very

relevant consideration and it is the applicant's primary position that

traffic and road safety are properly planning matters within the purview of

the highways officers who as you've heard have raised no objection but of

course where there could be some spillover into one of the four licencing

objectives for example public safety it may be that the the objectives wish you

to consider it and so I had thought I might address you on it just in case you

came to that conclusion would you like to hear from me on okay

So the obvious issue, what is going to be raised is that access to this site is along

Crudwell Lane, which is a narrow country lane.

There is a traffic management plan which has been produced by the applicant which has that

operational challenge front and centre.

We are absolutely aware that this is a narrow lane, that there could be some difficulty.

But it's not at all insurmountable.

The main concerns are more planning concerns.

So, for example, preventing tailbacks,

preventing avoidable congestion.

But there are also perhaps some safety concerns,

such as ensuring that emergency vehicles will always have access

to the site and will always be able to progress down the lane.

That is going to be done.

There is going to be a designated traffic management

coordinator who will be on site throughout the event, who will have

overall responsibility for overseeing and adapting the traffic management plan

in response to changing conditions. There are going to be trained traffic stewards

who will be directing traffic towards the event and the proposal is there are

going to be two major times at which there will be ingress to the festival

and egress. This is a festival in which is envisioned that people won't really

be moving around for the days it's on because it's a camping festival, people will be staying.

There's going to be one period of arrival and departure over Sunday evening, Monday morning.

In relation to that, it's planned for festival traffic

to operate Crudwell Lane as a one -way system so that all festival traffic is diverted in from the southeast using

the traffic stewards.

It's hoped that that will keep things increasingly manageable and will also

mean if people are all directed by traffic stewards, if emergency vehicles

need any access, people can be diverted onto the grassy verge to allow emergency

vehicles to pass.

And the steward will also have the authority to hold inbound traffic to enable clearance

to the site if needed to prevent queuing.

Really what the applicant is doing is trying to avoid unnecessary car vehicles at all,

both from a sustainability perspective,

but also a safety perspective.

They're going to be operating a shuttle service from Kemble

as the local train station.

Given train arrivals into Kemble are hourly,

that's necessarily going to be staggered.

But there are also going to be, I shouldn't say punitive,

but there are going to be car parking charges that

are designed to reduce car use, to prevent people

from using single occupancy vehicles,

and at all stages in the promotional marketing,

when people purchase tickets, the use of the shuttle service

and other public transport measures are going

to be promoted.

I understand that heavy goods vehicles use this road already

in relation to Melcorp Industries.

I understand they filed their own representations with who

Mr. Matt has met on the 6th of May to discuss how

schedules could be coordinated.

But this is not a road which is unused to heavy goods vehicles

being used.

And it's not a road which is particularly low intensity

in terms of use generally.

There is no evidence from any highways expert

that the use of this road for four days of setup,

four days of set down for this festival,

as per the event management plan,

will cause any significant damage such

that there would be effects.

the event that's more of a planning matter.

And I also note some of the representations very specifically address a charity bike ride

which is due to happen on the Saturday after the festival.

That is of course a relevant consideration for the public.

But the event management plan is that set down will happen within four days of the conclusion

of the festival.

So we will be long gone by the time that bike ride is to occur.

there will be no heavy goods vehicles getting in the way of that.

In relation to crime and disorder, there are a number of representations which suggest

that inherently a large event increases the risk of crime and disorder, and indeed that

something which is reflected in statements of licencing policy.

But what is significant is that the police have no objection

to this event.

They've been in constant conversation with the

applicants, and the proposed conditions are seen as adequate

to manage that risk.

The Wiltshire Council crime team also have made

no representations.

And so there is no risk here in the view of any of the

professional bodies involved of increased crime and disorder.

Antipas Experience Limited, the applicant,

has eight years of trading.

They have an exemplary safety record with no significant

reportable instance, and there will be a comprehensive

security setup in place.

So all security personnel will be licenced, SIA licenced.

There will be a professional security contractor,

and there will be a zero -tolerance policy

towards antisocial behaviour, drug use, and disorder.

Drug use in particular is raised in a number of the representations.

It seems to be considered that's something which could be associated with this kind of festival.

I note that that was the subject of conversation with the police.

And the search policies, search and seizure policies which were presented to the police were acceptable to them.

There are risk assessments appendicied at Appendix 2 of the event management plan,

which specifically consider the kind of festival this is,

the profile of this kind of festival goer,

and assess the risk of any disorder or serious incident

to be low in light of that.

And of course there will be an emergency liaison team

responsible for liaising with emergency services

should that be necessary.

And a representative from the local authority

will be invited if needs be to sit in

on the liaison process.

But ultimately there are no concerns from the police

who are of course the experts in assessing

the risk of any interference with crime disorder.

And there will be a minimum of at least 20 stewards alongside licenced security staff

present in order to address this.

Daily briefings are going to be given to all security staff and stewards.

And those daily briefings will specifically address the licencing objectives and make

sure those individuals know what they need to be looking for and what they need to promote.

And there is also an eviction policy.

and that eviction policy does provide for those who are evicted to be taken to a predetermined safe location with transport links on out of the locality

rather than as might be feared, just ousted into the local community.

And as I say, it's also anticipated that festival -goers will remain on site and therefore be supervised for the entirety of the festival.

supplementary to the risk of crime and disorder is the risk

of harm to children.

This is an 18 -plus festival.

There are going to be comprehensive policies in place

to ensure that only adults are able to access the festival.

The SIA licenced security will comply with all legal frameworks

in respect of allowing access.

So there will be a requirement for ID.

That ID cannot be a photocopy or a photograph.

And so given this is an 18 plus festival, there's no real clear identified risk to children.

If a child were to access a site, there is a policy appendices to the event management

plan as to how that would be dealt with.

The child would be identified, they would be taken to a safe waiting area if necessary.

If their parent or guardian would be contacted or if their parent or guardian were unavailable

or unable to be identified, the local authority would be involved.

but that child would be identified, kept separate and removed as quickly as possible.

There will be no children on the site and so there is no risk of harm to children.

Finally, there were some concerns around water.

It's the applicant's submission that water is a planning matter.

A number of those representations relate to the fact that water is supplied to the locality through a borehole.

There might be overuse of that.

Whilst it is the applicant's primary position that that is a planning matter and conversations

are in place as to how that will be managed, it is important that people feel heard.

So I will say at this point, the plan is that if necessary, this festival will have its

own supply of water from water tankers to avoid the locality becoming overburdened.

There's no intention to overuse any local resource.

But as I say, that is a planning matter, really.

Some miscellaneous matters.

In terms of waste, the intention is this to be a festival which has a specific focus on

sustainability and on respect to the local countryside.

One of the more innovative measures which is proposed to avoid waste being left behind

is the use of a litter bond for those camping.

So as some of money put up, which is only released when

your campsite is entirely clean when you leave,

and so there's going to be that vested monetary incentive

for people to be clean and to leave the countryside

as they find it.

But of course, when the applicant isn't just relying

on the festival goers to keep it clean,

there will be a waste management team who will provide

a waste management confirmation as soon as they are done

cleaning that every area of the site is left as it should be.

That will happen in line with the set down of the rest of the festival.

That's an overview of the main theme of the representations received.

As I say, the safety officer, the noise officer is online and able to give evidence if you

counsellors would benefit from hearing from him.

I will return to you because I don't want to hold us up.

Seat 1 - 0:47:28

Thank you very much.

Very comprehensive.

It seems to me that I have reached part 5 on my first page.

Members may ask relevant questions of the applicants.

I am going to encourage my colleagues to see if we might let the public go first.

We can probably get our questions in later.

How about you? I need to ask my colleague on the desk, our officer on the desk, you

passed a message saying somebody who wishes to speak remotely was rather keen to get in.

Are they still there? I'm not that keen to give them priority over people who have already

waited three quarters of an hour plus travel.

Yes, yes.

You might need to put...

I've got one screen for you.

Okay. Just let me refresh my memory with colleagues, with the officers, I should say, colleagues.

What would you, did you recommend for a limit on contributions? Was it five minutes?

You may want to first ascertain how many people want to participate. Considering that you

You might want to select a speaker for a group of you if people are saying roughly the same

things.

And depending on the number of people who want to speak, then decide on how long you

would allow for each person.

Seat 24 - 0:49:00

The constitution allows for 15 minutes, but you can change this per person.

Seat 1 - 0:49:11

So we've got a brief here.

Thank you very much for those who've cooperated with this, which has indicated one, two, three,

four, five, six, seven, eight, I think.

Yes, they're attending and yes, they would like to speak and who they might also be speaking

for.

and of course David Roberts from Knights PLC will be representing some I think of

them. Now can I just see a show of hands to see who is expecting to speak and

give me a count colleagues one two three four five six seven eight nine you

reckon? Thank you. Notice I said expected not wishing. I've got one person

waiting online as well which we know. Is that a picture of them?

Sorry? We've got them on live stream. Thank you for your patience, sir. Yes, as a legal

rep, please, I've forgotten your name already.

Sorry, sir, it's David Roberts.

David Roberts, yes.

Seat 43 - 0:50:16

Apologies, sir. I was just wondering, obviously, I'm conscious that there are a lot of people

in the room who may have very similar points to make. I'm hoping that I might be able to

sort of assist proceedings a little bit by certainly consolidating those

representations on behalf of the two parish councils that I represent. I don't

know whether perhaps I go first and then you might want to then take an

assessment as to how many people then want to speak afterwards. I don't know

Seat 1 - 0:50:46

whether that helps or hinders. I thought that process had already been gone

Seat 24 - 0:50:54

through. You might want to provide five minutes, ten minutes for people to

discuss so that we know we can't give 15 minutes to the first one and then decide

the others are only going to get two minutes. So if you were to recess for

five, ten minutes so people can discuss how many want to speak on behalf of

then that might help the proceedings. Online I think it is yeah the noise

Seat 1 - 0:51:25

specialist so it's not an actual objector. Just a minute, Councillor Jardia. Can I

Seat 8 - 0:51:28

quickly ask how many of the representations on here for people who

want to speak to you are you already aware of and do you know what their

Seat 43 - 0:51:39

concerns are? Thank you Madam Councillor. I am fully aware obviously of all the

representations that have been submitted in relation and that are contained within

the agenda pack and I'm fully aware of the representations that are being made

on behalf of both parish councils that I'm representing.

Seat 8 - 0:51:59

My suggestion chair is rather than taking a five -minute recess, you know, we

need to move on, is to give Mr Roberts a time, which of your jurisdiction,

and then ask for people to put their hands up again and see if anybody doesn't want to

do it anymore because it's already been addressed. Otherwise we're going to be here all afternoon.

Seat 1 - 0:52:22

I suspect there may be no way of avoiding considerable lengths of time. So what we have

on screen is a noise specialist, is that right? Yes, that's correct. Is that an officer of

the Council or somebody who is representing or supporting the representations being made

by the public?

No, he is supporting the representations being made by the applicants. He is responsible

Seat 28 - 0:52:54

for the noise management plan produced by the applicants appended to the licence application.

So any questions about how noise is actually going to be managed, technical questions,

he is here to assist.

Seat 1 - 0:53:01

Right, now I go back to our advisors. Do we wait for the questions about noise and ask

this representative online to wait or does our representative online feel they should

come in first? I'm now getting a bit confused as to where the break comes between applicant

and representations.

questions.

Seat 24 - 0:53:26

I would suggest if you want to ask questions to the noise management officer, do so. If

you have no questions, I would suggest they stay there and if questions come up and you

want them to answer, then they can answer. Then it will save a bit of time, if that's

what the applicant...

Seat 1 - 0:53:59

I'm just so keen to get onto the public.

At some point we need to ask those questions, can't we?

Okay.

Seat 1 - 0:54:11

I'm going to ask you to be even more patient.

We have some questions about noise. We're fortunate to have as an elected member of

this council, somebody who some decades ago was a senior noise specialist, I would call him. That's

not the technical phrase, but somebody worked for this council and understood and worked in

noise reduction, noise prevention, noise minimization, all that stuff. He's submitted

some points which can only reasonably be raised by members of this committee. I think it would

be helpful for those questions to be asked now. Do we want to ask Councillor Judd to

do them all for us? Get started, Julia. Thank you.

Seat 8 - 0:54:58

Thank you, Chair. Who am I talking to? Who is this chap on the screen? Can he hear me?

Seat 1 - 0:55:05

Seat 8 - 0:55:06

Could you introduce yourself online?

