You need to also watch out for conditions in terms of when, say, event equipment such as stages are delivered. I understand one of the problems living near Bernie Spain Gardens is that the equipment for the Thames Festival would arrive about 5am, then an all deay event , and then in the early hours it was packed up and lorries arrived to take it away.
You need proper provision for policing. (There are a number of examples of events in South London Parks which have come close to getting out of hand.) Plus someone needs to clear up the litter. Ideally though not dumping cans and bottles into metal containers at 4.00am - which was the worst point about living opposite a venue with a 3.00am licence. Ideally some plan to get people to move on after the event has finished, and so on.
the con meeting (not my words - it's the name of the invitation .doc) today went well with a frank exchange of views.
it may be that the applicant will return to the licensing hearing, 4 may 10am at peckham town hall before three councillors, with some restrictions on use both the number of events, the number with alcohol and limiting affected areas in park.
as soon as i have something in writing or from the hearing i will relate.
I received Southwark's package of info ahead of Friday's Licensing Committee meeting to determine the matter. The new info was the 10 letters of objection from local residents which I thought were rather impressive. It does occur to me that if the Leader of Southwark Council is on the board of Potters Fields Trust, how is that not a conflict of interest?
Nothing really wrong about Council Leaders being on Boards. However the Committee must declare interests. You as an objector might seek to onfirm that the Committee will not be influenced by the Leaders position.
It is important that peope turn up and that at least one person is able to articulate reasonable views and concerns. The Committee if it is half-way competent (and no reason why it should not be) will want to achieve a Balance between diferent interests. So you might argue for limits and conditions in order to protect residents, who after all learnt the hard way with Blaine. Suggest they are, in the first instance, conservative, as if it all goes well residents are unlikely to object to subsequent lifting of restrictions.
It is a real objective of urban policy to encourage people to live in central London. But to achieve this Central London needs to be liveable.
I have not got my passwords sorted out, so have different personas in the office and at home. Today has been really odd as our office is very very warm and muggy, and so easy to be distracted by shags.
But it is brilliant.
Would they let you show these images at the Committee?
The 25 a year sounds alright till you see that it is a maximum of 12 a month. In reality you might end up with 3 late and 3 not so late events a week during June and July. Double whammy as late night events have the biggest impact on residents duing the summer months when they have windows open. One night without sleep is bad. Two in a row is much worse.
Also lots of devil is in the detail. Amount and timing of street cleaning. Parking. Equipment etc.
Given Blaine, where the Council got it very wrong, you might argue for a six month trial period (during summer) which would help both Council and residents identify what the problems are, and how best a long term licence might be qualified to ensure maximum benefits and minimum inconvenience for both operator and residents.
You dont like Nicks, Daves and Tonys. What about Tims? I assume Sarahs are OK.