Annex Bi
We are the Fair Ltd, Streatham Common, SW16 3ET
As a responsible authority under section 13(4) of the Licensing Act 2003 as amended under the Police and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the Licensing Authority have considered your application in full. The Licensing Authority has concerns in relation to this application and how the premises would promote the following Licensing Objectives: • Public Nuisance • Prevention of Crime & Disorder • Public Safety
• Protection of Children from Harm
Cumulative Impact Area (Saturation Zone)
The premises is not within the cumulative impact area zone as identified within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (‘The Policy’) on page 59.
Classification of Premises within the policy
The event falls into the description of ‘Festivals and outdoor events’. Streatham Common is located within a highly residential area, however as per the Licensing Policy it is an area described as a ‘Local Centre’.
Resource Impact
The Authority will consider likely resource implications for the Council of new licences. Where a likely resource implication is identified conditions to address it will be considered.
In some instances, the operation of licensed premises may lead to unintended or unexpected resource implications for the Council or impacts on residents' ability to use local amenities fully. Examples of this may include:
• Additional litter collection being required; • Parking for residents being affected; • Changes to street or pathway lay outs to address additional traffic caused; and, • Further CCTV or other measures being required to address issues caused by premises dispersal.
Where likely resource implications for the Council are identified in the consideration of a new licence application, an application for a licence variation or a review of a licence appropriate conditions may be applied to the licence to ameliorate these impacts
Background
The applicant has previously applied for time limited licences on the common. These events have been over two days during a weekend in July dating back to 2015 when the event was known as ‘Garage Nation’. We are the Fair Ltd have provided an Event Safety Management Plan (ESMP) and Noise Management Plan (NMP) to all relevant responsible authorities through the Lambeth Event Safety Advisory Group (LESAG). The 2019 event now known as Kisstory is to be held on 27th and 28th July being a Saturday and Sunday.
Application
This application is for a time-limited licence with a duration of over three years (for four events), starting on 27th July 2019 and ending on 4th September 2022. Although a condition has been offered by the applicant to operate only one event per calendar year, taking place for a maximum of two days.
The events are to be outdoors on Streatham Common for a maximum of 9,999 capacity. The application seeks to permit the following licensable activities and operational hours:
Sale of Alcohol (On the premises) Saturday 11:00 - 21:30 Sunday 11:00 - 21:00
Recorded Music, Live Music, Performances of Dance, Films, Entertainment Similar to Music & Dance Saturday 11:00 – 22:00 Sunday 11:00 - 21:30
Hours premises are open to the public
Saturday 11:00 - 22:30 Sunday 11:00 - 22:00
Operational Schedule The operating schedule to the application submitted offers fairly consistent conditions to those attached to the 2018 premises licence (Prem2111), with the addition of new conditions 1, 2 & 70 and the removal of the condition below.
‘Queue lanes will be designed in a snake/zig zag fashion to prevent the potential of crowd surges’
A yearly time-limited premises licence has been successful in the past. This allows the Safety Advisory Group to review the previous event, which includes de-brief of and pre- application advice for upcoming event allows the applicant to address any issues which may have occurred during the previous event.
2
This application is for a two day event, each year until September 2022 with the Sunday hours reflecting a half hour increase in comparison to 2018’s event. We are concerned that application for four yearly events with extended hours on Saturday and Sunday for sale of alcohol and on Sunday for regulated entertainment may have a negative impact on the licensing objectives.
This kind of outdoor event could have a negative impact on the residents living in the area and it may lead to the following issues:
• Disturbance from large numbers of people in one space • Alcohol likely to exacerbate noise and nuisance • Dispersal from the area • Drug dealing and consumption • ASB, nuisance and criminality from customers as well as those targeting customers • Littering, urination, illegal street trading • Noise from patrons entering and departing from the common. • Noise nuisance • Disruption to the flow of traffic in the area
It is our view that whilst the applicant has offered a detailed Operating Schedule incorporating conditions previously attached to the 2018 licence, the Licensing Authority considers that additional conditions below are required to mitigate against the concerns raised and to promote the licensing objectives. 1. Queue lanes within the event area including those for the bars, food providers and toilets will be designed to prevent the potential of crowd surges. 2. CCTV cameras shall be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the event period. These shall encompass as a minimum the bar areas where the sale of alcohol is taking place and any points of entry or egress. 3. The CCTV shall be monitored whilst licensable activities are taking place, by employees/third party dedicated to this sole role. There shall be communication links between the CCTV Team, Head of Security, Event Safety Advisor and event management. 4. The dedicated SIA Security shall conduct regular patrols within the neighbouring streets in order to highlight any crime and disorder to relevant authorities. 5. In the event that mobile alcohol dispensers or similar are to be considered (see Appendix A below), a full and detailed risk assessment must be undertaken. If the organiser decides to implement these dispensers then the risk assessment shall be circulated to all responsible authorities at a minimum of one month prior to the event.
6. Signage advertising Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be prominently displayed on the mobile alcohol dispenser.
7. Those selling alcohol from the mobile dispensers shall be accompanied with another member of staff at all times who are able to assist in dealing with customer queries.
3
8. Staff shall regularly deposit takings from mobile alcohol dispensers to the main bars or an authorised area, to avoid holding large amounts of money.
9. Details of any complaints received through the noise ‘hot line’ shall be recorded and be made available to responsible authorities if requested. All relevant information shall be noted, in particular the location of the complainant, the disturbance they are experiencing and the remedial action taken.