Yeah, hello. I can hear everyone speaking loud and clear and also see you on the video

screen. My name is Christopher Selkirk. I'm an acoustics expert working as a noise manager

for the festival. I exclusively work in the live events industry, managing just shy of

1 .3 million people in audiences around events in the UK from festivals, cultural festivals

such as Existence, all the way to 65 ,000 people, park -based events in London and football stadium

concerts. I also am a member of the Institute of Acoustics and the Chartered Institute of

Environmental Health. And just to finish off, I currently sit on the UK Noise Council, which

is an all -party working group between the Institute of Acoustics and the Chartered Institute

of Environmental Health, overviewing the Code of Practise for Environmental Noise Control

of Music Concerts and Outdoor Events, which was published originally in 1995. Currently

Seat 1 - 0:56:17

under peer review for councils and organisations in the country, it's going to be the new best

Seat 8 - 0:56:28

practise guide. Thank you very much for that comprehensive statement. Thank you for your

about this application we you know we we understand you're their noise

representative. What are the active limiters referred to in the noise

Seat 8 - 0:56:45

management plan? I don't understand your question. In your noise management plan

you refer to active limiters. What are they? Oh yeah okay thank you. So the reason

for my asking for the repeat question is there are limits which are the decibel limits set

for residential receivers which change between daytime and nighttime. Your question is actually

about sound technology referring to limiters. So we work as a team that have both on -site

and off -site acoustic consultants. We have a limit to work to which is acceptable UK

standard daytime limit which changes at 2300 hours to a night time limit. How we manage that

is a number of different options but technology options we have limiters and that's basically a

suppression device so we speak to the production audio company and we set what the noise limit

should be for the audience often referred to as the front of house limit. That limit is

designed to correlate with what is required to be legally compliant off -site. So if a DJ or a band,

if their output becomes greater than the limit that's allowable that we set for the front of

house, the amplification device and the sound control desk limits, known as a limiter,

basically compresses that sound so it doesn't get the DJ or the band or the musician is

pushing the instrument or the microphone. So it reads the signal in live time and says

this is going to be too much and it limits or compresses sound down to the acceptable.

and what I want to note is that the limits are set as an average over a 15

minute period so sometimes the sound for a minute may be over that of the 15

Seat 8 - 0:58:55

minute limit but it's an average so some an average...

Excuse me, can I stop you there?

Can I stop you there?

I want a succinct answer that normal people can understand from what you're

saying a noise limiter is some function that automatically reduces the noise to a level

which is within what is allowed. Is that correct? I'm really glad that I conveyed the information

Seat 8 - 0:59:29

to you correctly. Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to make understood. Did you make

your answers a little bit more succinct? There's a lot of people here and I'm sure they've

Seat 8 - 0:59:46

very busy lives. Thank you. You state that the other venues have

successfully operated with off -site noise limits above those recommended

within the Code of Practise and control of noise from pop concerts or concerts. Which venues are

you referring to and what evidence do you have that supports this claim? Please be succinct.

I currently sit on the old party working group reviewing the 1995 Code of Conduct. The new best

practise guide will actually show an increase in acceptable community noise levels for the

future, which is the evidence to say that many venues around the country operate at

levels above and beyond the 1995 Code of Practise.

Seat 8 - 1:00:43

Okay, let's get on with the questions.

You didn't really answer my question, but it gives me a feeling for your report.

I'm sorry, I don't understand how I didn't answer the question.

Seat 8 - 1:00:57

Many venues have done the country.

I asked you to quote a venue and you didn't do that and I asked you to say the offsite

noise limits above those recommended in the code of practise on control of noise from

concerts have successfully operated in above of those but but that's only

because they've done it it doesn't mean to say it's allowed. Oh it would be a

licencing condition that has changed examples I'll give you would be

Seat 8 - 1:01:34

Liverpool peer head, Sefton Park, Victoria Park. Thank you, thank you, thank you. One example is enough.

Seat 8 - 1:01:40

The legal team, is that a condition?

Is that one of the conditions on the recommended within the noise?

Conditions have been proposed by the noise team that are covering any noise issues.

But it didn't go, that this off -site noise did not go above those limits, not as the

The applicant's noise consultant says it is acceptably done elsewhere above what is normally

allowed.

That shouldn't be allowed here.

I am requesting that that is one of the conditions.

Seat 24 - 1:02:27

My understanding was that in those venues they were going above and beyond the code

of conduct, not above and beyond the noise levels.

Seat 8 - 1:02:39

Seat 1 - 1:02:47

Edward van Dyck works for the noise team. He worked with the applicant to reach conditions.

Seat 1 - 1:03:14

Right, it's my feeling that we should focus on getting through the questions to the applicant's representatives and come to our offices who subsequently. Is that right?

Thank you. So, yes, we'll be back with you, Mr. on the, public has to wait. Sorry.

Seat 8 - 1:03:40

Can I ask one more question? Will your data from your noise management technology be publicly

available after the events?

If that's a question to me, so the local authority environmental health department can request

a post compulsory report and that would go to the public health environmental health

department. It's not normally publicly available, but it would be available to counsellors should

they speak to that relevant section. I'm speaking on behalf of your council environmental health

colleague here but having worked on thousands of events that would normally

be the case but just to clarify your previous point there is no suggestion

that the noise limits for this event go above and beyond the code of practise in

fact they're lower than the code of practise for this event but in a report

it's important to clarify the background of a situation and why decisions have

Seat 8 - 1:04:42

been made but thank you councillor that's helpful thank you

Seat 1 - 1:04:57

Seat 1 - 1:05:02

I think we have lost the answers at the moment.

Can I air the question? I don't know whether any of the applicants here might be aware.

I have two very brief questions. The first question is why is the proposed condition,

the decibel levels higher than those reflected than the noise abatement notice that was issued

to the existence festival last year when it was located at Chiltern Park Farm, sorry,

Chiltern Park Estate and secondly why in terms of the conditions that are

being agreed with environmental health the restrictions for this year's

proposed event only relate to the period of time from 2300 hours to 4 a .m. not

making any reference to the daytime whereas there are additional conditions

for future events that do pop restrictions and in relation to noise

between the period of 10am and 2300 hours.

Seat 43 - 1:06:16

If it helps just to refer to you,

in the agenda pack at page 212 are the conditions that have been agreed with environmental health.

And in the supplemental bundle that was served with a copy of the noise abatement from the previous event,

that they can be seen at page 7 of the additional documents that were served.

I don't know if I'm audible at the moment, but I can answer those two questions.

Seat 1 - 1:06:54

Seat 43 - 1:06:56

Yes, we can hear you. If you would like to have a go at those two.

As has been suggested, the previous event isn't part of this application, but a noise

abatement order looks at statutory noise nuisance. So the limit is regarding

statutory noise nuisance. A licencing limit looks at public nuisance which has

slightly different things and I let your own public health, public protection

environmental health address this any further. But in terms of the noise

management plan which is essentially the management document that essentially

becomes a licencing condition for noise. What the Environmental Health Officer Edward Van

was discussing was an agreement to the 2300 to 0400 limits which have been modified

to the acceptance of that responsible authority. Daytime limits are prescribed on page 7 of

the final draught version 1 .1 noise management plan which are the same as the UK acceptable

limit for music noise levels from concerts and festivals. So we are abiding by the same

UK noise limit for daytime that's up to 11 o 'clock and we have a reduced level from what

is the normal standard after 11 until 4 o 'clock which was what the agreement was in place

with public protection Mr Edward van Dyck. So it is specified what daytime and noise

time limits are, but an abatement notice is beyond licencing and generally associated

with statutory nuisance. But I'm not speaking for last year, I wasn't part of the team,

I'm part of the increase in noise control and quality and experience and knowledge coming

into existence 2026.

Thanks.

Seat 43 - 1:08:53

Thank you.

Seat 1 - 1:08:55

Thank you, sir.

I'm still trying to find the page seven that was referred to.

So what's the front of that document with page?

That's the noise management plan, sir.

Right.

Existence Festival 26, noise management plan version 1 .1.

and there is a contents page which you could use, but the limits which are shown in a box

are section 2 .18 on page 7 and on page 6, the page before, you can see examples of noise

limits which are general for music concerts and events. So the code of practise indicates

Seat 43 - 1:09:45

that a music noise level would be 65 dB in the A weight in over a 15 minute period. And

on the next page, you'll see that the limit from 10 in the morning until 11 at night has

copied that. That's a dB limit of 65 measured over a 15 minute period. And as that's an

minutes within that 15 minutes and slightly lower limits within that 15

minutes because that's how averages work.

Chair if I may.

Seat 1 - 1:10:18

Sir, just a minute I'm gonna have to turn to our officers to help me find this page 7.

I'm going to have a copy of that document.

Thank you I haven't got a copy of that document.

Seat 43 - 1:10:31

That document was worked with directly with the events, the applicant and the responsible authority for noise.

Sorry, there's two mics on that.

Seat 25 - 1:10:35

I'll take mine off.

That document wasn't part of the documentation we were working with that's a document that the noise pollution team was working directly with the applicant

Seat 43 - 1:10:48

On service their noise month from time that they were reaching conditions on as part of their consultation

And so if I may clarify further

So no noise management plan has been shared with you in respect to this application. You've not seen that and neither of anybody else

However, the documents I've referred you to has been disclosed to the committee

which is a copy of the noise abatement notice.

And that's in the supplemental document pack.

And that's at page, I think it's page seven of that pack.

I do believe Councillor Judge has referred

to my noise management plan in quite detail.

So I do believe a copy is available to the panel

based on the questions that the Councillor to the right,

Lady Councillor, I think it's Councillor Judge,

I'm sorry if I got your name wrong,

but you have referred specifically

to the noise management plan.

So I do believe you have a copy.

Seat 8 - 1:11:37

Thank you for clarifying that.

I don't have a copy, but it is online

and I looked at it before this meeting,

but I can't refer to it now

because it'd take me an hour to find it, but thank you.

Seat 43 - 1:11:50

Does the page I'm actually referring to page nine

in the supplemental bundle, not page seven.

Apologies, I was referring to my noise management plan.

Apologies for not having that supplemental.

Seat 1 - 1:12:08

So I'm going to read this out because I think it will clarify things.

This says scheduled to accompany notice served on existence festival.

So we're talking about something that's happened, yeah?

One, ensure the music noise level at any nearby residential premises does not exceed 55 decibels

LA -EQA 15 minutes, I think we've heard about 15 minutes, plus 5 dB for demonstrable influence

of weather conditions up to 2300.

Two, ensure the music noise level at any nearby residential premises does not exceed 40 dB

LA EQ 15 minutes plus 5 dB for demotional influence of weather conditions, between the

hours of 2300 through to 0700 and then there's a handwritten piece that says ensure that

the difference between the LC EQ and the LA EQ does not exceed 20 decibels over any 15

minute period. Now I think we've heard about the 15 minutes and perhaps our officers can

explain to us what the particular relevance of these three paragraphs on

page nine also called page seven in this document is given that it appears to be

Seat 25 - 1:13:29

something that was has been done before and can help us to understand. In

relation to the noise particulars I'd pass across to Edward van Dyck of the

noise pollution team who's the gentleman online.

Good afternoon, German. Can you hear me?

Right. Yeah, there are two things here. There's the notice served last year, which is not

really a relevant consideration because it was served on a different festival at a different

location as a way of dealing with a problem. The key thing where I concentrate on is control

of this event. We have received a copy of the noise management document and negotiated

a couple of changes to it and satisfied that it will prevent public nuisance. The answer

to your earlier question is simply page 7, table 2 .18, that covers both daytime and nighttime

Seat 1 - 1:14:38

required levels or limits maximum levels.

Right. Thank you very much. It's my view that I need to progress with the, as a priority

over even what the three elected members here want to do, with hearing from the public.

And as we've been given, it's clear that there's been some cooperation and some combining which will save time.

Nevertheless, we did see about 10 hands.

And I think that it's time to hear perhaps from David Roberts.

How long do you think you're going to take, David?

Sir, I think probably about 15 minutes or so.

All right.

Well, if the sound is good, you can speak as fast as you like.

Seat 43 - 1:15:25

Thank you very much, sir, and thank you, councillors.

Councillors, can I first start by saying that this is a very

difficult application for you to consider as a committee,

because obviously there is a lot of people here who've got very

vociferous views in respect of it.

But also, it has to be recognised that you have to look

at this application within the Licencing Act 2003 framework with which you are

familiar and you're familiar with your policy and your procedures and you're

familiar with the licencing objectives which are very clearly stated.

Councillors, this application has been made has caused considerable concern to

the local residents of this area and I say this area because actually its

location is slapped by in the middle of a number of residential and agricultural areas.

It's a site which is clearly unsuitable for the proposed event that is taking place.

