Newport Parish Council...Monday 9th January 2012 Agenda Item No.6.

Planning & Licensing Committee Report by Assistant Clerk on response to Isle of Wight Festival public consultation
It has already been widely recorded that the response to this consultation has been quite phenomenal. The Parish Council delivered 1102 questionnaires and had more than 570 returns within the prescribed timeframe; a response of just short of 52%, and this figure rose to almost 600 (or 54.4%) just before the Xmas break. Anyone who has been involved in any kind of survey work or canvassing will know that this is a very impressive response indeed and, in itself, a full vindication for undertaking the task with such limited resources. Furthermore any analysis of the return should be given considerable weight by all interested parties including the promoters, the Licensing Authority, the Police and the local media The initial analysis of the major part of the exercise was completed last month and the following points are the original summary with further detailed observations. More than 65% of the respondents have lived at their current address for ten years or more... very helpful, as they have lived with the event as it has grown. Also a useful insight into the makeup of the area. Close to 71% support holding a major pop festival at Seaclose Park. This is one of the moist interesting and important aspects of the response as the exercise demonstrates very real views of local residents and does not just represent the more predictable nimby response that you would expect to see when consulting on other issues, such as new development proposals. These views should be regarded as constructive and used accordingly. Some 62% attend or have family members who go the festival; perhaps not overly surprising. 358 respondents or households (64%) are opposed to the increase to 90,000. In the same way that the majority of residents support the festival the majority are also opposed to the potential expansion in terms of numbers and have identified, in their view, why such an increase should have been rejected or, at least, better handled. The level of inconvenience is difficult to gauge as 54% believe that the level of event this year (2011) was minimal or not very significant whereas 230 respondents considered it to be quite significant/very significant. It can be extracted from this that there is a level of acceptance and that this is largely due to the efforts of the promoter and those responsible for transportation/traffic/parking arrangements Almost 66% were satisfied or better with the traffic/parking arrangements (see above). Almost 67% were satisfied or better with the level of policing/marshalling. This is a high figure but a number of the individual experiences seem to relate to inadequate policing in terms of numbers and disposition (in the vicinity rather than on the site or the entrance points to the site) and the competence and lack of training of marshals. Around 59% were comfortable or better with the number of days/hours when live music is played although distance may have influenced this response as it still means that nearly 200 respondents took an entirely different view. It needs to be understood that the extent of the survey means that many of the

respondents were some distance away from the site and although further analysis would be needed those that were uncomfortable live adjacent or very close to the area(s) and/or the campsite. Similarly 58% are comfortable with the noise levels, although again there are almost 200 respondents or households who have a quite different view and again it is suspected that the majority of these live very close to the site. Worryingly no less than 151 respondents have experienced criminal or antisocial behaviour; a large number of these on several occasions. Finally almost 55% admit that the event causes them change their day to day business, sleeping pattern, activities etc. a number of residents indicated that they arrange to go on holiday when the event takes place

In our press release we said .......believe that this demonstrates that a very large number of local residents have a view on the matter and they were prepared to take the time to share that view with others as part of a formalised process, whether its in opposition or in support of the event. These results raise two very important and fundamental points. 1. Irrespective of the shortcomings of the relevant legislation, that places no statutory requirement on the Licensing Authority to consult widely, the Parish Planning & Licensing Committee feel that IWC had at least a moral obligation to local residents and should have conducted a comprehensive resident survey prior to now and certainly before the decision taken in May to increase the size of the event to up to 90,000 people. 2. The response on the increase in the size of the festival was a clear vindication for the position adopted by the Parish Council in opposing the last license application and speaking publicly against the increase that is continuing to cause considerable concern locally. In some respects the support for the festival is good to see and the promoter could well draw some comfort from the results along with the Officers (IWC) involved in the local transportation arrangements as well as the Police. Indeed the Parish Council are of a similar view as there was never any intention to orchestrate opposition to the holding of the festival at Seaclose Park, merely to try to make sure that the views of the public were taken into account rather than simply relying on behind closed doors negotiations between the respective parties while excluding others including the Parish Council and even the local Ward Member. There is a need for increased openness and transparency especially with such a major event and the very clear perception is that this has not happened.. As Members know, in the second part of the questionnaire householders had the opportunity to put a little more meat on the bone in terms of their own personal views and experiences. They were asked to respond in seven key areas. The level of inconvenience, if any, suffered before, during and after the event. The traffic/parking arrangements over the weekend of the event. The level of policing/marshalling over the weekend of the event. Comfort levels with the number of days, hours etc when live/recorded music is playing. Comfort levels as to the level of noise when live/recorded music is playing.