10. In addition to the cleaning teams and waste management’s responsibilities prior to, during and after the event. The applicant will instruct (contract) a reputable waste management company to complete a deep clean on the Monday immediately after the event on the following roads and any others identified to be affected by the event: - Streatham Common South - Voss Court - Baldry Gardens - Heybridge Avenue - Braxted Park - Copley Park - Covington Way (from Streatham Common South up to Heybridge Avenue, unless identified further has been affected) - Streatham Common North (from Streatham High Road up to Hill House Road, unless identified further has been affected) - Hill House Road - Maple Mews - Minehead Road - Deerhurst Road - Valley Road (from Streatham Common North up to Oakdale Road, unless idenfitied further has been affected) - Hopton Road - Polworth Road - Farnan Road - Rutford Road - Albert Carr Gardens Particular attention will be taken to ensure no nitrous oxide canisters or any other drug related paraphernalia is left within these roads.
11. Music on the Saturday shall cease as follows: - Stage 4 21:30 - Stage 3 21:15 - Stage 2 21:35 - Main Stage 21:55 - Hard stop of all music on site 22:00 Music on the Sunday shall cease as follows: - Stage 4 20:30 - Stage 3 20:15 - Stage 2 20:35
4
- Main Stage 20:55 - Hard stop of all music on site 21:00
The Licensing Authority would consider it appropriate for the applicant to amend the terminal hour for the sale of alcohol to 21:00 on Saturday, 20:00 on Sunday, amend regulated entertainment on Sunday to 21:00 and for the licence to be time-limited for the period 27th July – 28th July 2019 only and agree to the conditions above.
Mr Ola Owojori Licensing Officer 19th March 2019
Appendix A
5
Dunn,Thomas
From: ALICIA HOLLINGS Sent: 21 March 2019 10:23 To: Dunn,Thomas; [email protected] Subject: An Objection to the Music Festival on Streatham Common
Dear Mr Dunn and the Chair Person of the Licencing Committee.
I write to object to a further Licence(s) being granted to We Are the Fair Ltd. and/or Kissory to hold another Music Festival on Streatham Common in July this year (2019) and the possibility that this Licence may be extended further to include 2020 and 2021, without further recourse to Residents and no cap on the possibility of increasing the number events without due consultation.
Previous Festivals have resulted in a multitude of problems for both Residents and the actual Common itself.
Residents have had endure anti-social behaviour, drug abuse, damage to their property, badly controlled parking and sound vibration over the duration of the Festival. The sound monitors are inadequately placed to record correctly the sound emitted from the stages. In 2018 I noticed that the microphone assembly outside number 34 Streatham Common South was facing directly across the Common and not at the sound stage(s) therefore omitting to register correctly the decibel levels and instead picking up noise un-associated with the Event.
The LB Lambeth has a responsibility for adequately supervising the restitution of the parts of the Common affected by the erection of the sound stages and perimeter fences, the footfall damage and the striking of the same at the end of the Event. Current and historical photographic evidence shows that this responsibility has not been discharged in a correct or dutiful manner. Shoddy attempts to undertake this work as cheaply as possible, with or without adequate supervision have only exacerbated the problems and the inadequate restitution of the damaged areas remains completely visible to any Member(s) of the public who choose to walk through the Common.
A recent Freedom of Information question revealed that the Lambeth Events Team were operating at a loss in excess of £400,000. Events such as this are meant to subsidise the Council's finances not drain them. In this situation the Team should be disbanded.
Streatham Common, as other Common areas within the LB Lambeth, are Community assets. If Lambeth decide to uphold this application and grant Licences for this and future events of this magnitude on our local Common then they are failing in their Duty of Care both to Residents and a Nationally recognised site of importance,(S.C.E.C.O) to which LBL subscribed.
Regards,
Alicia Hollings, Streatham Common South, London,
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Andrew Mercer Sent: 08 March 2019 18:05 To: Licensing Subject: Objection - expansion of concerts on Streatham Common
Dear Lambeth Council,
I am writing to object in the strongest terms to the proposed expansion of the concert programme on Streatham Common. The existing event has created real damage to the playing surfaces used by local football teams and other clubs, the weekends themselves are unpleasant with too many people, too many drug users and too much noise, and there is little by way of tangible benefit to the Common itself (better drainage, path maintenance, the mythical cafe near the new park, levelled football pitches) which would enhance the Common for the rest of the year.
With kind regards
Andrew Mercer Braxted Park Streatham
Sent from my iPhone
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Andrew Previte Sent: 07 March 2019 10:30 To: Licensing Subject: 2019 Concerts on Streatham Common
Dear Sirs
I wish to object to the application being made to hold further concerts on Streatham Common in the summer months.
I have been a resident of Braxted Park for 12 years since 2007. Since the concerts were permitted in 2014 there has been a significant increase in drug related criminal offences in the immediate area around Streatham Common in the days of the concert, days prior to and days following these concerts.
Holding concerts on the Common means that this area of grassland and trees becomes a place totally inappropriate for young children and families to use. The Common is an amenity for the local residents of the Streatham community and the community is being forced off it by granting a licence to hold concerts on this space.
My children do not wish to see concert goers “shooting up” with drugs, doing drug deals, concert goers vomiting on the Common or urinating in residents front gardens. These are ALL incidents witnessed by myself and my children on weekends when concerts have been held. My sons have stated they no longer wish to visit me on days when the concerts take place.