We've heard from the applicant suggesting that in your policy that you have to take

into account the fact that this is a festival, it's a cultural event.

Well, that may be the case, but it's not a cultural event

specifically for the location and the residence

of this locality.

Particularly, we've been talking about the shipping in or the

train journey in for individuals who want to venture

into this site.

Councillors, there is a lot about this application, which

is very much smoke and mirrors, and I'd like to refer to the

fact that this application before you makes considerable

reference in its operating schedule to the existence of an event management plan, a sound

management plan, and various different policies and procedures, none of which you have seen.

Now Councillors, you are allowed to consider the absence of representations that have been

made by your supposed experts, but you are the committee that decides upon this application

and you are the committee that will determine whether this application can be granted or

whether it can be rejected. Councillors, we have heard from the applicant in terms of

their application saying this has nothing to do with the existence festival that took

place in 2025, that company wound up. Don't be conned by that. The reason why I say don't

be conned by that is because if the applicant here had wanted to run a similar festival

they could have called it something else, but effectively what they're doing is they're

operating on the same websites, on the same Facebook pages, marketing to the same groups

of people, the same demographic who want to attend this event.

It is effectively the same event but in a different location.

Councillors, you will have seen in the documents that we have disclosed in the bundle that

referred to a number of documents which I do hope that you will read. You will

see in there in addition to the noise of apron notices which was issued against

the Existence Festival last year you will also see a letter in there from

Chiltern Park Estate that says the reasons why they've not had them back

this year. Now that in itself is evidence that Chiltern Park Farm were not happy

with the way that event had been run last year.

And you will note from the applicant's website,

if you have access to it, certain suggestions that say,

our site removes, and this I quote

from the applicant's website,

our site removes many previous restrictions we've operated

under, giving us the creative freedom to craft

an even more immersive experience for you.

That's their website.

I read that as we've got no noise abatement notice at this site,

so we wouldn't be under criminal prosecution if we were to exceed our limits.

It also goes on to say, on another entry,

just six days ago, in our beautiful new green home with big investment made in sound and more,

this year's festival is sure to be our best one yet.

Councillors, do not be persuaded that this site is a better site.

The issues in relation to the licencing objectives remain here.

Now, Councillors, if you look at the application pack that was submitted, this is the applicant's

application pack.

You will notice that it sets out a plan.

A plan for the site, and that's page 39.

And you'll notice how it covers, actually,

it raises a number of issues that have been raised

in the representations.

It raises the issue in relation to the access to the site.

It raises the fact that there are not just one stage,

but three proposed stages in the event space.

And it also includes, as part of the licence,

and remember if you should grant this licence,

this forms part of the licence terms,

an emergency access road, which actually accesses onto Ashley

Marsh Farm, which is the neighbouring property.

What the plan conveniently doesn't show you

is the proximity of nearby houses.

And there's no wider plan that shows you

the proximity to all the other areas of heavily accommodated premises.

It also doesn't show to you the location of local businesses.

Number of stables in the area, and obviously as you'll be aware, this is an agricultural

area with much livestock.

All these businesses and local residents are going to be severely impacted by the provision

of noise.

Now the applicants are going to say, well that's not the case, we've got a noise management

plan. They haven't shared the noise management plan with you. Councillors, I would also question

whether the SAG meeting has actually taken place on the site. And that's really, really

important in terms of its locality. In the document pile I referred to you, the supplemental

documents at page 10. And I know this picture is true because I've seen the site myself

this morning. This Councillor's at page 10 is a photograph that actually is taken from

I think it's point C on the applicant's plant, which is at the fence between the two farms.

That's a field that is sown to wheat.

It's not a grassy land, it's not a meadow, it's not fern grass.

Presumably if you've got this licence, that will be churned up, it will be ploughed through.

Which means that that field will not be suitable, certainly if the English weather comes to play.

You're going to have a complete mud bath of however many people it is that are going to be on this premises, or this location.

Councillors, I also refer you at page 11 to this gate.

Now I couldn't believe this photograph when I saw it. This is the emergency access gate.

Again, where that photograph is taken from at the top of the field between the land and Ashley Marsh Farm.

You will note actually that the gate is higher than the hard core below.

Now this is private property and there is a drop of about three foot.

Now given the fact that you will see from the plan that there is only one road in and

one road out to the application site, a route which is going to be extremely congested with

additional traffic, a route that is going to have two -way traffic because it has to

accommodate the shuttle bus that's going backwards and forwards to the station all day.

Serious concerns there from a health and safety perspective in relation to those people who

are actually being accommodated on the festival site.

If there was a requirement for emergency services, there would be significant issue because the

emergency access route that you've been told about does not, does not, there is no approval

for that route and it's not even being consulted with.

Throughout this application, Councillors, there has been a significant lack of consultation

with the local area. Even after courtesy, and you are actually in a really difficult

position because you are facing an application for an event that has already been scheduled

to take place on the 11th of June of this year. That, Councillors, I would say, is an

uncomfortable position to be in and actually what that reflects is a lack of planning from

the perspective of the applicants. There's been significant inability to consult with

the local areas. I got greeted this morning, or this afternoon, with a ten -page document

that's been provided by the applicant that talks about, oh, consultation last week, or

we haven't been able to speak to this business because nobody was around last week. Come

off it. That just shows a pure lack of organisation. Councillors, this application has really,

really not been considered. It will have a detrimental impact. Impact of noise, it will

have an impact of vibration, it will have an impact in relation to light. There are

properties in real close proximity to this application site. Just convenient that the

applicant leaves them off their plans because that's convenient for them. There is a serious

lack of thought in terms of this application. I would like to know whether the SAG has actually

met on the application site because I think that would actually have a

fundamental different view. Also in those additional documents Councillors you

will also see an email if I may at page two from Gillian Portlock. Gillian Portlock

is from the Highways Agency and she was actually supposed to be at that SAG

meeting but couldn't attend. And if you read through that you'll receive her

concerns in relation to the proposed access of the premises and the lack of a

highways plan and its consideration. Now councillors, it's not your

responsibility to consider the highways plan. I'm sure my friend on the other

side will make that point very clear. But it is your point, it is your position to

consider whether the impact of this event with this licence will have a

nuisance impact. Now your policy talks about, and it's not really designed for

these sorts of events, it talks about parking and issues with parking or the

dispersal of cars and the noise that they cause to local people. Those

issues are going to be here. They are going to happen. They're going to happen to

local people and also to the people attending this event. Furthermore, in

relation to safety, you have to seriously consider that if there was an issue, if

If there was an issue that required medical attention, there was a fire, if there was

a crime disorder issue, the access to that site is extremely poor.

Councillors I'd also like you to consider the issue in relation to water.

Now my friend has mentioned, well this is planning and this is this legislation, this

is that legislation.

Well, there are other legislations for a whole host of regulatory requirements, but this

application is not subject to a planning application.

There is no planning consent for this application.

This application is proposed for five days.

Now that's a considerable period of time.

And this is an event that is going to be operating until 4am in the morning.

But, actually, it's not, because actually the applicant has actually applied for provision of DJs 24 hours a day throughout the event period if you look at the application.

Not being many mention of that. And the proposals in relation to the noise management plan stop at 4am.

Councillors, you strongly have to be aware that this application has been badly made, it's in a very bad location.

And given the points made in relation to the previous event, the applicant cannot stand

back from that.

It will do because that's convenient for them to do so.

But we would say that actually you've got to really be conscious of this.

What have you not seen in relation to this application?

Now another point that is of great concern to the local residents is the issue of water.

Now, water comes under all sorts of regulations, but the farm upon which this application is

subject to is actually the location of a local borehole.

Not only does that water supply the local farms, but it also supplies water to 11 houses

in Ashley Village.

Now when that water tank level drops, the water supply to those 11 houses gets cut off.

It quite frequently happens when agricultural work is taking place on the fields.

Now if this borehole is used for supplying the festival, think of what impact that's going to have on those 11 residents.

For five days they have a strong potential that they're going to be without any water.

I would say that's public nuisance in terms of the requirements of the legislation.

Also, councillors, this is in a location with significant provision of livestock.

Now, the definition of public nuisance is an extremely wide one.

In fact, Councillors, if you refer to section 182 in relation to public nuisance,

it states in paragraph 2 .21, public nuisance is given a statutory meaning in many places of legislation.

It is, however, not narrowly defined in the 2003 Act and retains its broad common law meaning.

It may include in appropriate circumstances the reduction of the living and working amenity and environment of other persons living and working in the area of the licenced premises.

Public nuisance may also arise as a result of the adverse effects of artificial light, dust, odour and insects or where it affects or is it prejudicial to health.

Now, councillors, prejudicial to health, if a lack of supply of water because this festival

has taken place, or an ability for this water stream to be polluted, then that clearly is

a public nuisance.

Further, in relation to horses and the air questioning facilities that are provided with

the local area, noise frequency and anything that is out of the normal area, this is a

quiet area normally, but the impact to the provision of horses and there are some significant

stables in that area, that's an impact to people's businesses. Distressed horses, the

requirement for additional care in terms of that livestock is going to be significant.

Councillors, this application is extremely badly made. The neighbouring premises, the

nearest properties within 500 metres of the main first stage. So their ability to exceed

the limits that are agreed are very, very likely. And Councillors, you've heard that

the applicants have referred to the fact that, well, the event that took place at Charlton

Park Farm, well, that statutory nuisance, we're dealing with public nuisance here, which

is a different requirement. Councillors, the impact on public nuisance is significant.

And you really, really have to consider that. The proximity to homes, the proximity to businesses,

and look at the period of time that this event is on for. This application has been made

for a five -day event for an unlimited period for a minimum of 2 ,000 people. Now, I say

minimum 2 ,000 people because the application says ticketed 2 ,000 people, what about those

people who haven't been ticketed? What about the additional staff? We haven't heard anything

from the applicants in terms of the number of staff. I guess it's probably at least another

500 people. But this is a commercial venture. Now, the document I've received this morning

also makes reference to the fact that this event has been run at a loss of 20 ,000 pounds.

That is not something for you to consider, because you are not deciding the commercial

merits of this application, and you should not feel any issue that if this application

was refused, that any tickets have to be refunded.

That is the applicant's problem.

That is not yours.

This is not a gun to be held to your head.

You have to consider this application very carefully on those licencing objectives.

Councillors, the other point that needs to be made is this application is for a licence

that is unending. So the applicant may not spend much on it this year, in fact they might

go into deficit. That also has to raise a query, if they are running into deficit, are

they going to cut costs? Their application, their website refers to a number of volunteer

roles, there's about four key volunteer roles that they're asking for effectively unpaid

members of staff to cover stewarding, to cover events set up and put down, to cover welfare,

and to cover the bar staff.

Now what do these people get?

No ticket but a free entry into the festival?

Who knows?

It's certainly got to be worth considering, Councillors, that this application is really,

Seat 1 - 1:33:59

Seat 43 - 1:34:00

really badly made. Councillors, I would also query whether the

safety advisory group meeting has actually met on the site, because if they met on the

site, we would certainly contend that actually they would have more grave concerns in relation

to this application. But the applicant has been very, very careful not to share too much

information with yourselves or with us. The noise management plan, we've not seen that.

We've not seen the event safety management plan. Now I understand that there may be confidential

information there that is not appropriate for the members of the public to see and that

might be in relation to security, etc. And certainly madam, with your comments in relation

to Martin's law, again, we can take that on board. But a redacted version of that event

management plan could have been shared with a full copy to yourselves, there would be

no issue with that, we have not seen anything. We have absolutely not seen anything. That

is the reason why everybody in the locality is so concerned by this application. An application

in terms of its time is not made up on the weekends, it is an application that has been

made right in the middle of summer. A time of year which has been clearly set out in

Seat 1 - 1:35:16

the representations is a time when students are studying for GCSEs and A levels, there

going to be disruption to sleep inevitably. Mr Roberts, could I urge you to draw your

Seat 43 - 1:35:25

remarks to a close? Certainly sir. Sir, this application has been very poorly made and

I don't think I need to labour the points any further. I think there's been sufficient

there for you to consider. Councillors, we would strongly urge this committee to refuse

Seat 1 - 1:35:43

this application. Thank you very much and thank you again to everybody for your patience

and restraint. There will now be a 10 minute recess for personal comfort needs. During

this time, we as the members may not speak with you. You'll understand why I think. Sorry

about that. I'll try and keep to that 10 minutes, but I appreciate that there may be cues which

caused that 10 minutes to be exceeded.

Very much appreciate everybody's patience and tolerance.

Seat 1 - 1:36:20

There we go.

