LICENSING SUB- COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
13 APRIL 2007
Councillors: Andrew Rowles (Chairman) (P), Peter Argyle (P) and John Farrin (P).
West Berkshire Council Officers present: Brian Leahy (Senior Licensing Officer), Trina McFarlane
(Solicitor), Sarah Clarke (Senior Solicitor), Tony McEvoy (Senior Environmental Health Officer), Rosemary
Green (Senior Environmental Health Officer), Vicky Wheatley (Policy& Research Officer), Lee McQuade
(Policy & Research Officer) and Jessica Collett (Policy & Research Officer).
PART I
1.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST.
Councillors John Farrin and Peter Argyle declared that they were an acquaintance of Leila Ferguson,
who had registered to speak in support of the application.
Councillors Andrew Rowles, Peter Argyle and John Farrin all declared that Owen Jeffery, a fellow
West Berkshire Councillor, had been called as a witness for Thatcham Town Council in opposition to
the application and he was known to them.
2.
APPLICATION NO. 017712 THE GLADE FESTIVAL, WASING ESTATE,
ALDERMASTON, RG7 4NJ.
The Sub-Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 1) concerning Licensing Application 017712
from Luke Piper and Anselm Guise for a premise licence to be granted under section 17 to the
Licensing Act 2003.
The Chairman advised the representatives due to address the Sub-Committee that it had been agreed
that the time given for each group had been increased to 15 minutes.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Sub-Committee were addressed by the following
representatives on the aforementioned application:
 Senior Licensing Officer, Brian Leahy,
 For the applicant: Phil Crier (Applicant’s Legal Representative), Luke Piper (Applicant), Anselm
Guise (Applicant), Brian Schofield (Witness), Steve Anderson (Witness), Jim Griffiths (Witness) and
Bill Stewart (Witness),
 In support of the application: Joshua Dugdale, Tony Andrews, Ian Lindsay, Sue Poole, Rachel
Lawrence, Tony Coe and Timothy James Cross,
 In opposition to the application: Michael Harris (Thatcham Town Council), Owen Jeffery (Witness
for Thatcham Town Council and representative on behalf of Michael Bloomfield), Dennis Cowdrey
and P E Taylor,
 For the responsible authorities:
o West Berkshire Council – Public Health: Sarah Clarke (Senior Solicitor) and Tony
McEvoy (Witness, Senior Environmental Health Officer – Public Health)
o West Berkshire Council – Pollution: Sarah Clarke (Senior Solicitor) and Rosemary
Green (Witness, Senior Environmental Health Officer – Pollution)
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
o Thames Valley Police: Steven Morley (Counsel for Thames Valley Police) and
Inspector John Relph (Thames Valley Police, BCU Operations).
The Senior Licensing Officer, Brian Leahy, in addressing the Sub-Committee referred to the
application summary included in the agenda. In addition he reported that:
 In the application, dancing on the Thursday was not supported by an application for any musical
activity,
 Representations had been received from 3 of the 7 responsible authorities; Thames Valley Police,
the Enforcing Authority for Public Health and the Enforcing Authority for Pollution,
 The Licensing Authority had received 27 representations in opposition to the application, 85
representations in support of the application and a petition containing 782 signatures in support of
the application.
The legal representative for the applicants, Mr Phil Crier, introduced the application for a licence for
the Glade Festival and called on a number of witnesses to address the Sub-Committee.
Mr Luke Piper, applicant, in addressing the Committee reported that:
 Following the 2006 Glade Festival, it was proposed that in 2007 security would be increased
significantly. A new security company had been employed to deliver a comprehensive and robust
security operation,
 It was evident that the 2006 Festival had featured improved security, resulting in an increase in
seizures and a more professional approach. This would be continued and built on for the 2007
festival,
 In 2006 the Thames Valley Police had been under resourced. The applicants were keen to address
this and work with the Police should the application be approved,
 In previous years there had been noise and drug issues, but it was hoped the event would change
and evolve (as seen at the Glastonbury Festival) and reduce these problems,
 The Glade Festival was an opportunity for people to experience freedom, excitement, beautiful
surroundings, music, dance, learn about alternative therapies and share creative talents – all of
which would provide an alternative to the drugs culture. The Glade Festival had received positive
feedback from attendees in the past,
 This year the drugs policy had been published in the Event Management Plan and the festival
website. It had been made clear that drugs would not be tolerated, and work to prevent and detect
drug use would be increased. The applicant would welcome further advice and would increase
efforts on this if required,
 Extensive work had been carried out to reduce the visual and noise impact of the festival, which
had created problems in the past for those living near by. Professional consultants who had worked
on other major music festivals such as Reading, Leeds, Global Gathering and Glastonbury, were
working with the applicants,
 In 2006 the Medical Centre at the Glade Festival had reported a very low number of drug and
alcohol related medical problems, well below the average of other festivals. The Fire and
Ambulance services had not raised an objection to the application for the 2007 Glade Festival,
 It was expected that very few children would attend the event and parents would not be
encouraged to bring their children, but the applicants were aware of the importance of child
protection. Guidance had been issued on the festival website and would also be included with
tickets for the event. It was noted that Child Protection Officers had not raised an objection to the
application,
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
 It was felt that many of the representations in opposition to the application were from people that
had not been consulted with by the applicants. The applicants were keen to address this and would
continue to meet and work with local people should the application be approved. They were
already working with Aldermaston Parish Council and a number of other objectors to address
concerns,