Concerts should be held in purpose built venues – NOT public parks.
Regards Andrew Previte Braxted Park
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your priv acy , Outlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com
1 4 March 2019
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am strongly objecting the licence application by “We Are the Fair Ltd” to use Streatham Common for their events.
This is the most ludicrous suggestion that has been proposed and I can not believe that the Council and the Licensing committee is for one moment taking this application seriously. You may as well be giving permission to opening a lap- dancing club next door to children’s nursery.
May I draw you to the following. The licensing application states:
QUESTION: Please give a general description of the premises (please read guidance note 1) ANSWER: Streatham Common is a large open space in the borough of Lambeth.
OBJECTION: this is completely misleading. Streatham Common is not a large open space like Clapham Common or Brockwell Park. Streatham Common is a long stretch of Common Land but it is very narrow. This results in any event having a severe impact on housing closest to the event. This type of event is wholly inappropriate. Noise levels are far in excess of that permitted with housing being within 100m of the main stage and other noise generating events. The noise monitoring is flawed with noise monitoring stations being conveniently placed in locations that do not register the true impact of noise levels.
The committee will be aware of the serious danger to child health and hearing by excessive noise levels. Will there be a monitoring station stationed within the children’s playground (which is hugely popular and has considerable traffic) to guarantee safety of the playgrounds users? This has been raised before, and ignored. I would like to stress again that the venue proposed for the events on Streatham Common is literally only metres away from the new and extremely popular children playground. The close proximity of venue, where extreme loud noises are generated will allow loud noises be transmitted to the playground with little loss in noise intensity.
In the Council's 1995 "code of practice on noise control at the concerts", it cited that music level at concerts was typically 100-107 decibels and that levels below 95 decibels were unlikely to provide satisfactory entertainment for the audience. I refer you to the World Health Organization's document on "Children's Health and the Environment, WHO Training Package for the Health Sector" (http://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/noise.pdf) and other advice on acceptable sound levels at http://www.noisehelp.com/noise-dose.html. This guidance indicates that children, particularly pre-school toddlers, have extremely sensitive hearing. Exposure to exceedingly loud noises, even for a short period, can detrimentally and permanently damage a child's hearing. Protecting children from such harms should be a duty and an absolute priority for the Council and the Committee.
K 4 March 2019
QUESTION: Please highlight any adult entertainment or services, activities, other entertainment or matters ancillary to the use of the premises that may give rise to concern in respect of children (please read guidance note 8). ANSWER: NONE – The event is 18+ ticketed, music festival. Children will not be permitted access to the festival site. No activities taking place during the festival are deemed inappropriate for children.
OBJECTION: Here in lies the problem. Streatham Common has a very high concentration of families with school age and pre-school age children living in immediate proximity, who use the common daily for their wellbeing and development. This proposal essentially says “we don’t give a damn about the local residence, especially the children”. The Common is there for all to use, this proposal closes off a huge section of the common to the very people who use it the most. An 18+ event brings with it 18+ behaviours. This spills over into the surrounding areas outside the boundary of the event which results in highly inappropriate and illegal activities occurring in what is essentially a residential neighbourhood with a pre- school and school age children.
M QUESTION: Describe the steps you intend to take to promote the four licensing objectives: a) General – all four licensing objectives (b, c, d and e) (please read guidance note 9) ANSWER: 28. Staff will not permit illegal substances (whether known or unknown and including Nitrous Oxide) into the venue. Any illegal substances found will be confiscated where possible. ANSWER: 29. Staff are to look out for signs of illegal substance use or illegal substance dealing. The HEAD OF SECURITY and event management shall be informed through the Event Control. Police shall be requested to collect these from the eviction centre.
OBJECTION: As the use of illegal drugs within the venue is strongly policed (as it should be), the effect is that the use of drugs and antisocial behaviour spills over into the adjacent streets. As already mentioned these are quiet residential streets with a large number of pre-school and school age children. Previous events run by We Are the Fair Ltd have resulted in widespread drug taking and antisocial behaviour in the immediate vicinity outside the boundaries of the actual event. Will there be Police and Event Security stationed in all the neighbourhood streets ready to confiscate illegal substances and tackle the antisocial behaviour? How does the Council and Committee propose we protect our children from exposure to such activities which will occur right on our doorsteps?
Yours sincerely Dr Andrzej K Jandziol (Resident - Streatham Lodge Conservation Area). TRAINING FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS [Date …Place …Event …Sponsor …Organizer]
CHILDREN AND NOISE
Children's Health and the Environment WHO Training Package for the Health Sector World Health Organization www.who.int/ceh
1
<
This presentation on Children and Noise is part of a comprehensive set of training materials for health care providers on children, the environment and health.