Thank you very much again for your patience

and for, I was gonna say the very British way

in which people have listened to each other so far.

I apologise first now to Councillor Nicky -Inn

who's the next speaker for keeping you waiting so long. I'm sure most people in

the room are aware of Nicky's unrivalled service to this community as Councillor

part of TETBRI, former Vice Chair and former Chair of this Council and I'm

going to say that I will have to restrict people from now on I think to

maximum of 15 minutes but given that I think most of the speakers are here to

challenge and put that politely I can't imagine it'll be necessary for everybody

Seat 27 - 1:37:23

to speak to for 15 minutes I'll make an exception for Councillor in maybe thank

you chair and thank you for the opportunity this afternoon to speak to

you along with representatives of our my parish councils colleagues and residents

regarding this licencing application.

Firstly, I'd like to say I'm not against music festivals.

We all enjoy them.

However, they do need to be in the right place,

with the right facilities, and the right protections

for the attendees and local residents, human and animal,

who have to live with the event

before, during, and afterwards.

Colleagues, you will have seen in your backing papers

the large number of objections received

relating to this application.

and there are common themes throughout. I will try now to highlight those main

concerns and whilst there is no requirement I do feel that if the

organisers had discussed their plans with the Long Newton Parish Council,

local residents, businesses and neighbouring parishes, some of the

concerns that have been raised this afternoon could have been explained and

maybe worked through before today. And although I can see from the

supplementary papers received only as I arrived here at 1 .15, an hour before this consultation,

there has been some consultation with local organisations and businesses, but that's only

just commenced and that is disappointing. I will continue with my prepared notes as

I have not had the time to readjust them all according to these papers and any additional

information.

After speaking with officers, I understand that there are four main objectives of this

licencing hearing to review and even though I have other concerns, particularly relating

to the impact on protected wildlife within the vicinity, I have been advised that this

is not a licencing matter and cannot be considered or raised here, which I am surprised about

as it could lead to a crime being committed and crime as one of the four main objectives.

I do believe that some of this falls under the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 section 17

Firstly public safety

Highway safety is a real concern for residents as background the site is on rural open agricultural land

accessed by a single lane track which comes from a single lane connecting Long Newton to Crudwell

This lane has already been subject to extensive traffic monitoring reports for previous planning

applications.

The report in 2011 showed that this lane had approximately 900 vehicle movements a day

and is therefore unable to safely accommodate additional traffic.

I understand that 20 to 30 HGBs access the Malport site opposite the proposed festival

site each day and they work six days a week.

This lane has no pavements or street lighting.

Daily movements along this lane include cars, farm vehicles, HGV lorries, pedestrians, dog

walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

There are also concerns regarding access and use of the Fosway which runs near to the site.

The single track in and out access to the site raises real safety concerns with me for

emergency vehicle access and any evacuation of the site which may be

required. And more importantly for you to note that I understand that there is an

emergency route from the site which goes through a gate exiting into a farmland

and over farmland which you have seen pictures of a farmyard and farmland as

this is not a highway this is really a viable access for emergency vehicles

into or out of the site. In addition I understand that some of the access

routes and part of the sites outlined in the plan sit on land which is not in the

ownership of one person. From the supplementary papers issued on Friday

afternoon you will see a signed document which shows that not all landowners have

given permission for their land to be used for this festival site and these

access emergency routes. I would like to know could it be confirmed what the

situation is I understand that the landowners are here and they can confirm

that there has been no permission given and they haven't been approached for

this emergency exits. The likely effects under this part of the

sorry under public safety the look the the likely effects are potential

accidents and vehicles including large farm vehicles, HGVs, pedestrians,

cyclists and horses on a single track lane due to the volume of traffic. As all

attendees will need to travel by vehicle to the site there is no public transport

at all. Potential for the delayed evacuation of the site or any access for

emergency services. The actual effects of this are increased traffic and minimal

passing places. This has the potential to increase the chance of accidents, clog

off, clog at the lane and damage the verges as described earlier by the

applicants they could pull onto the verge. Single lane in and out is not

sufficient to safely evacuate and give access to the site for emergency service

and there's a real question over the availability of all the emergency routes.

This is a real safety concern for everyone involved, that's the residents

and all of those attendees and people working on site.

Relevance to public safety are that the pedestrian,

cyclist and rider safety on this rural single track lane

and the attendees of the festival,

their safety should an emergency happen

and that they require evacuation.

The site sits in the Cotswold National Landscape,

previously the AOMB, and has a number of public rights

of way in close proximity to the site, including the monarch's way, the Fosse way, and public

right of way NAS4, which crosses the main site entrance. I understand from those papers

issued just before this meeting that no rerouting of these routes has been requested and that

access will be maintained. I would be interested to understand exactly how that works. The

Likely effects are the impact on lawful and safe access

for residents to reach near the site,

either no or limited access to route NAS for

if rerouting has not been sought.

The actual effects are that lawful access is withheld

and any access must ensure the safety

of those using those routes.

And the relevance to his objectives

are that the public safety of those using lawful routes.

Water supply to the sites.

I would like to understand how it will be supplied

We've discussed this, we've heard this before.

There is a real public safety and health concern

regarding the local water supply

due to the borehole situation.

The likely effects of that are there's reduced

or no access to water.

The actual effects are that particularly the 11 properties

in Ashley will be unable to undertake daily tasks

and have access to water.

And the relevance to the objectives are that the public

safety of all residents whose property are fed

by this ballhole. Secondly, crime and disorder. I understand that this is where

the protection of the public and residents falls and whilst I'm unaware

of any crime figures for the events previously held at Charlton Park in

Malmsbury, I am aware of the noise abatement order which has been

discussed earlier. There is real concern around late night refreshment being

served until 5 a .m. on all evenings stroke early mornings with alcohol

being served until 2 a .m. on Thursday evening, 4 a .m. on Friday and Saturday

evenings and 11 p .m. on Sunday evening. This is often linked to alcohol fueled

crime and disorder. This is a rural site with the closest local police being

placed 10 miles away in Syrinsester. Will there be additional policing to deal

with the minimum of 2 ,000 attendees? But I understand this licence can go to

4 ,999 people. Martin's law the terrorism protection requires an enhanced tier

comprehensive risk assessment and security plan for this number of

attendees. I would like it confirmed that this has been provided and that all

security staff will be trained accordingly and public protection

measures will be in place for this event. The likely effects under this are that

alcohol -fuelled crime and local police are not going to be nearby. The actual

effects are crime on site could spill out into the villages by late -night

revellers being ejected, although I understand from the applicants they won't be ejecting

people, they will be removing them and driving them somewhere. Time taken for local police

to arrive from Syrinsester or Stride should there be any incidents and the relevance is

the increased crime and disorder in the area and how any additional policing will be supplied.

I remain concerned that the potential for wildlife crimes is unable to be considered

within this application, even though we are aware of protected species in the vicinity.

Thirdly, public nuisance. I understand that the statutory meaning of public nuisance is

contained in much legislation but retains a broad common law meaning. The reduction

of the living and working amenity and environment of other people, sorry, other persons living

and working in the area of the licenced premises. This festival will affect the residents of

Newton, Ashley, Cheglow and Credwell. The nearest home is approximately 500 metres

away and the village is around 1 ,500 metres away. There are approximately 1 ,800

residents but there are also businesses who are cited at Church Farm, Nursery

Farm, Melport, local equine businesses and farms with farm animals. They will all

feel the effect which will last for around two weeks in total with setting

up and taking down. In addition, in June you would expect children and families to be using

their gardens and having windows open and they should not be expected to have this lane

and their villages overrun by this much traffic, people and noise. As previously stated, there

is no public transport which can serve the site and therefore the attendees have to find

their way there by vehicle. This site is not at all sustainable. From a quick internet

search I understand that this is advertised as an immersive independent

UK -based psychedelic trance music festival over multiple stages and

actually many of the tickets are already sold out with noise expected from music

live and recorded taking place until 4 a .m. on three evenings and until

midnight on one evening. This is a public nuisance not only for the residents who

will be trying to sleep but animals and wildlife too. How will the level of

noise be controlled? Well I think we've talked quite a bit about noise so I will

leave that there. But I am absolutely I am concerned I'd like to know did the

Safety Advisory Group visit the site to understand the issues, to understand the

land ownership, to understand exactly what where this licence is asked to be

granted for and how it's going to be managed. I don't believe I don't I'm not

aware that anyone has, but I can stand corrected.

Public nuisance may also arise as a result

of the adverse effect of artificial light.

This site is in the Cotswolds National Landscape

where they state dark skies are a special quality

of the Cotswolds.

How are these dark skies protected?

I reiterate my concerns about the suitability

of site and highways.

Accessing the site, not being sustainable,

no water mains, no pavement, no street lighting,

with the potential of people leaving the site

in the early hours of the morning

where there is no public transport

and all attendees, stall holders, campsite services,

and organisers having to travel by car or vehicle

with the site entrance on a single rural country lane.

We talked earlier about the cycling event,

which the applicants have told us

they will be cleared down by.

Another event which is taking place

on the 11th and 12th of June is the Tepary Hospital

magical gardens where they're expecting 600 people

over two days to visit local gardens to raise money

for the new roof at the hospital.

That's run normally between 10 and 3 .30.

That will be in around this area as well.

The likely effects are that residents

and small rural local businesses will be affected

by increased traffic on lanes.

Residents, animals and wildlife affected by loud music

and artificial light. Late night revellers leaving site or people arriving trying to gain access.

The actual effects are that business owners and users will be unable to access their premises or

possibly residents ability to use their gardens, sleep and keep windows open due to loud music.

People arriving or leaving in cars or on foot in the early hours of the morning. And the relevance

to the objectives are lack of access to businesses, loud music, artificial light and late night

revellers causing a nuisance protection of children.

I believe that consideration needs to be given to the

proximity of the site to schools and youth clubs and locally

Credwell preschool and the children's playing field is

within 1500 metres of the site.

There is also a primary school at Credwell.

The likely effects are that parents transporting children

to school will be required to deal with excess traffic and

pedestrians on this lane with no pavements and sleep disturbance

including children in young people who will be in the middle

of their exam season.

The actual effects are the conflict of road users

on an unsuitable lane and sleep deprivation.

And the relevance to that objective is the impact

on the daily lives of children in the area.

I remain deeply concerned for the safe use of this land,

including if there have been any permissions for use

by landowners for access to this site

for emergency vehicles and for the appropriateness

of this site, both for the residents,

but also for anyone attending.

I am unable currently to see any benefits

for the local residents.

This is not a festival being culturally put on

for the residents of this part of the Cotswolds.

Many thanks for hearing these concerns

and given the problems experienced by our neighbours

last year, should the committee be minded

to approve this application?

Could I respectfully request that this licence

is only issued for one year so that a review

could be undertaking after the event. Thank you again colleagues.

Seat 1 - 1:52:16

Thank you very much indeed Councillor Inge. Councillors I appreciate I don't

yet have a right of reply but there is one matter which has been raised both by

Mr. Robertson by Councillor Inge that I might be able to clarify helpfully at

this point to save us time.

Seat 28 - 1:52:36

Seat 1 - 1:52:37

Let me just see.

I get a nod there.

I'm a bit keen to get a few more speakers.

We're encouraging people not to repeat points already made.

And I don't want to lose track of your response when, whilst we're taking in what the representatives

are about to say.

I have a note here that says Long and Newton Parish were content to be represented by David

Roberts from Knight's and similarly that Ashley Parish were represented by David Roberts'

contribution.

So, turning to the other parish councils, I have got two from Crudwell, which is one

too many, arguably.

Before I go to them, therefore, I would like to take one more.

Thank you so much.

Is that Crudwell?

Seat 43 - 1:53:49

I am

from the Melcourt industries, which is adjacent to the site.

Seat 1 - 1:54:02

Seat 43 - 1:54:03

Seat 1 - 1:54:04

As our next speaker.

I don't think there is any particular reason to do that before any of the others.

It helps me to work through.

Everybody may get a chance.

The one that comes top of the list is two from Crudwell, which is a bit tricky.

So I'd like to take Charles Carpenter representing Broken Brook Parish Council.

Am I correct that Charles Carpenter is here to represent Broken Brook Parish Council?

Yes, I am.

If you'd like to come to a microphone.

Well, I will move no further from your questions.

Sorry.

Seat 1 - 1:54:42

I very much appreciate your generosity there, Mr. Carpenter.

Councillor Carpenter.

Right.

So, now we can look at Broadwell, I think.

So Roy Hamilton -Lamley and Ian Warner, did you both present and both wish to speak?

No, I'll be there too.