Whether they had experienced any anti-social or criminal behaviour over the weekend. Does the event impact on their day to day living arrangements.

As with the overall level of the return, it is interesting to note that more than 60% of the residents took the time to add to their responses expressed on the first part of the questionnaire. Inevitably the analysis of this second part is a far greater challenge but it would be reasonable to say that they fall into four broad categories. Their general overview of the whole event and particularly the proposed increase in size. Specific incidents and those deemed to be responsible (i.e. promoters, police, marshals, the Council, festival goers etc) Localised difficulties Genuine concerns with suggested action/solutions

The common theme throughout these observations is the fear of the impact of increasing the event to 90,000. Importantly, this includes a very significant number of those who actually support the event at Seaclose Park. The other factor is where in the consultation area the respondent lives. (i.e. in the vicinity or immediately adjacent to the arena area and/or the campsite) A brief summary of the recurring points and findings to date is as follows. This is not a suitable site as it is a residential area. The event continues to grow and the majority of the respondents feel that the increase to 90,000 will create insurmountable problems in the area as well as harming and damaging the event itself. There is a significant level of inconvenience although many are prepared to suffer this just once a year in the wider interest of the Island and enjoyment of younger people. Loss of Seaclose Park for up to three weeks, including damage to playing areas, as well as the public footpath along the river from Medina Yacht Harbour for a similar period of time Diverging views on the overall social and economic benefits for the town as many outlets suffer a loss of business due to local people staying away while others such as food/drink outlets make vast profits that unfortunately invariably doesnt necessarily benefit the local community. The traffic arrangements are, in most cases, reasonable but there is much comment on the parking arrangements and the failure to enforce against unauthorised parking to protect residents access and interests. There also expressions of concern about the speed of traffic, particularly buses, along Fairlee/North Fairlee Road. There are wider transport implications in terms of the proposed increase by virtue of the fact that this is an island; a perception of being trapped on the Island because of overall capacity of Red Funnel and Wightlink. Not sufficient police, there needs to be a wider presence over a greater area such as North Fairlee Road, the Quay and the Yacht Harbour. Marshalls are invariably unhelpful to the point of rudeness and clearly in need of improved training to make sure they themselves are better informed and possess some public relations skills.

There appears to be a bigger problem with recorded music going into the small hours than the live music on stage(s), this is especially a problem on the campsite. The noise levels are excessive particularly for those in very close proximity who suffer with bass tones and vibration until the early hours of the morning. Large number of incidents of anti-social behaviour, largely urinating and even defecating in street, footpaths, gardens etc., but also cases of lewd and drunken behaviour that many find disconcerting and threatening. Litter in the area...cans, bottles and numerous incidents of broken glass etc. Loss of access to public facilities in Seaclose Park and along Newport Quay Many people explained that they now go on holiday over that particular weekend or, alternatively, they would go elsewhere but are concerned about security and consequently afraid to leave their home. Sleep patterns inevitably impacted harming the very young and the elderly.

Members already know that the initial findings were widely circulated to the promoters, the Council, the Police, local interest groups etc. and there was a press release about a month ago. Despite the best efforts on our part to be transparent and inclusive there has been little or no response from the various parties although the Chairman of the Licensing sub-Committee did reply in some detail and clearly appreciated the work that we have carried out to date. Members now have to decide how to use this important information, whether there is a desire to progress the matter and, if so, how this should be done. There would appear to be a number of options. OPTIONS. 1. To note the response and this relatively detailed analysis of the response and to make sure that it is widely circulated to all interested parties and through the local media. 2. To undertake the work outlined in Option 1 and to ask IWC that, based on the strength of local representations, the local ward Member (IWC) and representatives of the Parish Council are consulted and fully advised on any developments in relation to the planning of this event as covered by the license and the Event Safety and Operation Plan (or ESOP) that will be discussed and negotiated on an annual basis. To publicise this decision and any response from IWC or the promoters. 3. As Option 2 but to request that the local ward Member and representatives of the Parish Council are actively involved with any developments, discussions and negotiations in relation to the planning of this event as covered by the license and the Event Safety and Operation Plan (or ESOP). To publicise this decision and any response from IWC or the promoters SUGGESTED ACTION. In light of the level of response and the views/issues raised by local residents outlined in this report, Members give due regard to the analysis and decide on an appropriate course of action using the above options as a guide.

CH/01/2012