<
1. Introduction 2. Vulnerability of children
3. Adverse health effects
4. Effects by age -group
5. Taking action
6. Discussion
2 Children and noise LEARNING OBJECTIVES
To understand , recognize and know
1. Definition and characteristics of sound and noise 2. Sources and settings of noise exposure 3. Adverse effects of noise exposure − On physical health − On psychological health − On cognition 4. Weight of the evidence of the harm to children – Special vulnerability of children – Various noise exposure scenarios in settings where children develop
5. Interventions and preventive strategies 3
These are the learning objectives for this module. After the presentation, the audience should understand, recognize and know <
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Vulnerability of children
3. Adverse health effects
4. Effects by age-group
5. Taking action
6. Discussion
4 Children and noise
DEFINITION: SOUND AND NOISE
Sound is characterized by:
Vibration • Frequency ( Hz ) • Intensity (Pa or dB ) • Decibel scale logarithmic • Begins at threshold of hearing Periodicity Duration NASA
“Noise is an unwanted or objectionable sound”
5
What is sound? Sound is a mechanic vibration propagated by elastic media (as air and water) which alters the pressure displacing the particles, and can be recognized by a person or an instrument. Vibration and noise can never be separated but vibration can exist without audible noise. Sound is characterized by its intrinsic characteristics: •Vibration: Sound is a mechanic vibration, expressed as a combination of pressure (Pascals, Pa) and frequency (Hertz, Hz) •Frequency or pitch is the number of cycles per second (Hertz, Hz or kilo Hertz, KHz). •Intensity or loudness is the “level of sonorous pressure” and is measured in Pascals (Pa) or decibels (dB). The audible spectrum of the human ear is between 0.00002 Pa (corresponds to 0 dB) and 20 Pa (corresponds to 120 dB). The intensity of human speech is approximately 50 dB. Decibels are used for convenience to express sound on a compressed, logarithmic scale in the human audible spectrum. •Periodicity: describes the pattern of repetition of a sound within a period of time: short sounds that are repeated. •Duration : is the acoustic sense developed by the continuity of a sound in a period of time, for example music, voice or machinery. What is noise? Noise is an unwanted or objectionable sound. Generally, the acoustic signals that produce a pleasant sense (music, bells) are recognized as “sound” and the unpleasant sounds as “noise” (for example: produced by a machine or airplane). It can be a pollutant and environmental stressor, and the meaning of sound is important in determining reaction of different individuals to the same sound. One person’s music is another’s noise.
The human ear is an instrument that detects vibration within a set range of frequencies. Air, liquid or solid propagates vibration; without them, sound does not exist. Sound does not exist in the vacuum. The higher the level of pressure of the sonorous wave, the shorter the period of time needed to be perceived by the ear.
Why are not all vibrations audible? The ear is a frequency analyzer. The eardrum separates tone and conduction in two different ways: by the nervous system and by the bones. The nervous system connects the cochlea to the temporal region of both hemispheres of the brain. The cochlea perceives vibration transmitted directly from the bones of the head.
Picture: •NASA Children and noise
THRESHOLDS OF HUMAN HEARING Sound level (dB) Soundlevel
EPA Frequency (KHz)
6
Why is noise sometimes inaudible? Threshold of hearing is defined as the minimum efficient sonorous pressure (Pa or dB) that can be heard without background noise of a pure tone at a specific frequency (Hz or KHz, cycles per second). The human audible frequency range is from 20 to 20.000 Hertz (Hz). Frequencies out of this range are not detected by the human ear. The ear is not equally sensitive to all the frequencies.* The most audible frequencies are between 2000 and 3000 Hz (range within which the least pressure is needed to provoke the conscious recognition of a sound). This range can be easily identified where the curve is at its minimum and corresponds to human speaking frequencies. For this reason, sound meters are usually fitted with a filter whose response to frequency is a bit like that of the human ear. The most widely used sound level filter is the A scale, which roughly corresponds to the inverse of the 40 dB (at 1 kHz) equal-loudness curve. Using this filter, the sound level meter is thus less sensitive to very high and very low frequencies. Measurements made on this scale are expressed as dBA . The "normal threshold" of hearing is defined in “““young“young people with a healthy auditory systemsystem””””..
The “““pain“pain thresholdthreshold”””” is the high level (high dB) audible sound where the level of pressure of the sound produces discomfort or pain. The pressures of the sounds are over the curve: “ultrasounds”. Very powerful levels of sound can be perceived by the human ear but cause discomfort and pain.
*Pressures below the audible level are called “infra-sounds”: the pressure is detected but our hearing mechanism is not adapted to making the sound evident to the human ear (under the curve in the graphic). These frequencies (less than 20 Hz, not audible for the human ear) can be produced by machines or “ultrasonic" motors of planes. Out of the limits of the human threshold of hearing exists sound that can be perceived by special equipment or animals such as dolphins and bats that are equipped to perceive sound that humans can not perceive. The human being hears a very short portion of the existing sounds, the very weak and the ones above and below of the thresholds are not perceived or they are accompanied by pain, and can produce damage to a system that is not prepared to perceive them as the person may not be aableble to protect her/himself from this deleteriousdeleterious exexposureposure . There is individual variation within these general parameters.
Reference: •Noise effects handbook, National Association of Noise Control Officials. Office of the Scientific Assistant, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 1979, revised 1981 (www.nonoise.org/library/handbook/handbook.htm).
Picture : •EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Children and noise
MAGNITUDE AND EFFECTS OF SOUND
COMMON EXAMPLE dBA EFFECT Breathing 0-10 Hearing threshold Conversation at home 50 Quiet Freeway traffic (15 m), vacuum 70 Annoying , intrusive, interferes cleaner, noisy party with phone use Average factory, train (at 15 m) 80 Possible hearing damage Jet take-off (at 305 m), motorcycle 100 Damage if over 1 minute Thunderclap, textile loom, chain saw, 120 Human pain threshold siren, rock concert Toy cap pistol, Jet takeoff (at 25 m), 150 Eardrum rupture firecracker
7
This abbreviated table correlates common sounds with effects on hearing.