 It was accepted that some noise levels in 2006 were too high. In order to address this it was
proposed that in 2007 there would be;
o One level of noise until midnight, and a lower level after midnight,
o New programming; the main stage would close at midnight with smaller venues operating after
midnight,
o Improved sound systems and sound control on all stages to reduce the noise heard away from
the festival,
o Independent specialists would measure the sound levels,
o More aware of the new noise policy, which was posted on the website (In 2006 the audience
had been unhappy when asked to reduce the volume of the music),
o An improved closure policy.
 The Sub-Committee were asked to note that if the festival was restricted to closing at midnight it
would be unable to go ahead,
 The 2007 Festival would be a well run and professional event, with the aim of producing a festival
which would take place each year and become a permanent fixture in the summer calendar,
 Local people and various organisations were set to benefit should the application be approved.
Mr Brian Schofield, the Security and Stewarding Co-ordinator, was called on as a witness to address
the Sub-Committee. He reported that:
 He had been responsible for providing security at the 2006 Glade Festival and 2006 Glastonbury
Festival. It was felt the operation last year had been successful. The level of crime had reduced
and drug dealing had been un-earthed,
 This year 2 new security companies had been contracted and would play a more pro-active role.
The drug problem had been underestimated last year, but now they were more aware of the issues
and would be more prepared to respond accordingly,
 He wished to work further with Thames Valley Police and build on the good work seen in 2006.
Mr Jim Griffiths, an independent consultant for entertainment noise control, stadia and area acoustic
design, was called on as a witness to address the Sub-Committee. He reported that:
 This would be his first year of involvement with the Glade Festival and he would have overall
control for sound output at the festival,
 He had extensive experience of entertainment noise control and had carried out research for the
Government,
 Research had shown that acceptable standards for noise levels are night were 45 – 50 dB.
In response to a question from Owen Jeffery, Mr Piper confirmed that he was aware noise from the
festival had been a nuisance for nearby residents in the past. For 2007 new measures would be put in
place to reduce the sound and late night music. Furthermore, the two main stages would close at
midnight. The smaller stages which continued after midnight would have lower sound levels. Mr Steve
Anderson, a sound consultant for the applicant, reported that the festival would comply with the
recognised standards for sound levels for outdoor music events.
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
In response to a question from Councillor Farrin, Mr Piper confirmed that sound could not be easily
measured by the power levels. In 2006 the main system was supplied by 26,000 watts and had one
wall of sound facing one direction. This year new and improved sound systems had been purchased
which did use more power, but emitted a more controlled sound. The sound systems and power would
also be more evenly distributed and broken up.
Following a question from Councillor Argyle, Mr Schofield confirmed that security would be increased
to cope with the proposed increase in attendance of the festival. The applicants also hoped to have
more Police Officers at the festival and would work with Thames Valley Police. Drugs that were seized
from attendees would be logged and accounted for, but it was not possible to collect such information
for drugs placed in amnesty bins which would remain anonymous.
In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr Piper stated that in 2006 the main stage had closed
at 4am. This year it was proposed that the 2 main stages would close at midnight with smaller stages
using smaller sound systems operating after midnight. It was hoped that the public would naturally
disperse to the smaller venues, the campsite or tents hosting non-music entertainment. The break-up
of the entertainment would result in a significant difference in sound levels. A further key difference
from 2006 was that there would be one central area for sound control.
Following a question from the Chairman, Mr Anderson confirmed that weather and atmospheric
conditions were a major factor in sound transfer. Sound testing would be carried out throughout the
event to take into account changes in atmospheric conditions. Orientation of sound was also an
important factor. The sound systems would be tested on the Thursday prior to the event starting, but
would be monitored throughout. There would be minimum of 6 acoustic consultants on site, as
opposed to 3 in 2006.
In response to a question from Mr P E Taylor, Mr Anderson confirmed that the Glade Festival would
comply with the night time noise levels advised by the World Health Organisation and would be below
the levels deemed to wake people up.
Finally, following a question from Mr Mike Harris, Mr Piper stated that should the Sub-Committee
impose a condition that required all entertainment to finish at midnight it would not be possible for the
event to go ahead. Attendees would be camping out at the event and would expect entertainment after
midnight. It was proposed that smaller venues, tents, bars and cafes would continue to operate after
midnight – in keeping with other music festivals such as Reading and Leeds.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, those members of the public that had submitted
representations in support of the application were invited by the Chairman to address the SubCommittee.
Mr Joshua Dugdale, owner of Wasing Estate which hosted the Glade Festival, in addressing the SubCommittee raised the following points:
 The organisers of the Glade Festival were prepared to reduce the noise levels to 45dB after
midnight, which was recognised as an accepted sound level for outdoor music events. He asked
the Sub-Committee not to impose a lower limit which could severely restrict the applicants,
 He had seen no evidence of crime on the estate during previous festivals and very few medical
emergencies. He felt that people would be safer attending the festival than a night in Reading Town
Centre. Evidence suggested there had been some drug crime at the festival in the past, but it was