So this will be Roy Hamilton Lambley on behalf of Croydon World Parish Council.

If you come to a microphone.

I think we can probably turn any of them on.

You don't have to come too far.

Oh, there it is.

Seat 27 - 1:55:28

Two minutes.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll be mercifully brief.

Our gratefulness to Roberts has covered much of the collateral that I wanted to raise.

I think it's relevant to raise an interesting contrast between this proposed festival and

the festivals on Charlton Park.

In particular, we've had very large, very well organised festivals at Charlton Park.

It has the benefit of being on the A429, it has multiple points of access for some of

festivals there are even traffic lights in place to manage traffic. So the risks of that

are very well recognised. There's nothing of that nature for this first festival. I

personally and my family no longer use Crudwell Lane because the state of it is so poor. It's

quite dangerous to drive on in that if you drive off the road you get in very, very deep

potholes is very badly managed indeed. So it's also pretty unsafe to cycle on for the

same reason. So we have grave concerns. As Parish Council Chairman I have a number of

objections from many of our residents. The site itself is a few yards from our parish

boundary and approximately one mile from the main village. So well within range of the

of the stated volumes, there are reports and some evidence on the web, that is to believe,

that decibel levels of 90 to 110 decibels have been quoted in relation to this festival.

Seat 1 - 1:57:19

So I would urge, Chair, that you reject this application on behalf of Cuddle Cash Council.

Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed. Colleagues, the one other speaker with a green bar against

them saying yes, they are attending and they wish to speak was Nicky Burton. Do we have

Nicky Burton? Then we will turn to the others who put their hands up earlier.

Seat 27 - 1:57:43

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here on behalf of Malcor Industries, which

operate a site in very close proximity to the proposed event location. I am the managing

director. This festival is directly connected via the same access route to ourselves. We

have submitted an objection to the application specifically in relation to public safety

and access to our premises. By way of context, Malcor is a long -established business, manufacturing

horticultural products, with regular deliveries and dispatch of materials using large vehicles.

We are a seasonal business, and the timing of the festival coincides with one of the

busiest operational periods of our business, including weekend working. Our site is located

a short distance from the proposed festival entrance and relies on the same access route.

Our site is an active commercial operation with regular vehicle movements and the use

of heavy plant machinery across what is predominantly an open yard with a number of buildings.

Whilst the site has fencing and gated areas, it is not designed to prevent all forms of

unauthorised access.

In addition, access can be gained on foot from a number of directions, including surrounding

farmland, woodland and nearby public routes, including the Fosse Way Public Right of Way,

which provides direct pedestrian access towards our site.

Given the nature of the proposed event, a multi -day camping festival with late night

activity and alcohol, there is a foreseeable risk that individuals may leave the event

site, particularly at night, and move into surrounding areas, including our own.

This presents a clear public safety concern.

During operational hours, our site involves the movement of heavy machinery and large

vehicles, which would pose a risk to anyone entering the site unintentionally.

Outside of operational hours, unauthorised access still presents safety risks with an

industrial environment in place.

At present, we have not seen sufficient detail as to how off -site movements of attendees

will be managed in practise.

From discussions to date, it is still not clear how responsibility is addressed once

individuals leave the event site, which adds to this concern.

Our site entrance includes an open strip of land which is not gated.

Given the expected volume of vehicles associated with the event, there is a foreseeable risk

that this area could be used informally for parking, turning or waiting.

This would create both safety risks and operational issues,

particularly given the nature of our activities

and the presence of large vehicles accessing our site.

Our access is from the B4014 via Church Lane onto Crudwell Lane,

which is also the proposed main route for the event.

These are narrow rural roads where two -way vehicle movements

is not possible along their full length.

And their safe operation relies

on relatively low traffic volumes.

Our business depends on being able to use this route safely

and reliably, including for larger vehicles.

We are concerned that the additional traffic associated

with the event could lead to situations

where vehicles are unable to pass,

resulting in obstruction or standoffs between vehicles.

This would not only impact our operations,

but also present that presents a public safety concern,

particularly if access is restricted or delayed.

From the information provided,

it's not clear that these risks have been fully assessed

or that sufficient measures are in place.

It's also worth noting that I have met

with one of the festival organisers.

It wasn't Sven, it was another gentleman.

I have not, although it says in the appendix agreed,

I have not agreed to any traffic management.

I listened and I was handed a traffic management plan,

a proposed one subject to change.

Our objection is not about the principle of events

in rural locations,

but about ensuring that this particular proposal

can operate safely alongside an active commercial site

and without compromising safe access.

At present, we do not feel that sufficient detail

has been provided to demonstrate that these risks

have been fully addressed. We would therefore kindly ask that these matters are carefully

considered when determining this application. Thank you.

Seat 1 - 2:02:26

I will ask for a show of hands from those who put their hands up before who haven't

yet been heard. I can see how many can you see? One, two, three, four. I can see five.

We are holding at five. We are going to work our way from left to right. Who is the most

left hand? There we go. Please come to the front and try not to repeat what people have

Seat 27 - 2:03:05

already said. You will need to introduce yourself, press the button and pause briefly. You may

I'm here with my mother and my sister.

We farm very close by.

Like many farms, we've diversified

into various different things,

including equestrian cattle, all sorts of things.

We have had no contact with these guys whatsoever.

We are, we have several businesses.

No one has even spoken to us, approached us, nothing.

And I just don't feel that you can go with an event

in this venue without consulting the local landowners and businesses. They obviously

approached Melcourt but we have had no contact and we employ a lot of people that this will affect.

I just wanted to raise that.

Seat 1 - 2:03:54

Thank you. Next to Lowell.

We'll add the round up.

Seat 1 - 2:04:02

Seat 27 - 2:04:07

It probably helps if you say if relevant you give your address.

I am George Collins, chairman of the Newham parish council. For the record, I did reply

and say I wanted to speak. If I didn't get a green bar, I will be missed. That's OK.

We can move on. Collins. I will not be five minutes. Most of the points have already been

made. I won't reiterate them. The fact that I don't say them doesn't mean I don't agree

with them but we see this as a the no end date is a Trojan horse it's a little

event to have that show they'll be back with a bigger event and we'll be on it

having agreed to something small just a bit like a brownfield site and planning

all of a sudden it becomes open season I feel we're all at a real disadvantage

here there's an event management plan but we can't see it there's a noise

management plan we can't see it they'll say oh it's in the noise management plan

Is it? I have no idea. I will never know because I don't get to see the noise management plan.

What you need to realise is in the Cotswold plateau noise travels differently. I know they

have experts but people in this room will be familiar with the Phoenix festival that was

held in the Abbey grounds. In Kemble the music was loud enough at times that we could sing along with

the songs. The distance from Kemble to this site is similar. Noise travels differently on the plateau.

don't care what the experts say. It's a fact. Just go and talk to the residents.

The other thing I just wanted to say was I work in safeguarding. These guys have totally

misconstrued safeguarding. They say child protection, there will be no children. Fine.

Safeguarding is not children. Safeguarding is children and vulnerable adults. They will

have vulnerable adults on site. It is inevitable because the whole population has vulnerable

people at any one time. There is no provision, no mention, no consideration of how that might

work or even identify people and have safe spaces for them. Nothing.

The last point I wanted to make is you will see in our submission we suggest that refusal

is an option and we quote some examples of where these sorts of applications have been

refused in the past because the details weren't sufficient. Thank you.

Seat 1 - 2:06:35

Okay. Now I was moving to the right. When I asked for hands, you are an extra hand that

didn't put up before are you? I apologise. Well come on then. Please have

Seat 43 - 2:07:01

please have patience with some of us older people. I've never been referred to

as an extra hand before I quite like that. I'm sure my husband will disagree. I just

Seat 1 - 2:07:12

wanted to pick up on something around protected species so... Can you give your name?

Seat 43 - 2:07:15

I'm Dr Thomas, I'm chair of Long Newton Parish Council.

Two things, firstly, as a member, as the chair of the Long Newton Parish Council, we have

had no conversation at all with the applicants.

They have made no attempt to contact us, which I think is quite shocking if I'm brutally

frank.

We'll put that to one side.

We do have a protected species very close to the site.

I know there have been conversations about it before and I've been told, oh, it's nothing

to do with licencing, it is a planning issue.

Can I refer you to section 5 .2 of your document which says how you approach licencing?

In it it says, in addition to the requirements for the council to promote the licencing objectives,

It also has a duty under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 to do all reasonably

can to prevent crime and disorder for the district.

So I've been to the Crime and Disorder Act of 1988.

I refer you to Section 7A and it says, Crime and Disorder in this area, including antisocial

and other behaviour adversely affecting the local environment and environmental issues.

So the protection of bats does come under the Licencing Act and must therefore be included.

As part of that, there are recommendations which a festival organiser should take part

of to ensure that they are not creating a crime under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

of 1981.

First of all, they have to have consulted with ecological bat expert to understand what

the implications are.

They have to provide a bat management plan.

If that does not offer any mitigation to disturbance of the bats, then they have to apply for a

bat licence.

I would also like to point out that it is actually prime breeding season at this point

for the bats.

Therefore, it's really, really important that they are protected.

I can give you the WhatsApp, sorry, the what three words location of it.

I don't want to do that in a public forum because obviously it is a protective species

and anybody disturbing that will be creating a crime.

Seat 1 - 2:09:41

Thank you. Right.

Next, we have.

Seat 27 - 2:09:49

My name is Eloise Stoker and I'm a resident of Tetbury Lane. I'm extremely concerned about

the impact of this festival and I also echo all other objections. For me you frequently

mention the unseen noise management plan for controlled stage environments but how do you

mitigate human noise, playing off loud devices, screaming, shouting, general noise pollution,

which perhaps will actually be, if not as disruptive as the loud bass music. And also,

given the style of music, the music attendees will likely be accustomed to. I can't imagine this is

going to be a relaxing array of classical music coming from their phones. This type of human -led

noise is also going to travel. Additionally I'd just like to say the

attempt to mask the old entity and the new entity is frankly a little insulting

to both residents and the licencing process. Given what we all put up with

last year which was pretty shocking and despite it being almost three miles away

this application does feel like a collection ultimately of lip service

agreements with a suitable level of vagueness to allow for future reduction.

Seat 1 - 2:11:08

Thank you very much indeed, particularly the conciseness.

Over here, and one more beyond you in a minute, perhaps.

Seat 27 - 2:11:27

My name is Chuck Berry, I'm the division member for Mighty which is the division which abuts

Seat 1 - 2:11:36

this proposed entertainment.

Did you give your name sir?

Chuck Berry.

Chuck Berry of course.

Hello Chuck.

Seat 27 - 2:11:44

20 odd years ago we were on the same council.

We all look older now, don't we?

But you look wonderful.

Not withstanding that.

It's interesting that Nikki from Elkhart was here.

I rang Nikki to tell her about the event.

She didn't know about it prior to that.

And then went into investigation mode because clearly there are

some issues there.

But I think the most interesting element is the cunning plan to

charge more for vehicles to stop them from coming.

What that will do ultimately is just like you have in Kemble until,

uh, Gloucestershire, um, yellow line did, is we'll have, uh,

vehicles all the way down the very narrow roads, um,

causing amazing problems because when you're young and fit and dancing,

you can walk a good third, fourth, fifth,

sixth mile to get to the right place. Uh,

particularly if you're going to save 15 quid.

And I think that that's really important. It's just not thought through.

I totally understand and accept that the applicants

did come to Crumbull, did speak to us, did tell us what their timings were, and when we asked them to pull them in a bit,

they did nothing about it.

That's poor from the point of view of consultation in that you should listen to what your nearby neighbours are looking to do.

You should speak to them. You should actively engage with them.

That happens in all planning elements and particularly should happen in a situation like this.

I think if I can be so bold, I think you should refuse the application. Thank you, sir.

Seat 1 - 2:13:26

Thank you very much, Chuck.

Seat 27 - 2:13:37

I am Don Oakley, I am a resident of Ashley, I am not going to repeat any of the points

made earlier just to add some questions and observations. I am familiar with the festival,

I heard it last year, which was two miles further away. The verges are not suitable

for four -wheel drive vehicles which is an observation from a comment made

earlier. I think Cudwell Lane was referred to as the main access however

surrounding routes from Culkerton which go both sides from Ashley and then split

have up to a hundred metres of passing places and would mean any vehicle

including a car would have to reverse a hundred yards in order to let somebody

else pass. You can by all means visit the site and cheque the access roads and you

find that technically a little bit longer. Timing is too long, four or five

in the morning. I'm sported at festivals, I enjoy festivals but that just seems a

step too far. The main points I make at the site is, and I've put them in writing

already, is not fit for that type of festival for a number of reasons that

have been well articulated. We are residents, my wife and I are impacted by

the water. The water is supplied extremely well to Ashley but

effectively it comes through a borehole and if that's impacted in any way that

will result in for the period potentially at the festival for water

not being available to residents and I think that's well documented through the

process. The reason for raising it is not to repeat the point but was to make the

point that if one did liaise with locals one would be aware of that fact already

and I'm surprised it's a surprise to the group that have been made aware of it and it'd be

interesting to see the outcome of the points that were made on the 8th of May by the applicant.