Additional examples for discussion are listed below: -Quiet suburb or quiet conversation 50 dB A No significant effect -Conversation in a busy place, background music or traffic 60 dB A Intrusive -Freeway traffic at 15 metres 70 dB A Annoying -Average factory, train at 15 metres 80 dB A Possible hearing damage -Busy urban street, diesel truck 90 dB A Chronic hearing damage if exposure over 8 hours -Subway noise 90 dB A Chronic hearing damage, speech interfering -Jet take-off 300 metres 100 dB A More severe than above -Stereo held close ear 110 dB A More severe than above -Live rock music, jet take off 160 mts 120 dB A As above, human pain threshold -Earphones at loud level 130 dB A More severe than above -Toy cap pistol, firecracker close ear 150 dB A Acute damage (eardrum rupture) dBA weighting curve: response of a filter that is applied to sound level meters to mimic (roughly) the response of human hearing. So a typical human equal loudness curve is somewhat similar to the dBA curve, but inverted.
Reference: •Children's health and the environment: A review of evidence. Tamburlini G et al., eds. EEA-WHO , 2002 (www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2002_29) Children and noise SOURCES OF NOISE
Outdoor sources Indoor sources Transport Ambient noise outside • Aircraft • Road Building design and location • Rail Room acoustics Occupational Activities of occupants • Machinery • Children Neighbours • Machinery • Loud music
8
Common sources of outdoor noise arise from transportation (aircraft, car and truck traffic, and trains), occupations (construction machinery, assembly lines), and even from neighbours (yard equipment, loud music). Indoor noise is affected by outdoor noise, and indoor sources such as TV, radio, music and children at play. The level is modified by building design and location as well as room acoustics. Children and noise
SETTINGS OF NOISE EXPOSURE: “NOISE -SCAPE ”
Hypothesized lifestyle noise exposure patterns
Eat, Relax, Watch Sleep Eat, Dress TV Sleep
Midnight Noon Midnight EPA HOUR OF DAY 9
The concept of a “noise-scape” can be useful in thinking about noise exposures. That is, obvious loud noises are imposed upon a background of noises that will vary according to general location (urban vs. rural), time of day (day vs. night) and activity (school vs. play). This image is a schematic representation which illustrates these different aspects of the “noise-scape”.
Reference: •Noise effects handbook, National Association of Noise Control Officials. Office of the Scientific Assistant, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 1979, revised 1981 (www.nonoise.org/library/handbook/handbook.htm).
Picture : •EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Children and noise
NOISE EXPOSURE IN EU
40% of population exposed to Leq > 55 dBA during the day
20% of population exposed to Leq > 65 dBA during the day
30% of population exposed to Lmax > 55 dBA during the night
Hazard is increasing
10
Leq: average sound level over the period of the measurement, usually measured A-weighted Lmax: maximum A-weighted noise level dBA weighting curve: response of a filter that is applied to sound level meters to mimic (roughly) the response of human hearing. So a typical human equal loudness curve is somewhat similar to the dBA curve, but inverted.
Reference: •Berglund B et al., eds. Guidelines for Community Noise. Geneva, WHO , 1999. Children and noise
NOISE CONTAMINATION
Noise exceeding safety threshold is widespread:
• In neighbourhoods • Schools, hospitals and care centres • Urban and suburban areas • Activities inside the buildings (elevators, water tubs, music in discotheque) • From children themselves (toys, equipment, children playing or practicing sports in a close yard) • Traffic: heavy road, railways, highways, subways, airports • Industrial activities • Building and road construction, renovation Increased environmental noise levels - more noise sources
Also linked to population growth
11
Noise contamination or noise pollution is a concept which implies harmful levels of excess noise. Noise intense enough to cause harm is widely spread. <
1. Introduction 2. Vulnerability of children
3. Adverse health effects
4. Effects by age-group
5. Taking action
6. Discussion
12 Children and noise
VULNERABLE GROUPS OF CHILDREN
The fetus and babies
Preterm, low birth weight and small for gestational age babies
Children with dyslexia and hyperactivity
Children on ototoxic medication
13
It is logical to consider certain subgroups of children (since conception) to be particularly at risk for harm from excess noise exposure. These include the fetus, babies and very young infants born preterm, with low birth weight or small for gestational age. Also, children who have learning disabilities or attention difficulties may be more likely to develop early problems with mild hearing loss compared to children without these challenges, and children on ototoxic medications may have higher likelihood of developing problems from exposure to excess noise.