below levels seen at comparative festivals elsewhere,
 The Glade Festival had considerable economic benefits to the community. In 2007 it was proposed
that £25,000 - £30,000 would be placed in a fund for the community,
 The applicants had put considerable effort into improving the festival, and had worked with local
people and Parish Councils,
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
 It was confirmed that the Glade Festival would be the only outdoor music event at the Wasing
Estate in 2007.
Mr Dugdale called Mr Tony Andrews as a witness. Mr Andrews stated he was a consultant and
founder of various loud speaker companies such as Function 1. He reported that it was possible to
mitigate certain sounds such as voices, by positioning sound devices towards people. Bass sounds
travelled more easily, but it was possible to produce a cancellation effect with correct speaker
positioning. Experiments at the Origin stage in 2006 had been very successful and the technique
would be more widely used this year.
Mr Ian Lindsey, Manager of Wasing Estate, was confident that the organisers were professional,
experienced, and had dealt with any health and safety issues arising from the application.
Mrs Sue Poole informed the Sub-Committee that she supported the event as it was important for
young people to have an opportunity to hear and be inspired by the dance music genre.
Ms Rachel Lawrence, a witness called by Leila Ferguson who had written in support of the application,
informed that the Sub-Committee that she had attended many festivals in the past and considered that
the Glade Festival was the safest and best organised. Stewards and security staff were in attendance,
and there were good amenities, hygiene and clean water. The event supported local charities and last
year she had collected funds at the event for Mencap. Ms Lawrence asked the Sub-Committee to
balance the needs of local people against the benefits the festival would bring to the area.
Mr Tony Coe, administrator for the Festival Weather website, informed the Sub-Committee that he
believed the Glade Festival was a well organised event and he had no concerns with safety. The
festival would also provide more entertainment that just music, for example public speakers, stalls, arts
and refreshments.
Mr Timothy Cross stated that he lived in the closest dwelling to the main stage and had experienced
no problems with crime or noise.
The Chairman asked the supporters to state whether they expected to benefit (financially or otherwise)
from the 2007 Glade Festival. It was declared that those supplying goods or resources would benefit
financially and charities such as Mencap would receive donations. Mr Dugdale stated that a
percentage of ticket sales would be put into a fund to benefit the community and charities.
In response to a question from Councillor Farrin, Mr Andrews informed the Sub-Committee that last
year there were problems with sound emitting from the main stage. This year there would be less
sound speakers in operation after midnight and the leakage of noise would be reduced as waves from
the speakers would not be synchronised. Bass speakers would be more evenly distributed in a circle
effect to produce a degree of cancellation, known as ‘destructive interference’.
Following a question from Councillor Argyle, Mr Piper confirmed that it was not expected the incidental
music being played after midnight would be heard outside of the venue, and it was not practical for
such a large outdoor event to erect sound fields.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, those members of the public that had submitted
representations in objection to the application were invited by the Chairman to address the SubCommittee.
Mr Michael Harris, representing Thatcham Town Council, informed the Sub-Committee that the Town
Council had made a representation in opposition to the festival following concerns raised by a
resident. He reported that:
 The festival was not just a local issue, as residents in Thatcham had been effected. There had
been noise problems in the past, and mitigation measures had not been effective. The Council’s
own Environmental Health Officers had noted the noise issues resulting from the 2006 festival,
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
 It was not felt that measures to mitigate the noise in 2007 would be effective. In a large open rural
setting sound would travel, and noise pollution would only be effectively stopped by not allowing
the festival to go ahead,
 The Town Council did not object to the festival itself, but the organisation and venue of the event,
 There were concerns regarding public order,
 The Town Council had proposed that the festival play no music between midnight and 9am.
Mr Harris called on Owen Jeffery, Vice Chairman of the Finance and General Purposes Committee
that considered the effect of the festival on Thatcham, as a witness. Mr Jeffery informed the SubCommittee that he was also speaking on behalf of Mr Mike Bloomfield who had been unable to attend
the hearing. Mr Jeffery reported that he had heard sound from the festival last year and on the festival
website it was stated that the organisers would try their best not to turn the music down during the
2007 festival. He noted that in 2006 Thames Valley Police feared turning the sound down would result
in a riot. Those living nearby had been subjected to loud music during previous festivals.
Mr Dennis Cowdrey addressed the Sub-Committee and stated that he did not consider that sound
levels measured and averaged over 15 minutes was acceptable.
Mr P E Taylor informed that Sub-Committee that if sufficient conditions regarding the noise levels were
imposed, he would not object to the application. He noted that the World Health Organisation
considered night time to be between 11pm – 7am and asked that should the application be approved
the Sub-Committee imposed a condition along this time frame.
In response, Mr Jim Griffiths, sound consultant for the applicant, stated that sound would be measured
on a minute by minute basis.
In response to a question from Mr Guise, Owen Jeffery confirmed that he was not aware of complaints
from Thatcham residents concerning the noise prior to 2006. It was thought that weather conditions in
2006 had allowed sound to travel.
In response to a question from Luke Piper, Michael Harris confirmed that Thatcham Town Council had