So it's a surprise and these issues wouldn't be a surprise if there was a discussion. I

think that's worth highlighting. I've got a question around the guarding element, if

you like, the applicants referenced SIA licences. Would that be for all security guards or would

that just be for stewards which were points which are quite relevant in that

area. I'd also make the point of training as well for staff in that if they're to

use for traffic then there's another issue and the issues around passing at

verges which got some humour within the group was really just just around is

that viable you obviously don't understand the site and it's concerning

that untrained or potentially less trained professionals are directing traffic. I do

think it's going to be an access issue and I think I would respectfully suggest you revisit

the authorities around the safety of attendees, so both ambulance, fire and policing around

will that not be an issue if it's blocked as a site. Literally any vehicle going down

at two, three in the morning is gonna find it a huge issue,

reversing anywhere.

I've needed to reverse.

I needed to do that at 11 .30 on this Saturday.

And it's really difficult to reverse your car

in those lanes.

It's not easy to access.

And seriously, if you really do value safety aspects,

I would revisit that anyway,

irrespective of your licencing outcome here.

It's very important.

I also think the reference to the cycling

that was made in writing and the events afterwards.

If again, if you went down to that site and saw it,

you'd see the horse riders cyclists that use it on a Sunday

and use that cut through between Monarchs Lane

and the Fosse Way.

I do myself, I run it.

I run it Sunday, but I run it most Sundays.

You'll find within the cycling

that people will come and practise that route.

So it's a long established event in Crudwell,

the Crudwell 24 hour,

and it comes directly past your site and then down those access lanes that I referenced

and you will find those people coming down to practise it.

So it's all very well said, I'm not going to be there, but you need to be aware of what

happens when a lorry, as referenced there, comes across another vehicle and has to stop

and what happens to people around.

Because the verges are not easy there just to drive on.

You need a four -wheel drive to get up them and then you might even break your four -wheel

drive so it's very difficult so I would suggest that you do a bit more work

around that irrespective of the licencing outcome and I remain convinced

that it's the wrong site but if if the committee decides something different I

would seriously suggest that the timeframe till four or five in the

Seat 1 - 2:18:35

morning is just not appropriate for any licencing in this area thank you thank

Thank you very much.

Now, sorry.

You can't say anything until you get to a microphone.

Given the briefness, the brevity with which so many attendees have spoken, which I appreciate,

even though I can see that there is an opportunity under the next two sections for questions

to be asked by ourselves as members and by the applicants.

So we may be here for a little while.

And if you've spoken in public, you need to stay, technically,

until the applicants have had a chance to decide

if they wish to question you back.

Seat 27 - 2:19:20

But, yes, please introduce yourself.

Hello, I'm Judy Pratt.

I own Ashley Marsh Farm,

which is neighbouring onto the festival site.

I own it with my husband and I categorically refuse access, whether pedestrian or vehicular,

to or on our farm.

The roads are not fit for emergency vehicles.

We do not want people wandering through the farm, camping in the fields and the noise

is going to be horrendous. The house is right there, as are the sheds, housing, horses,

and it will be intolerable. And we categorically refuse any access to the farm. There is one

entrance. And it's a narrow entrance, it's an entrance to the farm. As I say, it's just,

it's unfeasible. Okay, thank you very much.

Seat 1 - 2:20:29

Thank you very much. So if I could just continue the point I was making that technically we

could have gone through each speaker followed by any relevant questions from the members

that's us and the applicants if they wanted to. And I think we might have been here even

longer. So it is I think is there a further point that you need to make Mr.

Seat 43 - 2:21:05

Roberts? I hope only one. Sorry, it is only one point. Just to clarify, sorry,

it was just to clarify from Judy Pratt, her statement is in that a supplemental

bundle and just a position Ashley Marsh Farm is literally adjacent to that

Seat 1 - 2:21:24

that and we talk about the exits across that B, C and D point across there.

Thank you for that locational information. It hasn't been agreed. So I believe I'm on

my list, paragraph 7, which is whether my colleagues here on this table wish to ask

any questions of those parties making representations? They are number eight. If you keep quiet,

I keep quiet. Julia, do you wish to ask any questions of the people who have just spoken?

For the people who have just spoken.

Yes, shall I call them the challengers to the application objectives.

Pick any one you like.

I don't think so. I think you've all been incredibly eloquent and passionate

and I don't need to explore that any further.

But also thank you for some illuminating and fresh concerns.

Seat 1 - 2:22:27

Right now, so paragraph eight, I must express my appreciation for the applicants sitting

quietly until now who may indeed wish to ask any relevant questions of those parties making

representations.

And I think that's a very important point, even if you felt that nothing might be gained,

I still feel it's important to stress you have the chance to ask relevant

questions of one or more of those who've spoken in representation making

representations.

Seat 28 - 2:23:21

Um could I just confirm it's right that Ashley Marsh Farm is currently up for sale. It's being advertised on right move in Zoopla

Seat 1 - 2:23:39

That's hardly a question, but I suppose if it is a question

Someone could answer it the question is to relevance is probably a matter for us here

Seat 43 - 2:23:48

Sir

Ashty Marsh farm is currently under sale. Both Mr. and Mrs. Pratt who own the premises

here, Mr. Pratt actually lives in the cottage which is slightly further up but

still very very close to proximity and the prospective purchaser of the

premises is also in this room and also shares the same concerns as everybody

else in this room.

Seat 1 - 2:24:12

Seat 28 - 2:24:23

States to

Seat 1 - 2:24:50

Yes, we've agreed that we've reached paragraph 12.

I appreciate this may not be, if it's not the best sequence, it is what it is.

Paragraph 12 is where I invite the applicants and then invite any parties making representations

to briefly summarise their points if they wish.

I doubt that I'm going to impose any time limit because I think it's important that

everybody is seen and feels they've had, as they say in Australia, a fair go.

Seat 28 - 2:25:32

Thank you.

Councillors, by way of reply, I urge you to remember the statutory test, which is that

if this licence can be granted with appropriate conditions, which in my submission are the

conditions agreed with the relevant public bodies, then it must be granted. There is

clearly a great strength of feeling in this room, but that strength of feeling does not

make your task more complicated, where it does not relate to matters that are not within

your purview. To address what I wanted to raise earlier and what I think might have

made things more simple, that exit which is mentioned, the one which goes across the exit,

the emergency access which is mentioned, which goes across Ms Pratt's land, that's in relation

to an old plan. We don't seek to use that path. It is private land and we don't...

Ms Pratt's statement was received on Friday.

I understand she wasn't aware of this consultation until that point because she's been away.

I make no criticism of that.

Seat 1 - 2:26:49

Let's just see if I understand this and let's not get too buried.

The applicants are making it clear they have no plan to use the path across Mrs Pratt's

Is that correct?

Yes.

We are not going to use that.

If I describe the farm correctly, that is your position?

Yes.

Okay.

No, it is not appropriate at this stage for anybody to make a response, I think, to that

response because I will get confused.

Would you like to make any other points at this stage?

Yes, I would.

So the access for emergency vehicles is going to be obviously the entrance as I said earlier

Seat 28 - 2:27:36

through the main entrance through Crudwell Lane there is going to be throughout the entire

site a path of at least five metres left to clear which will be the intended route for

emergency vehicles through the entirety of the site.

So, we have dealt with that.

We don't need to use anybody's private land.

The proposed traffic management plan suggests directional flow of traffic, so ingress from

the south east, exit to the west.

And so emergency vehicles are not going to be passing.

they'll be able to access from the best route either way.

In relation to wildlife, the applicant's position remains that that is not a matter for licencing.

Wildlife is well understood to be within the purview of planning, and the fact that there

exists a range of wildlife -related crimes, and the absence of any evidence that those

crimes would be more likely to be committed cannot bring the protection of wildlife within

your purview. There have been a number of attempts, I would say, to bring matters that

are outside your purview into this hearing through the back door. But what remains, the

only questions are the promotion of the licencing objectives, whether the festival is financially

viable, which of course we say it is, isn't a matter you need to consider. Wildlife concerns

is not a matter you need to consider.

The highways are a planning matter

they're not a matter you need to consider.

In relation to water,

as I said, we are in conversations regarding water.

There is no intention to drain the borehole, of course not.

That would be a public nuisance.

There are alternative means of water supply

which are being explored such as water tankers

to create an entirely separate and private

supply of water for the festival.

And I appreciate, of course, how frustrating it must be for the individuals who feel so

strongly to not have access to the event management plan and the noise management plan.

Those documents are firstly commercially sensitive, particularly the noise management plan.

A great deal of expense was put into contracting Sustainable Festivals Limited, the company

responsible for that plan and Mr Selkirk, the acoustic expert, to produce a noise management

plan, that document can't be in the public domain because that is their business, producing

these plans.

The event management plan cannot be in the public domain because it sets out entirely

exactly what the security arrangements of this festival are going to be and there would

be clear security concerns if that information were public.

and it is normal, it is not cloak and dagger,

it is not smoke and mirrors for documents like these

to not be within the public domain.

That is unfortunately how these hearings

often have to be conducted.

What you do have is the lack of objection

from any responsible body, including the police,

including environmental health, including the noise team,

all of whom have seen these documents

and none of whom have lodged any objections with you.

There have been active discussions with all of these bodies.

As I say, the police had questions.

They were addressed by way of the search and seizure policy.

Environmental health had questions.

They were addressed by way of an updated noise management plan.

So in reaching the agreed conditions that we propose this licence should be granted

subject to, these bodies have done their job.

They've given anxious scrutiny to what the applicant has put in front of them.

And what you're being invited to do is essentially undermine the conclusions made by the research

responsible bodies because you don't have access to the

information they had.

And I say that's backwards.

You need to trust that those bodies have done their jobs

properly, particularly the police who will be eminently

concerned about crime and disorder,

and being local police will have had regard to the special nature

of the Cotswolds in doing so.

Of course, the council noise team,

who have with whom we've agreed conditions that are lower than

the standard code of practise in deference to the special nature

of the Cotswolds again.

These bodies have done their jobs responsibly and they have

lodged no objections.

And so the conditions that are being proposed,

the agreed conditions with everybody,

a licence subject to those conditions promotes the four

licencing objectives.

It doesn't interfere with them.

I'm just going to cheque whether there was anything else Mr.

Matterswish needs to say to you.

We would also be willing to, in relation to traffic, we anticipate there will be at most

five to 600 additional cars on this road.

That's taking an industry standard of 2 .5 visitors per car.

With a slight reduction on ticket numbers to account for the fact that we will be running

the shuttle service from Campbell. This is a road which has 900 visit car journeys per

day already and entry is going to be staggered because this festival runs Thursday to Monday.

There will be people who come Thursday night, there will be people who come Friday morning,

there will be people who won't take time off work and will come Friday evening. So the

applicants expect three distinct periods of peak traffic. Taking that number of perhaps

five to six hundred cars on a road which has nine hundred journeys per day anyway, that

is not a significant percentage increase in use at any given time. And so there's not

going to be, as has been suggested in the worst case scenarios, I believe, two thousand

cars on this road. That's just not going to happen. Similarly, when it comes to leaving,

the festival finishes early, the licence requests an early finish on the Monday, but some people

are going to be returning to work on Monday and so there will be a staggered egress Sunday

evening and in dribs and drabs over the Monday. And so again it's not going to be a significant

peak compared to what this road already experiences. We would be happy to offer as an additional

licence condition if necessary that we are required for the week before and after the

festival where HGVs might be going down this road to provide our schedule in advance to

Melkor Industries and agree with them when different vehicles will be going down because

of course it's important that we avoid any clash of two large vehicles on this road.

That's an additional condition that we could offer and work out. Otherwise I think that's

Seat 1 - 2:34:31

all from me.

Thank you very much. Now I'm sure that Mr Roberts is next, he's nodding, but I thought

I might, because my colleagues have been very restrained in asking questions, how about

from up here. But I do have a question for you, if I may. And it's not ‑‑ I think

it would be helpful. In other circumstances, would you have chosen to apply and reach this

stage slightly more than a month before the start of the festival and is there any particular

reason you can share with us why this is relatively short notice if I can put it politely.

