Agenda item

In accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 36.4, Councillor Paul Osborn has requested that the Events Policy item which was presented to Cabinet on 15 October 2015 be included on the agenda. The report which was presented to Cabinet on 15 October 2015 is attached.

The Vice-Chair introduced the item which had been presented to Cabinet on 15 October 2015.  The Vice-Chair explained that he had asked for the item to be on the agenda as there were a number of concerns in relation to the proposed Events Policy.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment, Crime and Community Safety addressed the Committee and explained that the Policy was currently in the event of being consulted on.  The consultation would end on 31 December 2015.

The Portfolio Holder reported that there was currently no policy covering events taking place within the borough.  When events were held these were usually based on informal arrangements with Council officers.  However there had been an increase in the number of events within the borough and there was also a need to look after Council owned land.  As a result an Events Policy was required to provide a greater amount of clarity and understanding.  This Policy would also ensure adherence to other relevant legislation and other Council policies.

The Portfolio Holder also reported that the Policy would also ensure effective forward planning and management of events and would enhance the borough’s reputation.

The Portfolio Holder also stated that consultation on the policy was now taking place with residents, park users, local community groups, responsible authorities, Portfolio Holders and Directors.  Once the consultation process had concluded, a report would be taken to Cabinet in February 2016 for determination.

The Vice-Chair responded that the introduction of a Policy was welcomed.  However there was a significant issue to address in which events would be exempt from the proposed charges.  There were no specific exemptions mentioned which could be interpreted to mean that  events like Remembrance Sunday would also be subject to a fee being paid to the Council.  Other events that could be affected were political rallies which were specifically mentioned as not being accepted as an ‘event’ for the purpose of the policy.  It was important that successful events were supported and not penalised financially just to hold the event.

The Policy and Performance Manager responded by stating that the Events Policy would list those events which would be exempt from the proposed charges following consultation.  In relation to political rallies, what had been proposed in the Policy was in line with other boroughs across West London and political rallies or petitions against the Council were by their nature not ‘events’ for the purpose of the policy and hence would not be subject to the rules of the policy.  Additionally the level of discounts applied to community and free events  was subject to the outcome of the consultation so it would be considered if this was at an appropriate level.

The following questions were made by Members of the Committee and responded to accordingly:

·                     There were concerns at the level of discount being applied at that it would mean that events could not be run as they would not be financially viable.  This had the risk of damaging community cohesion if events had to be cancelled.

The level of discount  would be considered as part of the consultation.

·                     If any damage caused meant that the organiser of the event was liable this could result in unfair situations where other people had caused the relevant damage and the organiser was being held liable.

In the example referred to, the insurance policy held by the event organiser would cover any damage caused.  This is why the Council would insist that all events were fully insured.

·                     There were concerns that in relation to events held in Pinner, these would be subject to charges which did not recognise the good work conducted by local residents in holding an event which was very well attended.  These would then make the events nearly impossible to run.

The intention of the Council was not to stop well run events but simply to be fairer and transparent.  It was acknowledged that more dialogue may be required regarding charges, exceptions and discounts and this would take place during the consultation process.  It should also be noted that small gatherings, family picnics in the park etc were not considered ‘events’ for the purpose of the policy.

·                     It was important to recognise that many events, including those in Pinner already had risk assessments, insurance and a good infrastructure.  Now organisations were being asked to pay for things that they were already doing.  There were concerns that this would prevent events from taking place.

These issues were all part of the discussion required around charges, exemptions and discounts.

·                     If the Policy was implemented and later found to be preventing events from taking place, would the Council review the Policy?

The policy would be reviewed in light of developing practice, guidance and changing legislation as necessary and in any event every two years.  At the time of review, consultation would take place with appropriate parties.  Ultimately, it had to be noted that there was a cost to the council when events were held and, due to the difficult financial circumstances, the Council needed to look to recover costs for services and officer time.

The Vice-Chair proposed that in light of the concerns regarding charges, exemptions and discounts and the outcome of the consultation, a report be presented to a meeting of the Committee in February 2016 prior to it being sent to Cabinet for determination.

RESOLVED:  That a report on the Events Policy be presented to the meeting of the Committee in February 2016.