Reference: •Carvalho WB, et al. Noise level in a pediatric intensive care unit. J Pediatr , 2005, 81:495-8. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to verify the noise level at a PICU. METHODS: This prospective observational study was performed in a 10 bed PICU at a teaching hospital located in a densely populated district within the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Sound pressure levels (dBA) were measured 24 hours during a 6-day period. Noise recording equipment was placed in the PICU access corridor, nursing station, two open wards with three and five beds, and in isolation rooms. The resulting curves were analyzed. RESULTS: A basal noise level variation between 60 and 70 dBA was identified, with a maximum level of 120 dBA. The most significant noise levels were recorded during the day and were produced by the staff. CONCLUSION: The basal noise level identified exceeds International Noise Council recommendations. Education regarding the effects of noise on human hearing and its relation to stress is the essential basis for the development of a noise reduction program. Children and noise
VULNERABILITY OF CHILDREN
Different perception of dangers of noise • Can not recognize the dangerous exposures Lack of ability to control the environment • Are not able to identify and avoid the source of noxious noise • Exposure intra utero Noise can interfere with communication of danger May be more exposed due to their behaviour • Exploratory or risk behaviour (in children and teenagers)
14
Special vulnerability of children to noise. The known increased risk is due to <
Noise effects in children “Children may be more prone to the adverse effects of noise becau se they may be more frequently exposed ….and they are more susceptible to the impact of noise ”. (Tamburlini, 2002)
Reference : •Children's health and the environment: A review of evidence. Tamburlini G et al., eds. EEA-WHO , 2002 (www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2002_29) Children and noise VULNERABILITY OF CHILDREN Why might children be more susceptible to noise effects? Possible increased risk due to immaturity Increased cochlear susceptibility? • In utero • Animal data studies Critical periods in relation to learning Lack of developed coping repertoires Vulnerable tasks \ Vulnerable settings (schools, home, streets)
What might be the implications of noise effects? Lifelong impairment of learning and education Short-term deficit followed by adaptation Non intentional lesions 15
<
The role of the amniotic fluid is not yet defined, nor when and which noises or vibrations can damage the fetal development of the auditory system (e.g. cochlea). Concern about synergism between exposure to noise and ototoxic drugs remains incompletely defined. There are studies on fetal audition dating from 1932 that explore the reaction of the fetus to external noises but even today this remains incompletely characterized.
References: •Children's health and the environment: A review of evidence, Ed. Tamburlini G. et al , EEA-WHO, 2002 (www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2002_29). •National Institute of Public Health Denmark. Health Effects of Noise on Children and Perception of the Risk of Noise . Bistrup ML, ed. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Institute of Public Health Denmark, 2001, 29. Children and noise CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Vulnerability of children 3. Adverse health effects
4. Effects by age-group
5. Taking action
6. Discussion
16 Children and noise
ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM EXCESS NOISE EXPOSURE Direct ear damage • Noise induced hearing loss • Noise induced threshold shift Indirect adverse effects • Physiological effects • Psychological effects Impaired cognition
Characteristics of the sound can modify effect
17
Adverse effects can be divided into direct damage, indirect adverse effects and impaired cognition. Many effects of noise exposure are more thoroughly studied in adults than in children. The degree of adverse effect is modified by the sound characteristics. •Vibration: can be acute or chronic, audible or inaudible. Vibration can be transmitted to all the body directly through the skin or bones. •Frequencies: lower and higher (ultra and infra sounds) can also damage the human hearing system, despite being imperceptible, and have important consequences for life (loss of hearing). These consequences can also be present after chronic exposure to low frequency non audible sounds (chronic back noise exposure). Incubators are an example of this exposure. •Intensity: Direct blows to the ears, very loud noise (pneumatic hammer or drill, fire arms, rocket), and sudden but intense sounds can destroy the eardrum and damage the hair cells of the cochlea by bypassing the protective reflexes. Acute trauma can cause a lifelong lesion. •Periodicity and Duration : Impulse noise is more harmful than continuous because it bypass the natural protective reaction, the damping-out of the ossicles mediated by the facial nerve. Loud noise may result in temporary decrease in the sensitivity of hearing and tinnitus, but repeated exposure may cause these temporary conditions to become permanent. Children and noise DIRECT DAMAGE
ORGAN DAMAGE NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS
Normal hair cell Noise damaged hair cell
VIMM VIMM
18
Normal healthy “hair cells” transform vibration into nerve impulses sending messages to the brain. Trauma to the hair cells of the cochlea results in hearing loss. Prolonged exposure to sounds louder than 85 dBA is potentially injurious (85 dBA is tolerable for an occupational exposure). Continuous exposure to hazardous levels of noise tend to affect high frequencies regions of the cochlea first. Noise induces hearing loss gradually, imperceptibly, and often painlessly. Often, the problem is not recognized early enough to provide protection. Further, it may not be recognized as a problem, but merely considered a normal consequence of ordinary exposure, and part of the environment and daily life.
References: •Moeller, Environmental health, Harvard University Press , 1992 •VIMM (Veterinarian Institute of Molecular Medicine, Italy): www.vimm.it/cochlea/cochleapages/theory/hcells/hcells.htm
Pictures: •VIMM (Veterinarian Institute of Molecular Medicine, Italy) : www.vimm.it/cochlea/cochleapages/theory/hcells/hcells.htm - used with copyright permission. Children and noise DIRECT DAMAGE
AUDIOGRAM
Noise-induced hearing loss
OSHA
19
<< NOTE TO USERUSER:: If possible place an audiogram of a childchild living in yyourour local environment here to illustrate either normal hearing, or hearing damaged by environmenvironmentalental noise. >>
Noise-induced hearing loss is insidious, but increases with time, usually beginning in adolescent years. As shown here, it affects the high frequencies first. The speech window is between 500 and 4000 Hz, so it is not surprising that high frequency loss of large magnitude could go undetected for long periods of time without formal testing.