Seat 28 - 2:35:29

So I understand that because as I say this is a new operating company and new ownership

acquisition of the brand itself, of the Experience Festival brand took some time.

So because this is a completely new festival owner, a completely new

operating company, they bought this brand. It's a label, it's nothing more, but that

acquisition took some time.

Seat 1 - 2:35:56

Thank you very much. Mr Roberts, you've waited for a bit and I think this is not

Seat 43 - 2:36:08

Summing up, this is any parties making representations to briefly summarise their points if they

wish.

Thank you, sir.

I will do it briefly and I do wish.

Councillors, please when you are deliberating on this application, just sit back and as

I am sure you will, try and work out actually what is being proposed here.

We have had shifting sounds all the way through this application.

We have an applicant who, whether they were changing businesses or what, have had a festival at one location,

and you'll see the letter from Charlton Park Farm that we've disclosed to you in that bundle,

where they've said we're not having them back again because of the issues of noise.

We have an application which includes references to policies and procedures which they've not been willing to share with you, the committee,

the three individuals who have been asked to consider this application.

We've now got an event licence plan.

This is a licence plan.

This will be, if you were to grant this application, sorry, picked up the wrong one there, but

those plans which show an emergency access were submitted with the application for you

to enable you to determine this application.

We say that again because a suggestion has been made that the applicant doesn't agree with,

they've changed their minds again. They've moved the emergency exit somewhere else because there's no agreement for that one.

It's all confusing and confuddled, this whole entire application, because actually it's been made, as you've actually indicated, sir, as a rush job.

A rush job to sell tickets.

I remember I didn't do the work.

No, you didn't, sir, but the indication being that this application should have been made

much earlier with much better consultation with the parties.

Councillors, you are the individuals who have to consider this application and, yes, indeed,

within your licencing framework, but the suggestions from the applicants here are that there are

a number of issues here that you can't consider because they are outside the remit of your

decision -making power.

We would actually very strongly suggest that these are within your position.

The legislation under the licencing Act 2003 is very clear in terms of the licencing objectives.

I think in this room there has been significant demonstration.

There is not just supposition that some of these issues are going to happen.

Strong evidence that actually this application, if granted in this location, is just totally

unsuitable.

And we'll see a situation where if it was to be granted, that it's likely that an application

for a review would follow very shortly after this event.

Councillors, we would strongly ask you to refuse this application.

It's been poorly made, very limited suggestions in terms of additional conditions.

And whilst the responsible authorities have considered this application, this is for you

to determine the application,

not because the police haven't made

any further representations or environmental health.

It is for you using your local knowledge

and the evidence that you heard before you today.

Councillors, this application,

this application should take into account

the changes that have been made all the way through.

We don't even know whether the Safety Advisory Group

is actually met on site.

The site is totally unsuitable.

It's currently planted with wheat.

We know it was a Teams call, they haven't entered the site.

We understand actually that the Safety Advisory Group met on Teams rather than actually attending

on site.

The site is totally unsuitable and I think if you saw it, you would have your concerns

as well.

It's ploughed to eat and if that's cut up and there's significant rain, then the field

is just going to flood to mush.

Councillors, this application has been poorly made and you should take into account the

changes that have been made, the fact that we don't know whether highways have agreed

these sudden changes to emergency access routes, we don't know.

But you have also seen the evidence that's been provided from highways that they have

concerns with the proposals that have been made.

Councillors we will actually ask you to seriously consider refusing this application and you

do have the power to do that.

Seat 1 - 2:40:36

Right. Now, I suspect that our focus here on making certain everybody had their say

in a careful and considered and structured order means that possibly this panel hasn't

asked all the questions it might have done. And I've been advised that that's the case

by my colleagues. So I don't think there's anything wrong with giving panel members a

chance to ask questions as we get very close to the end of proceedings as far as this part

of the proceedings is concerned. The final bit, we retire, we think about it, I'm not

certain we'll be finished by six, I'll put it like that, as our consideration being a

rare type of application. But who wants to ask? Was it you, Julia?

Seat 3 - 2:41:33

Michael. It's actually a point of clarification for

you, Kevin, please. Page 17, the application. Vehicle access to

the site is filed credibly. The site perimeter is enclosed by temporary fencing for the duration

of the event with designated access, egress and emergency access points.

It's the last three words, emergency access points.

Now learnt a few minutes ago that in fact the previous application for emergency access,

that's been rejected and withdrawn.

What is the status of the application by the applicant?

Seat 25 - 2:42:30

As part of the licencing application, the licencing application will be for the licenseable

activities and the plans will be showing a boundary line as to where those licence activities

will need to take place. So

those additional plans with regards to the emergency exits and what have you, that's

what will then be provided with the consultees to determine as to whether they're suitable

going forward. So from a licencing perspective, it's a boundary as to which the licencing

activities must be contained within.

Seat 3 - 2:43:04

We've just been told, really just been told in the last few minutes that the emergency

access points are not as previously proposed.

Seat 25 - 2:43:14

It's an application for the licence of activity and those responsible authorities and other

departments would then be assessing them.

Seat 43 - 2:43:29

Seat 1 - 2:43:31

Sir, if I could draw an analogy.

Hang on, wait until I call you. Thank you very much. I'm grateful to our officer for

clarification. We do expect to see on an application of this sort some indication

of an emergency access point. It does seem to be, to use that dreadful word, some

dubiety about where it's located. Emergency access point, I think in the

view of the three of us, is pretty closely related to public safety and I

don't think is purely an issue of planning or highways. Is there a way in

which we can fairly and quickly and properly establish what the new the

Seat 25 - 2:44:25

replacement emergency access point is or are you clear yourself what it is? I

think it'd be a difficult thing to definitely determine at this point

because those responsible authorities who would normally be consulted with

during that period might not part onto the position to review that. It might be

something that legal is able to advise with during the decision process as to

whether it's adequate information for you to be able to make a decision on but

the people who would have been referring to that information aren't here to be

Seat 1 - 2:44:56

able to ask about that or to clarify their post on it. Well if it's a problem

that we've got to sort out for ourselves that'll be where it is perhaps although

it's going a bit against the grain. I can invite the applicant, not the grain, going

against the proper procedure you could say, but in terms of fair procedure I

think the applicants can be invited to tell us where the whether they have an

Seat 28 - 2:45:24

identified and confirmed and agreed replacement emergency access point and

whether we can find it on a map. Councillor we absolutely do again I

appreciate how frustrating this is, but it is part of the event management plan.

I have permission and would be willing, although I appreciate it's

perhaps unconventional, to show that page of the event management plan to anybody

who cares to look, but verbally I can confirm it's about a hundred metres down

from the main entrance to the site on the Fossey Way, the other side of the car

park that's going to be just off the main entrance.

Seat 1 - 2:46:02

Sir, could I...

Let's be patient.

And to be very clear, that entrance belongs to the site landowner.

So the emergency access gate belongs to the site landowner.

We have absolute permission to use it.

And as I say, there is a map in the plan, which I would be very happy to show to yourselves

and to anyone else who cares to look.

I think that is the main access.

is the interest point, is it on page 52? That is the main point. I won't get that confused.

Seat 28 - 2:47:09

When one looks at the plans which are in the document, the original plans, of course one

has the main entrance here, which is where Credwell Lane you can turn left to go up.

If one continues along to the right hand corner of the field, which is light green below the forest area,

Seat 1 - 2:47:33

that is going to be the other access point there. There is a five bar gate there, which as I say belongs to the landowner.

It's not the one we had a photograph of, the five bar gate.

Seat 28 - 2:47:39

No, that is Miss Pat's land.

Seat 1 - 2:47:41

Hang on, come on, this has got to go through proper procedure, late though it is.

I just wanted to confirm, is that actually just across a field rather than across a track?

Because I can't see a track on the map.

I just wanted to confirm.

There's a five bar gate.

Seat 43 - 2:47:58

What there is leading to the five bar gate?

It's a field.

It's into a field.

Seat 28 - 2:48:08

Kevin, what's that?

So it's a double five bar gate at that point.

There's a track which goes up into the landowner's land from that point.

Seat 1 - 2:48:21

It's what I'm instructed from the representative from the landowner who's here.

I appreciate that information and

I don't think we've been told this is elevated land, isn't it?

Yeah, fairly elevated.

So that's just a noise.

We're not in a dip, are we?

Well, it's marsh.

Seat 43 - 2:48:42

Seat 1 - 2:48:44

We can't start our consideration like this. We have to complete the public session.

I am sorry if I have caused a bit of chaos there. Mr Roberts has put his hand up a few

Seat 43 - 2:49:03

times. If I ask you, I will have to ask them.

but go on. Sir, the question's been asked about the plan and the change to the plan

made in the application. If I can draw an analogy, if the applicants had applied

for a pub and the plan shows the location of a fire exit as is required

by the plan regulations and that fire exit was to move, they'd be required to

make an application for a variation of the licence for the amended plans and I

proper consultation those plans need to be circulated and we're in a situation

Seat 1 - 2:49:41

where the applicants oh no it's not it's here. Mr Roberts thank you. Okay this is

not planning this is licencing. I'm not saying whether I obviously not

prejudging this issue but as I see it this is my view my colleagues may not

share it a problem was presented to the applicants perhaps not many days ago

ago, maybe not many weeks ago, the problem was the issue of consent for emergency access.

They have stated clearly, openly, repeatedly that they found an answer to that problem.

Given that time scale is short when we started, I don't think it's a particularly material

consideration under licencing rules to say that there should be criticism made because

a problem at a late stage has been solved or is stated to have been solved. A consent

for an emergency access has been obtained and at least there is a big gate there that

you can open. And as far as I'm concerned, I've been to festivals where that's almost

what you get, not much more.

Can I have one more?

Well I really don't think...

Because I own that emergency...

The one they're not going to use, yes.

Because they're not going to use.

Yes, so that's been, I'm sorry, madam. I really am sorry because I appreciate you've come

here, your mobility issues. I have to say of all the hundreds of, literally over a hundred

representations and 200 pages, I consider that that particular issue is dealt with,

whether satisfactorily or not, it's clear to the panel that your permission has been

refused.

I wasn't sure if Ashleigh mentioned that. I was going to say there's only one entrance to Ashleigh Marsh Farm.

The other entrance that was...

Seat 1 - 2:51:35

Seat 1 - 2:51:38

...one entrance to Ashleigh Marsh Farm.

I'm sorry if I spoke confusingly. We're not using Ashleigh Marsh Farm.

Seat 28 - 2:51:46

There are two entries to the festival ground and those are the...

Seat 1 - 2:51:51

Okay. Now, I really feel it's out of order for me to take any more points at this stage

because points should have been made. A representative of many of the objectives, though not all,

has had a few chances. However, given that it's not yet midnight, I see two hands who

who are going to promise me if they come forward, who really can assure me that this is a new

question or a new point or a new answer. That's three options you've got. Which one is it

please you on the right. New question, new point, new answer. Really? A new one? Okay,

Seat 1 - 2:52:37

Seat 27 - 2:52:40

come forward. Sorry if I sound impatient. I'd just like to ask the applicants how they

Seat 1 - 2:52:49

Seat 28 - 2:52:51

are going to stage a festival in a field of wheat. Right, that's a simple one. That's

a question for the landowner. The landowner owns this field and he's given

permission to the applicant. It's not a matter of public concern what the

Seat 1 - 2:53:01

landowner does with his land. That's the answer, thank you. Was there another

question? This is definitely the last question from the public so I am really

impressed with you all. The wheat will also be cut early are my instructions

from the landowner. To be honest the landowners land is his land and what he

does or she does or they do with their wheat is their right.

Seat 27 - 2:53:26

Hello Roger Cartwright could I just ask for you to clarify what is this one -way

route that you've been mentioning about traffic. You're mentioning coming in from the southeast

and going out of the west?

Seat 28 - 2:53:48

Yes, absolutely. So, it might help if I use the map that we all have, which is this one.

On Ingress there is going to be a CSCS accredited traffic warden, traffic steward

directing festival traffic to only come into the festival from over here from

this side. They're going to go down Crudwell, turn left up into the festival grounds.

Is that not right?

That's not the way it's happening.

Yes, yes.

We're not using the credible side, that's the whole point.

Can I just explain?

Sure.

Seat 30 - 2:54:45

If I can just introduce myself.

My name is Jason Carruthers.

I am the land ambassador for the landowner.

Essentially, essentially.