not been consulted by the applicants. Mr Piper advised that they would do so in future.
The Sub-Committee then adjourned the hearing for 20 minutes.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Sub-Committee were addressed by those
responsible authorities that had made representations regarding the application. The Chairman
confirmed that Sarah Clarke, Senior Solicitor for West Berkshire Council, would be addressing the
Sub-Committee on behalf of 2 responsible authorities within the Council’s Environmental Health
service; Public Health and Pollution.
Sarah Clarke, Senior Solicitor – West Berkshire Council, first addressed the Sub-Committee with
objections raised by the Council’s Principal Environmental Health Officer, Sue Gore, concerning Public
Health. The following points were highlighted:
 The Public Health team had considered the application in respect of its provisions for health and
safety and the Health & Safety at Work Act,
 The applicants had stated during their submissions that they had tried to meet with Environmental
Health Officers during the previous 5 months, but this was considered incorrect. The applicants had
contacted and met with local residents. When the applicants then contacted Council Officers, the
Officers were advised it was not appropriate to meet with the applicants during the statutory
consultation period until they had received and reviewed all the supporting information,
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
 The Government’s Guidance encouraged applicants to meet with and mediate with the responsible
authorities prior to the submission of an application, particularly large applications. In this case, the
applicant did not attempt to contact the responsible authorities prior to the application being
submitted,
 Additional information for the application was provided to the responsible authorities in parts, which
hampered Officer’s ability to study the information. Officers did not feel able to meet with the
applicants until all supplementary information had been received. This was not until 30 March
2007,
 The Sub-Committee were asked to only consider information supplied by the applicants which
supported the application and addressed the four licensing objectives (prevention of crime and
disorder, public health, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm),
 Earlier in the hearing the Principal Environmental Health Officer’s calculations were questioned.
However, it was noted that the calculations were based on figures provided in the application,
 It was not felt that the applicants had met the public safety licensing objective, and if the SubCommittee were not able to place sufficient conditions on the application, it should be rejected,
 The Environmental Health Officers had recommended conditions on the use of lasers and medical
cover,
 There was concern regarding the capacity of the festival, particularly when the two main stages
closed at midnight and 10,000 people would be required to disperse elsewhere. It was not felt the
smaller venues continuing after midnight would be able to accomodate the required number of
people,
 The application proposed a capacity of 4,000 attendees more than in 2006,
 It was acknowledged by the applicant that the closure policy (for the two main stages) was not
likely to be implemented as it could lead to overcrowding of other venues on the site. Thames
Valley Police had stated that they would not support the closure of the festival due to excessive
noise, as too many people would be dispersing at once,
 There were fears for safety should the Glade Festival be required to close due to excessive noise.
In response to questions from the applicant’s legal representative, Mr Crier, Sarah Clarke confirmed
that Environmental Health Officers were contacted by the applicants following the submission of the
application, but did not feel able to meet with the applicants until they had received and considered the
application and additional material. It would have been preferable if the applicants had contacted the
responsible authorities prior to submitting an application. Although the applicant had come to an
agreement with the Ambulance Trust regarding medical cover, the Sub-Committee would be
requested to add this as a condition to the licence, should they approve the application.
In response to questions from Mr Crier, Mr Tony McEvoy (Senior Environmental Health Officer)
reported that it was the view of Environmental Health that the dispersal of 10,000 people at midnight
following the closure of the two main stages would give rise to problems with dispersal and over
capacity of the smaller venues operating after midnight. It was evident at the 2006 Glade Festival that
attendees did not move on to the tented areas or retire to sleep when the main stage closed, as most
attendees were there to experience the dance music and not outside interests. The closure policy
would not be a viable method for controlling noise levels, but was felt adequate to deal with closure of
the venue for any serious emergencies. Mr Luke Piper asked the Sub-Committee to note that the
closure policy was not intended to control the noise levels and there were a whole range of safety
measures in place for the festival. It was not anticipated that noise would be a problem in 2007, but if it
were there would be the option of closing the offending stage/venue, rather than the whole festival.
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
Following a question from Councillor Farrin, the Senior Environmental Health Officer confirmed that it
did appear there had been an agreement between the applicants and Ambulance Trust regarding
medical cover, but the Licensing Authority were not in receipt of a copy of the agreement.
In response to a question from Councillor Farrin, the Senior Environmental Health Officer confirmed
that the closure policy was acceptable for closing the festival should a serious problem occur, but it
was not acceptable tool for controlling noise levels due to the expected response from the audience.
Last year when the organisers were asked to turn down the music levels there was a very strong
response in opposition to this from the audience which had sparked safety concerns.
Sarah Clarke, Senior Solicitor – West Berkshire Council, addressed the Sub-Committee with
objections raised by the Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer, Rosemary Green, concerning
Pollution. The following points were highlighted:

The Pollution team had considered the application in respect of the risk of pollution to the
environment and harm to human health,

It was the view of the Pollution team that if the application were granted it would cause a public
nuisance,

It was the Licensing Authority’s duty to promote the licensing objectives and also have regard to
the Council’s own licensing policy and guidance,

The Pollution team raised the same concerns as the Public Health team regarding the absence of
contact and consultation from the applicant prior to the submission of the application,

Conditions proposed by the Pollution team were detailed on pages 232 – 233 of the agenda,

A premise licence for 16,500 people (4,000 more than in 2006) with 24 hour entertainment had
been applied for,

It was evident that there had been problems with noise nuisance at the festival in previous years,
and control measures such as the closure policy, complaints hotline and noise controls had not
been adequate to address the nuisance,

In 2006 ambient music played at the site before the festival had started attracted 10 complaints
from the public,

There did not appear to be any information on ancillary music detailed in the Event Management
Plan,

It was not felt that the smaller venues operating after the closure of the two main stages at
midnight had sufficient capacity to host the number of people required,

Information in the Event Management Plan, application and provided at the Hearing by the
applicants regarding the smaller venues, their capacity, their operating hours and sound systems
was contradictory,

It was considered that should the application be granted, a statutory noise nuisance would result
and there were insufficient measures put forward by the applicants to mitigate this,

The Sub-Committee were asked to impose conditions limiting the hours of operation of the smaller
venues which could be enforced by the Licensing Authority,

There were concerns with public safety should any of the venues close early,

Sarah Clarke directed the Sub-Committee to paragraph 7.1 of the statutory guidance which stated
that the views of local residents were important. Furthermore, only representations and evidence
submitted for a licensing application that were related to the four licensing objectives (crime and
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
disorder, public safety, protection of children from harm and prevention of public nuisance) should
be considered when determining an application,

Paragraph 7.4 of the statutory guidance stated that the potential of local residents suffering from
even a low level of noise nuisance should be considered,

Financial considerations, such as local charities and businesses benefiting should the application
be approved, were not relevant considerations in determining the application.
In response to a question from Councillor Farrin, Rosemary Green, Senior Environmental Health
Officer, confirmed that there was a 16% increase in the wattage of the speakers during the daytime
proposed in 2007. 45dB was recognised as an acceptable sound level for outside noise, but this
should be considered in relation to the venue’s immediate environment. The venue was in a quiet,
rural setting with low background noise, so it was expected the noise from the festival would travel far.
Proposed conditions from the Pollution team were detailed in the agenda papers.
In response to questions from Mr Griffiths, the Senior Environmental Health Officer confirmed that the
guidance issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Noise Act had been considered
when making the representation. The WHO provided guidance, but also stated that each application
should be considered on its merits.
In response to a question from Mr Crier, the Senior Environmental Health Officer confirmed that the
Pollution team were not confident that mitigation measures and controls put forward by the applicants
would be successful. Measures were similar to those used in previous years for the festival, which
were not properly imposed and did not work. Furthermore, in 2006 problems were experienced with
dispersal when the main stage closed. In 2007 it was proposed that there would be two main stages
and a larger audience capacity. It was therefore anticipated that there would still be problems with
noise and public safety.
The Sub-Committee queried the applicants proposal to show films during the festival, in particular after
midnight. The showing of films was detailed in the Event Management Plan but not the licensing
application. Mr Piper confirmed that films were scheduled to be shown in the Nectar Temple, a small
venue for a small number of people. Also, should it be necessary to evacuate the whole venue, public
safety messages could be projected onto screens on the main stages. The capacity numbers provided
for each stage or tented area were the total number of people allowed under fire regulations, and not
the total number of people expected to be at each area or stage.
Mr Crier circulated conditions regarding noise levels which the applicants had suggested in response
to the conditions proposed by the Pollution team. The Senior Environmental Health Officer did not
consider the conditions acceptable measures.
In response to a question from Mr Dennis Cowdrey, the Senior Environmental Health Officer
confirmed that the Pollution team had taken into account that residents living close by may leave
windows open at night when sleeping when considering their response to the proposed noise levels.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Sub-Committee considered the representation from
Thames Valley Police, a responsible authority, regarding the application. The Sub-Committee were
addressed by Mr Steven Morley, a barrister acting for Thames Valley Police. He informed the SubCommittee that:

The objections raised by Thames Valley Police were based on the likelihood of criminal offences
being committed at the festival, particularly Class A drug offences,

In 2005 the festival had a capacity of 8,000 people. In accordance with Home Office policy there
had been no police presence on the site and therefore no arrests,
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES

In 2006 the capacity of the festival had increased to 12,500 and the police had a limited presence
of 6 Officers on site. The Officers experienced huge problems with the amount of drugs witnessed
at the festival and the availability of drugs was considered a disgrace. Drugs seizures were
detailed on pages 253 – 278 of the agenda. Festival attendees were openly smoking or taking
drugs and the amount of drugs seized by Security Staff or deposited in the amnesty bins was so
overwhelming that the Officers were unable to act on most offences. It was clear that the Police
did not have the resources to cope with the level of crime in 2006,