Picture: •OSHA (U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration) www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/images/sensorineural_loss_audiogram.gif Children and noise DIRECT DAMAGE
CHILDREN AND NOISE: SETTINGS
Noise at home 50 - 80 dB A Home appliances 78 - 102 dB A Noise in incubators 60 - 75 dB A, peak sounds 120 dB A Noise in hospitals > 70 dB A Day-care institutions 75 – 81 dB A Noise from toys peak sounds 79 - 140 dB A Background noise in schools 46.5 – 77.3 dB A
20
These ranges represent excessive everyday exposures of children to sound.
References: •Committee on Environmental Health. Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn. Pediatrics , 1997, 100:724 -27 . •Etzel RA, ed. Pediatric Environmental Health. 2nd ed. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health.; Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics , 2003. Children and noise DIRECT DAMAGE
NOISE INDUCED THRESHOLD SHIFT (NITS)
Initially - a temporary condition • Decrease in sensitivity to noise • Tinnitus
Caused by exposure to loud noises
May be reversible or irreversible • Severity and duration of exposure • Continuous and recurrent exposure
21
Exposure to loud noise may result in a temporary decrease in the sensitivity of hearing and tinnitus. This condition, called temporary noise-induced threshold shift (NITS), lasts for several hours depending on the degree of exposure, and may become permanent depending on the severity and duration of noise exposure. Noise induced threshold shifts may be reversible; however, continued excessive noise exposure could lead to progression of NITS to include other frequencies and lead to increase severity and permanent hearing loss. The consequences of these measured NITS may be enormous if they progress to a persistent minimal sensorineural hearing loss. In school-aged children, minimal sensorineural hearing loss has been associated with poor school performance and social and emotional dysfunction. Children and noise DIRECT DAMAGE
PREVALENCE NOISE INDUCED THRESHOLD SHIFTS
National survey US children (n=5249)
Characteristics % (95% CI) Age: 6-11 years old 8.5 (6.9-10.0) 12-19 years old 15.5 (13.3-17.6) Sex: Male 14.8 (12.3-17.3) Female 10.1 (8.3-11.8) Urban status: Metropolitan 11.9 (9.8-14.0) Non-metropolitan 13.0 (11.3-14.6)
Niskar AS, Pediatrics, 2001, 108(1):40-3 22
This is evidence that children are experiencing changes in hearing which are consistent with excess noise exposure. These data show the prevalence of Noise Induced Threshold Shift (NITS) in children which increases with age. The prevalence of NITS in one or both ears among children 6-19 year of age in the USA was recently found to be 12.5% (or 5.2 million) children affected. Most children with NITS have an early phase of NITS in only one ear and involving only a single frequency, however among children with NITS, 4.9% had moderate to profound NITS. This table demonstrates several points. First, older children have a higher prevalence of NITS compared to younger children suggesting that ongoing exposure to excess noise in the environment may be causing cumulative hearing damage. Boys in this survey were more likely to have evidence of excess noise exposure measured as NITS compared to girls, but there was little difference between urban and non-urban status.
Reference: •Niskar AS. Estimated prevalence of noise-induced hearing threshold shifts among children 6 to 19 years of age: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994, United States. Pediatrics, 2001, 108(1):40-3 This analysis estimates the first nationally representative prevalence of noise-induced hearing threshold shifts (NITS) among US children. Historically, NITS has not been considered a common cause of childhood hearing problems. Among children, NITS can be a progressive problem with continued exposure to excessive noise, which can lead to high-frequency sound discrimination difficulties (eg, speech consonants and whistles). The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) was conducted from 1988 to 1994. NHANES III is a national population-based cross-sectional survey with a household interview, audiometric testing at 0.5 to 8 kHz, and compliance testing. A total of 5249 children aged 6 to 19 years completed audiometry and compliance testing for both ears in NHANES III. The criteria used to assess NITS included audiometry indicating a noise notch in at least 1 ear. RESULTS: Of US children 6 to 19 years old, 12.5% (approximately 5.2 million) are estimated to have NITS in 1 or both ears. In the majority of the children meeting NITS criteria, only 1 ear and only 1 frequency are affected. In this analysis, all children identified with NITS passed compliance testing, which essentially rules out middle ear disorders such as conductive hearing loss. The prevalence estimate of NITS differed by sociodemographics, including age and sex. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that children are being exposed to excessive amounts of hazardous levels of noise, and children's hearing is vulnerable to these exposures. These data support the need for research on appropriate hearing conservation methods and for NITS screening programs among school-aged children. Public health interventions such as education, training, audiometric testing, exposure assessment, hearing protection, and noise control when feasible are all components of occupational hearing conservation that could be adapted to children's needs with children-specific research. Children and noise INDIRECT DAMAGE
INDIRECT ADVERSE EFFECTS
Stress-related somatic effects • Stress hormone • Blood pressure • Muscle spasm
Psychological effects • Annoyance / Isolation • Sleep disturbance • Mental health
Cognitive effects • Reading, concentration, memory, attention
23
The next section will review the indirect adverse effects of noise listed here. Children and noise INDIRECT DAMAGE
PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF NOISE
EPA
There might be harmful consequences to health during the state of alertness as well as when the body is unaware or asleep. 24