I know the landowner and I'm the person that introduced this this potential

festival into this land okay so the plan we have for the traffic flow is as

follows all traffic will come and it will be directed whether they come from

the south there'll be signs that the Aldi Marmsby roundabout to come from

to Malmesbury, so I'm right into Long Newington and then right down Croydwell Lane.

We'll have stewards on the Long Newington entrance,

Tepe and Malmesbury Road. We'll have a steward on the Croydwell Lane.

We'll also have stewards on the A449, which is the Kemble Malmesbury Road.

If Festival traffic tries to enter from that side, there will be a steward at the end of Croydwell Lane.

which was quite clearly pointed out to me in the parish council meeting that we

can't use that as as an entrance or exit due to the fact it's a single lane on

the Wiltshire side and full of potholes.

Okay there will also be stewards on the entrance to Rommel Lane, just

just passed the entrance to the sign of Cradle Village.

So that is along with 63 lorry movement today from Mountaw along the same line and we will

Seat 1 - 2:56:29

leave all traffic that way not through any other way.

Lord, please, thank you. I did hear that though. Thank you for raising your question, sir.

I think it may have been answered.

Seat 27 - 2:56:43

Sorry, no, it hasn't answered because there is no one -way traffic flow in that case.

In that case, it's two -way all the time because you're not sending any traffic through Crokewell, as you've just said.

So it will all be going via Longmoorton, so you have a two -way traffic flow the whole time.

So what you've said, what you've been saying in this meeting is false about the traffic flow.

You've predicated it all on the safety means that there's a one -way traffic flow

Seat 1 - 2:57:16

and now you're just saying that is not actually going to happen.

Thank you. I think you've made a point that everybody can understand.

Certainly I'm sure the applicants can understand it.

Do you wish to respond now or?

Seat 30 - 2:57:32

Just in relation to the movement of Melcourt traffic, okay?

On the site build and the pack down, you know, a few days before and after the actual main

at the time of the festival.

We will coordinate the vehicles that bring the equipment,

which could be larger vehicles,

anything from HDVs, seven tonne,

vehicles with trailers, et cetera, after 6 p .m.

Because Melcourt have told me that they operate

from 0600 to 1800 only with their HDVs.

I also, in my meeting with Melcourt,

There was a suggestion that we could coordinate with the transport manager as to, obviously,

they have a way that...

There was a suggestion that you were told categorically that we do not have planned

or done...

No, no, no, I understand that, Nikki, I understand that.

Sorry.

To me it's all about coordination at the time.

Between our accredited traffic marshals, the particular stewards at the points of walkie

talkies, you know, mill courts don't have, they get, I think you get informed at the

last minute that vehicles are coming.

We use a call ahead system.

Yeah, okay.

So there is, we should be able to plan between ourselves.

I'm not a convert.

No, no, no, no, no, I understand that.

This is not going to work, is it?

Come on.

I think we'll have to, we'll have to go over this point briefly.

Okay.

Seat 1 - 2:59:34

In a structured way, otherwise we're never going to get out of here.

I think I understand what you're saying,

but you can't be heard, Nicky, because you're not on a mic.

So let's see if you can make a clear statement summarising what

you've said maybe in three minutes,

and we'll put a timer on.

Thank you very much.

The timer's there.

And then if Nicky can reply in three minutes,

and we might get to the next stage of business.

But I appreciate everybody's patience,

Seat 30 - 3:00:04

and I'm grateful for the points being made.

Okay. Just I did give Mel a summary of the dates we would be active in the area. Due

to the amount of vehicles arriving with equipment, with the amount of crew arriving on the day,

starting from I think it was Friday the 6th of June.

The first equipment arrives, there's about 10 crew on site over the weekend,

and then we slowly introduce more crew and more equipment Monday, Tuesday.

So that's the bulk of the HGV movement.

Okay

Obviously certain crew members will have caravans and and slightly larger vehicles

But we will try and basically pull them in after 6 p .m. The milk off stop -stop operations

to ease the traffic flow and my point is if we have stewards of the relevant points

You know if an HTV suddenly appears we can we can stop the traffic flow coming out of the festival

through walkie -talkie. We can stop it. Yes, there might be a few vehicles on the lane,

but we can stop it. We will have a marshal on the Technic Marsh road, at the top of the

lane and on the site. That particular distance is less than one mile. So it is possible to

stop the traffic on site if bigger vehicles are seen that are not part of our operation.

That's my point.

Seat 1 - 3:01:49

Seat 30 - 3:01:50

Can I clarify one other point? The emergency access point that we are talking about, you

have the site entrance around the corner, goes to Crudwell and you have the Fosway running

up the landowner's fields. 100 metres or less than 100 yards, there are two fire bar gates

that we'll be using for emergency access.

Seat 51 - 3:02:25

Can you hear me? Excellent. I just want to make a point.

Obviously, Malcorp is a strong user of the lanes. We are a responsible business.

we do have a call ahead system for our lorry vehicle movements to avoid lorries

meeting on the lane. The other point I want to make is yes there was a

discussion around the fact that we operate between six and six. However this

doesn't take into effect other businesses that operate in the area

including Church Farm, who have vehicle movements from horticultural to farm

vehicles. So there are other people and other businesses that are using

these lanes. Yes, Melcourt uses the lane. Yes, we manage the lane. But at the end of

the day, we're not the only business in that vicinity that needs the access.

So that's basically what I'm also a point to make with the water and the

tankers you know a mention of the not using the borehole tankers again big

Seat 1 - 3:03:39

vehicles another thing that's going to have to be managed. That's all thank you.

I appreciate your brevity, appreciate everybody's patience. I think I'm going

to cheque that I can now close the public part of the meeting. Is that what we are doing?

Let's have a look. Can I really finally ascertain, guess which way I want you to vote on this,

not vote, speak. No, not speak. All parties are satisfied they have said all they wish

to say. Thank you very much indeed. The committee will now retire, is that right?

Yes. I have a nod there. To debate the application

and make our decision. Given the factors and the type and time, I don't think it will be

a short time before we're finished. I really don't. So if you have got somewhere better

to be, safe journey. Thank you very much. Everybody's presence and contribution today

is a really important part of proper community governance. Thank you.

Seat 1 - 3:05:15

In arriving at their decision, the subcommittee took into account the requirements to promote

the four licencing objectives.

The subcommittee also took into account relevant representations from parish councils and local

residents. In addition, the subcommittee also had regard to the statutory guidance under

section 182 of the Licencing Act 2003 and the Authority Statement of Licencing Policy.

Taking all of these things into account, the subcommittee decided to grant the premises

is licenced for one year only for the activities and days sought for the following hours. For

the provision of plays and of dance, for the hours sought but without any music between

the hours of 0200 hours and 1100 hours on all days. For the provision of films, live

music, recorded music and anything of a similar description to regulated entertainment to

be restricted to the hours of 1100 hours on Thursday to 0200 hours Friday, 1100 hours

Friday to low to under hour Saturday and as sought on Sunday. I confirm that this is for

one year. Experience and lessons learned will of course be considered in the context of

any future application. For clarity, I think this is, is this detail, I think is part of

it. For the provision of plays and performance of dance, for the hours sought but with no

amplified music between the hours of 2 o 'clock and 11 o 'clock on all days. For the provision

provision of films and of anything of a similar description to regulated entertainment.

Ten o 'clock Thursday to 0200 hours Friday, 11 o 'clock Friday to 2 o 'clock Saturday, 11

o 'clock Saturday to 0200 hours Sunday, 11 o 'clock Sunday to 0200 hours Monday and 11

o 'clock to 1600 hours on Monday. For the provision of live music and of recorded music. 1400

hours Thursday to 0200 hours Friday, 11 o 'clock Friday to 0200 hours Saturday, 11 o 'clock

Saturday to 0200 hours Sunday and 11 o 'clock Sunday to 2300 hours Sunday. For the provision

of late night refreshment days and hours as sought. For the supply by retail of alcohol

Thursday 1400 hours to 0200 hours. Friday 1100 hours to 0200 hours. Saturday 1100 hours

to 0200 hours. Sunday 1100 hours to 2300 hours as sought. It's my understanding that this

will be formally published within the required,

the necessary, the maximum number of days allowed,

which is five days.

And that's the end of the formal announcement,

and can I express my genuine and considerable appreciation

of everybody's efforts with regard to this application.

Thank you.

Seat 24 - 3:09:20

Just to remind everybody that obviously there is a right of appeal, so you will have 21

days to appeal any decision from the date of the notification.

Seat 24 - 3:09:44

The other notification that hasn't been made as well is that to make members of public aware that if there are any complaints on this following this application and this event, these will obviously be taken into account in any future possible applications because it is going to be the same site, the same applicant, the same owner. So they will obviously be taken into account for any further applications.

Seat 28 - 3:10:26

can't get to immediately.

the earlier closing times to music to presumably avoid nighttime disruption

whether the music could start earlier in the day. As I understand artists have

already been booked for set periods of time. So for example if an artist has

been booked for three hours they may still perform for three hours but

finishing earlier. So a 10 a .m. start for music is what would be sought.

Seat 1 - 3:11:20

I don't think that our attention was drawn or we didn't consider any alteration to start

times because we had not thought of that particular consideration.

I apologise for that.

I would have to seek some advice from our professional colleagues to see if there is

Seat 28 - 3:11:55

any way that we could deal with it.

Thank you.

Seat 1 - 3:12:08

Legal advice suggests that because I haven't closed the meeting, I may not have completed

the decision.

Seat 1 - 3:12:35

Seat 1 - 3:12:36

Thank you.

The committee is content to, with regard, I think we understand this is to do with the provision of live music.

Live and recorded because artists will be playing recorded music.

For example, a DJ might have been booked to play recorded music.

live music and of recorded music. We are content that Friday, Saturday and Sunday

could start at 10. I'm pretty certain I'm willing to start earlier than that.

I'm very grateful thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much.

Seat 1 - 3:13:21

In particular thanks to our colleagues, local residents and their representative

for staying as well.

Please provide any feedback/comments relating to the live webcast here. Any feedback submitted will be received to the Democratic Services team.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Cotswold District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Licensing Sub-Committee (Licensing Act 2003 Matters) - Monday 11 May 2026, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Licensing Sub-Committee (Licensing Act 2003 Matters)Monday, 11th May 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Seat 24 - 0:00:03

Seat 1 - 0:00:53

Seat 1 - 0:05:20

Seat 24 - 0:09:30

Seat 1 - 0:09:59

Seat 1 - 0:10:06

Seat 25 - 0:10:34

Seat 1 - 0:12:53

Seat 40 - 0:13:11

Seat 41 - 0:13:20

Seat 23 - 0:13:30

Seat 1 - 0:13:43

Seat 8 - 0:14:06

Seat 1 - 0:14:23

Seat 25 - 0:14:29

Seat 8 - 0:17:02

Seat 1 - 0:17:13

Seat 25 - 0:17:45

Seat 1 - 0:17:50

Seat 1 - 0:18:00

Seat 8 - 0:18:02

Seat 25 - 0:18:35

Seat 8 - 0:20:50

Seat 25 - 0:21:42

Seat 8 - 0:22:28

Seat 25 - 0:22:55

Seat 8 - 0:23:08

Seat 25 - 0:23:31

Seat 8 - 0:23:45

Seat 1 - 0:23:50

Seat 25 - 0:24:06

Seat 28 - 0:24:18

Seat 1 - 0:25:03

Seat 28 - 0:25:08

Seat 1 - 0:25:19

Seat 1 - 0:25:22

Seat 28 - 0:25:43

Seat 1 - 0:34:53

Seat 28 - 0:36:15

Seat 1 - 0:47:28

Seat 24 - 0:49:00

Seat 1 - 0:49:11

Seat 43 - 0:50:16

Seat 1 - 0:50:46

Seat 24 - 0:50:54

Seat 1 - 0:51:25

Seat 8 - 0:51:28

Seat 43 - 0:51:39

Seat 8 - 0:51:59

Seat 1 - 0:52:22

Seat 28 - 0:52:54

Seat 1 - 0:53:01

Seat 24 - 0:53:26

Seat 1 - 0:53:59

Seat 1 - 0:54:11

Seat 8 - 0:54:58

Seat 1 - 0:55:05

Seat 8 - 0:55:06

Seat 1 - 0:56:17

Seat 8 - 0:56:28

Seat 8 - 0:56:45

Seat 8 - 0:58:55

Seat 8 - 0:59:29

Seat 8 - 0:59:46

Seat 8 - 1:00:43

Seat 8 - 1:00:57

Seat 8 - 1:01:34

Seat 8 - 1:01:40

Licensing Sub-Committee (Licensing Act 2003 Matters)
Monday, 11th May 2026 at 2:00pm