It was the view of Thames Valley Police that the Glade Festival and the type of music and
entertainment provided attracted drug use. Such problems and criminality had not been
experienced at other large music festivals,

The levels of criminality at the Glade Festival could not be compared to festivals such as Reading
or Leeds. The Reading Festival had a police station on site and over 150 Police Officers in
attendance. It was therefore more likely that crime would be detected and reported. At the Glade
Festival in 2005 and 2006 offences would have been taking place but would have gone largely
undetected and reported. It was therefore unfair to compare crime figures and it was the view of
the police that less offences were committed at the Reading Festival,

Given the experience of the police in 2006, it was anticipated there would be increased criminality
in 2007 as there would be even more attendees than 2006, and those attending in previous years
may have the view the festival was a ‘soft touch’ regarding drugs. Thames Valley Police
considered the proposed increased attendance and festival as a whole unacceptable and did not
feel a policing operation would be able to deal with all the expected problems,

It was considered inappropriate that any children should attend the festival due to the wide use of
drugs. West Berkshire Council Child Protection Officers did not approve of the application,
although a formal representation had not been raised,

The closure plan was not considered acceptable, particularly if the closure was forced,

Should the application be approved, Thames Valley Police recommended that a condition be
added that required the applicants no later than 2 months before the event to agree the level of
resources and facilities to be provided by the Thames Valley Police, at the expense of the
applicants. A large number of Officers would be required both at the venue and in local Police
Stations.
Mr Morley called on Inspector Relph, BCU Operations, as a witness for Thames Valley Police.
Inspector Relph had been responsible for policing events in the Newbury area in 2006, which had
included the 2006 Glade Festival. In addressing the Committee, he reported that:

A large number of people at the Glade Festival were de-arrested as the police were unable to
cope with the levels of those committing offences,

Only 6 Police Officers were on duty at the 2006 Glade Festival, compared with 155 at the 2006
Reading Festival. It was considered that had more Police Officers been on duty at the Glade
Festival, there would be much higher levels of recorded crime,

The event was considered too large to police and it was expected that such an event should be
self-contained with its own security. It was not felt that the security proposed would be sufficient.
In response to a question from Councillor Farrin, Inspector Relph stated that the drug amnesty bins
were not an effective tool for combating drug use at the festival and their effect would be very limited.
Following a question from Councillor Argyle, Inspector Relph confirmed that should the application be
approved and the Police come to an agreement with the applicants regarding the level of policing
required at the site, the Police would have to pull in Officers from across Thames Valley which would
have an impact on resources in other areas.
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
In response to questions from Mr Crier, Inspector Relph informed the Sub-Committee that:

Thames Valley Police had not held a de-briefing meeting with the applicants following the 2006
festival as the licence approved in 2006 was for the festival in that year only. They did not
anticipate that an application would be submitted in 2007, and were not aware that one had been
submitted until it was received by the Licensing Authority,

Thames Valley Police were not consulted by the applicants prior to the application being
submitted. Following the submission of the application, 4 meetings and some telephone
conversations had taken place between the applicants and the Police. Despite this contact,
Thames Valley Police maintained that the application should not be approved,

Should the application be approved and the condition proposed by the Police added to the
licence, there would be an increased police presence. However it was still not considered this
would be sufficient to deal with the criminality expected at the festival,

It was the view of Thames Valley Police that the Glade Festival experienced more serious drug
taking than other major festivals,

It was anticipated that some Police Officers may volunteer to work at the festival, as with other
festivals, but it was not expected that sufficient Officers would volunteer to police the event,

The Glade Festival was a relatively new event and although the security proposed in 2007 was
an improvement on security in 2006, it was expected it would have a limited effect. In 2006 the
security staff had been unable to cope with the number of problems and crime. Furthermore,
Inspector Relph was not aware of the security staff passing on details of any crimes to Police
Officers,

Although it was not unusual that arrests were prioritised if the police were experiencing high
levels of criminality, the situation in 2006 was considered unacceptable. Large numbers of
attendees committing offences were not arrested and some that were arrested had to be dearrested. Thames Valley Police considered the event un-policable,

Thames Valley Police were willing to work with the applicant should the application be approved,
but still expected a limited impact on the levels of crime,

It was accepted that should the application be approved for 2007 and continue to run in future
years, with a high level of policing each year, in time the level of crime experienced would be
likely to reduce. However, it was not considered fair to have to provide the huge level of police
resources which would be needed to produce this effect,

Thames Valley Police had not worked with the applicants in previous years, but in 2007 due to
the increase attendance and expected levels of crime, it had been necessary.
In response to a question from Councillor Farrin, Inspector Relph stated that the number of attendees,
the nature of the festival and the length of the event increased the likelihood of criminality and drug
use at the festival. The location was also remote and far from a police station.
In response to a question from Mr Stewart, Mr Morely reported that it was not fair to judge the Glade
Festival on the number of reported crimes, as the low level of policing in 2006 and absence of policing
prior to that meant that the Thames Valley Police did not have the opportunity to record the crime.
Crime figures for other festivals were more accurate. For the Glade Festival the crime figures were
effectively meaningless. Inspector Relph added that the statements and evidence from the Officers in
2006 indicated a high level of criminality but they did not have quantifiable data.
Following a question from Mr Pearce, Inspector Relph stated that it was anticipated that around 80
Police Officers would be needed to police the festival.
In answer to a question from Mr Piper, Inspector Relph confirmed that he was aware of some positive
comments regarding the security levels in previous years. However, he felt that the proposed security
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
together with marketing and information on the festival website concerning security measures would
have a limited effect.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman invited the applicants to address the SubCommittee again and respond to any issues raised during the hearing. Mr Crier, the applicants legal
representative, in addressing the Sub-Committee reported that:

West Berkshire Council’s licensing policy encouraged entertainment activities and advised that
any negatives of an activity should be balanced against the wider benefits,

It was apparent that the two major concerns regarding the festival were noise and the use of
drugs,

It was stressed that the event would not be viable should the Sub-Committee approve the
application but impose a condition ending entertainment at midnight. Attendees would be camping
out over the weekend and would expect extended entertainment,

The event would have relatively low attendance compared to other festivals,

The applicants and organisers had learnt from problems experienced in previous years and had
sought to address them. For example, it was proposed that the two main stages would close at
midnight and only smaller stages or tents operate after midnight.
Mr Crier invited Mr Anderson, a consultant and witness for the applicants, to respond to concerns
raised regarding noise. Mr Anderson stated that:

The applicants and event organisers were proposing to embrace World Health Organisation
policies concerning noise and provide effective control and monitoring of sound levels,

A team of at least 6 acoustic consultants would monitor noise at the venue and off site,

The main headline acts would perform on the main stages and finish by midnight. Smaller scale
performances would take place in smaller venues after midnight, and the audience would be
made well aware of this in advance,

Noise management would be used for many of the stages, in comparison to 2006 when it was
only used on one stage, by Function 1,

After midnight there would be a drop in power levels to the festival,

The closure policy for the festival was intended as a last resort, and not as a noise management
method. Should there be a major emergency the audience would be evacuated in a sensible and
intelligent manner,

Safeguards were in place to deliver public safety,

The applicants had contracted the UK’s definitive expert in noise control, Mr Griffiths, and he was
satisfied that sufficient measures were in place to control sound levels.
Mr Crier invited Mr Griffiths, a consultant for entertainment noise control and witness for the applicant,
to address the Sub-Committee and respond to issues raised during the hearing. Mr Griffiths, in
addressing the Sub-Committee reported that the noise control methods to be used by the applicants
had been successfully used at other festivals (including those held in rural locations) in the past and
their success was supported by research.
In conclusion, Mr Crier asked the Sub-Committee to note that:

Should they approve the application, any conditions they attach to the licence must be achievable,
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES

Following information provided at the hearing and the guidance of the World Health Organisation,
the applicants were prepared to close the main stages and cease daytime sound levels at 11pm
(23:00 hours) rather than midnight, as proposed in the application,

There were 16,500 potential attendees of the festival, and it was stressed that controls should be
aimed at those committing offences rather than the entire audience,

The applicants had provided a significant increase in security levels (compared to 2006) and
wished to work in partnership with Thames Valley Police,

It was not felt the Glade Festival would attract the level of drugs feared by the police. The
applicants would work with the police to eradicate drugs at the festival, with a view to the problem
reducing year on year,

The applicants hoped to stage a festival acceptable to all, to allow Glade to become a permanent
fixture in the festival calendar.
At 4.30pm the Licensing Sub-Committee Hearing for the Glade Festival adjourned for the SubCommittee to consider the application, representations and evidence received and make a
determination. At 4.40pm the applicants were advised by the Chairman that the Sub-Committee would
re-convene on Monday 16 April 2007 to make their decision, and all those concerned would be
notified of the decision in writing within 5 working days.
(The meeting on 13 April 2007 commenced at 12:30pm and closed at 4.30pm)
On Monday 16 April 2007 the Licensing Sub-Committee for application 017712 Glade Festival,
Wasing Estate, Aldermaston reconvened.
It was RESOLVED that Application 017712 Glade Festival, Wasing Estate, Aldermaston be
GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
(1)
The Glade Noise Team shall carry out a survey to determine the background noise levels, L A90 (15
minutes) covering the typical week/weekend period for the Festival. The background noise levels to be
monitored at noise sensitive locations to be agreed with West Berkshire Licensing Authority 2 months
before the event. The information obtained from this survey shall be made available to the Licensing
Authority 2 months before the event.
REASON: After hearing the Applicants and the Environmental Health representations, the SubCommittee were persuaded that a statutory public nuisance had been created at the 2005 and 2006
Glade Festivals. The Applicants at the 2006 Hearing of their application had persuaded the SubCommittee that they had sufficient control measures in place to prevent a statutory public nuisance at
the 2006 event, however this proved not to be the case. On this basis the Sub-Committee believe
stricter controls imposed in this condition are necessary to prevent a third statutory public nuisance
being created.
(PREVENTION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE).
(2)
Noise levels from the operation of the Glade Festival 2007 during the hours of 09:00 – 23:00 shall not
exceed 45dB LAeq (15 minutes) and 70dB at 63Hz and 125Hz octave frequency bands, when
measured 1 metre from the façade of noise sensitive properties. The noise levels to be monitored at
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
noise sensitive locations to be agreed with West Berkshire Licensing Authority 2 months before the
event.
REASON: After hearing the Applicants and the Environmental Health representations, the SubCommittee were persuaded that a statutory public nuisance had been created at the 2005 and 2006
Glade Festivals. The Applicants at the 2006 Hearing of their application had persuaded the SubCommittee that they had sufficient control measures in place to prevent a statutory public nuisance at
the 2006 event, however this proved not to be the case. On this basis the Sub-Committee believe
stricter controls imposed in this condition are necessary to prevent a third statutory public nuisance
being created. The Applicants agreed at the Hearing that daytime levels of sound would end at 23:00
hours and their sound expert, Mr Jim Griffiths, advised that they could provide real time sound
monitoring rather than averaged every 15 minutes.
(PREVENTION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE).
(3)
Noise levels from the operation of the Glade Festival 2007 during the hours of 23:00 – 09:00 shall not
exceed the background noise level (LA90 (15 minutes)) plus 5dB, and 65dB at 63Hz and 125Hz octave
frequency bands, when measured 1 metre away from the façade of noise sensitive properties. The
noise levels to be monitored at noise sensitive locations to be agreed with West Berkshire Licensing
Authority 2 months before the event.
REASON: After hearing the Applicants and the Environmental Health representations, the SubCommittee were persuaded that a statutory public nuisance had been created at the 2005 and 2006
Glade Festivals. The Applicants at the 2006 Hearing of their application had persuaded the SubCommittee that they had sufficient control measures in place to prevent a statutory public nuisance at
the 2006 event, however this proved not to be the case. On this basis the Sub-Committee believe
stricter controls imposed in this condition are necessary to prevent a third statutory public nuisance
being created. The Applicants agreed at the Hearing that daytime levels of sound would end at 23:00
hours and their sound expert, Mr Jim Griffiths, advised that they could provide real time sound
monitoring rather than averaged every 15 minutes.
(PREVENTION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE).
(4)
All exceedances of the noise limits to be recorded in a noise event log by the Glade Noise Team, and
updated every 15 minutes. This data to be made available on demand to the Licensing Authority
during the event, and also submitted to West Berkshire Licensing Authority 48 hours after closure of
the event.
REASON: After hearing the Applicants and the Environmental Health representations, the SubCommittee were persuaded that a statutory public nuisance had been created at the 2005 and 2006
Glade Festivals. The Applicants at the 2006 Hearing of their application had persuaded the SubCommittee that they had sufficient control measures in place to prevent a statutory public nuisance at
the 2006 event, however this proved not to be the case. On this basis the Sub-Committee believe
stricter controls imposed in this condition are necessary to prevent a third statutory public nuisance
being created.
(PREVENTION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE).
(5)
By no later than 2 months before the event, agreement must be reached between the premise licence
holder and Thames Valley Police as to the resources, facilities and special police services to be
provided and paid for by the premise licence holder. A copy of this agreement is to be provided by the
premise licence holder to West Berkshire Licensing Authority within 2 weeks of the agreement being
concluded.
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
REASON: After hearing the representations from the Applicants and Thames Valley Police, the SubCommittee were persuaded that the level of security and policing of the event were previously
inadequate to effectively police this event and control crime; in particular in relation to drug supply,
possession and use.
(PREVENTION OF CRIME AND DISORDER).
(6)
A copy of the written agreement between the applicant and the South Central Ambulance NHS Trust
regarding off site transfer to hospital, shall be supplied to West Berkshire Licensing Authority no more
than 2 months before the event.
REASON: After hearing the representations from the Applicants and West Berkshire Environmental
Health – Public Health team, the Sub-Committee were persuaded that this condition was necessary
for public safety.
(PUBLIC SAFETY).
(7)
Valid certification to operate lasers to be received from the HSE prior to operation and made available
to West Berkshire Licensing Authority.
REASON: After hearing the representations from the Applicants and West Berkshire Environmental
Health – Public Health team, the Sub-Committee were persuaded that this condition was necessary
for public safety.
(PUBLIC SAFETY).
(8)
The capacity of the venue is limited to a daily amount of 12,500 persons attending the Glade Festival
2007.
REASON: After hearing the representations from the Applicants, West Berkshire Environmental
Health – Public Health team and Thames Valley Police, the Sub-Committee were persuaded that this
condition was necessary for public safety as there would not be sufficient capacity at the other venues
when the two main stages closed at 23:00 hours and to ensure the event is policeable.
(PUBLIC SAFETY and PREVENTION OF CRIME AND DISORDER).
(The meeting on 16 April 2007 commenced at 4.00pm and closed at 6.00pm)
CHAIRMAN
……………………………………………
Date of Signature:
……………………………………………
COUNCILLOR FARRIN ……………………………………………
Date of Signature:
……………………………………………
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE – 13 APRIL 2007 – MINUTES
COUNCILLOR ARGYLE ……………………………………………
Date of Signature:
……………………………………………