There are a variety of physiological effects that have been documented or postulated as a result of excess noise exposure. <
References: Stress response: •Frankenhaeuser M. Immediate and delayed effects of noise on performance and arousal. Biol Psychol, 1974, 2:127- 33 Increased excretion of adrenaline and noradrenaline demonstrated in humans exposed to noise at 90 dBA for 30 minutes. •Henkin RI. Effect of sound on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis . Am J. Physiol, 1963, 204:710-14 Hypothalamic- pituitary- adrenal axis is sensitive to noise as low as 65 dBA (53% increase in plasma 17 HO corticosteroid levels). •Rosenberg J. Jets over Labrador and Quebec: noise effects on human health. Can. Med. Assoc. J., 1991, 144(7):869-75. Biochemical evidence of the stress response was found in elevated urinary cortisol and hypertension accompanied a 30 minute exposure to 100dBA in 60 children aged 11 to 16 years. Sleep derivation: Noise levels at 40-50 dBA result in 10-20% increase in awakening or EEG changes •Falk SA. Hospital noise levels and potential health hazards. Engl. J Med., 1973, 289(15):774-81 •Hilton BA. Quantity and quality of patient’s sleep and sleep-disturbing factors in respiratory intensive care unit, J Adv Nurs, 1976, 1(6):453-68 •Thiessen GJ. Disturbance of sleep by noise . J. Acoustic Soc. Am., 1978, 64(1):216-22 Cardiovascular effects: •Etzel RA, ed. Pediatric Environmental Health. 2nd ed. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics ; 2003. Exposure to noise levels greater than 70 dBA causes increases in vasoconstriction, heart rate and blood pressure
Picture : •EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Children and noise INDIRECT DAMAGE
STRESS HORMONES - CHILDREN
Noise Noise type (leq) exposure N° Adrenaline Noradrenaline Cortisol Author
Aircraft 53, 62 217 ++ + Evans, 1998
Aircraft 56, 70 40 0 0 0 Ising, 1999
Road, Rail <50, >60 115 0 0 + Evans, 2001
Road 30-54, 55-78 56 + Ising, 2001
Aircraft <57, >66 238 0 Stansfeld, 2001
Aircraft 53, 62 204 0 0 0 Haines, 2001
+ increase with noise, - decrease with noise, 0 no effect
Adapted from Babisch W, Noise Health, 2003, 5(18):1-11 25
In experimental studies with humans carried out in the laboratory, unequivocal findings of noise exposure on the endocrine system have been sometimes observed. However, exposure conditions vary considerably between experiments. Furthermore, secretory patterns of hormone excretion vary between individuals. It is not clear as to what extent findings from experimental studies on endocrine responses of noise reflect a potential health hazard. To more completely characterize these indirect adverse effects of excess noise, there is a need to 1) develop a consensus on measurement techniques, 2) replicate results of adult studies in children, and 3) link hormone levels to health impairment. When it is done, stress hormone responses may identify risk groups. Leq: average sound level over the period of the measurement, usually measured A-weighted N°: number of subjects
Reference: •Babisch W. Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise. Noise Health , 2003, 5(18):1-11 In recent years, the measurement of stress hormones including adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol has been widely used to study the possible increase in cardiovascular risk of noise exposed subjects. Since endocrine changes manifesting in physiological disorders come first in the chain of cause-effect for perceived noise stress, noise effects in stress hormones may therefore be detected in populations after relatively short periods of noise exposure. This makes stress hormones a useful stress indicator, but regarding a risk assessment, the interpretation of endocrine noise effects is often a qualitative one rather than a quantitative one. Stress hormones can be used in noise studies to study mechanisms of physiological reactions to noise and to identify vulnerable groups. A review is given about findings in stress hormones from laboratory, occupational and environmental studies. Children and noise INDIRECT DAMAGE
BLOOD PRESSURE - AIRCRAFT NOISE
Study Psys (mmHg) Pdia (mmHg) Sound level (Leq) Karagodina, 1969 abnormalities abnormalities distance from airport Cohen, 1980 3-7 3-4 <70 dBA (indoors) Cohen, 1981 no effect no effect 70 dBA (indoors) Evans, 1995 2 0 68 dBA (outdoors) Evans, 1998 3 3 64 dBA (outdoors) Morrell, 1998 negative negative ANE I 45 (outdoors) Morrell, 2000 no effect negative ANE I 45 (outdoors)
Inconsistent picture: 3 positive, 4 negative studies Prospective studies: 1 positive, 1 negative study Magnitude of effect found in positive studies may be relevant
26 Studies on elevated blood pressure and noise exposure (from aircraft) are also inconsistent. Only the cross-sectional study of Cohen shows that aircraft noise exposure (specifically at school) is statistically significantly associated with increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Leq: average sound level over the period of the measurement, usually measured A-weighted Psys: systolic pressure Pdia: diastolic pressure dBA weighting curve: response of a filter that is applied to sound level meters to mimic (roughly) the response of human hearing. So a typical human equal loudness curve is somewhat similar to the dBA curve, but inverted. ANEI: Australian Noise Exposure Index.
References: Aircraft Noise: •Cohen S. Physiological, motivational and cognitive effects of aircraft noise on children: moving from the laboratory to the field. Am Psychol. , 1980, 35:231-43. •Cohen S. Aircraft noise and children: longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence on adaptation to noise and the effectiveness of noise abatement. J. Pers Soc Psychol ., 1981, 40:331-45 •Evans G. Chronic noise and psychological stress. Psychological Science, 1995, 6:333-38 •Evans G. Chronic noise exposure and physiological response: a prospective study of children living under environmental stress. Psychological Science , 1998, 9:75-77 •Karagodina IL. Effect of aircraft noise on the population near airports. Hygiene and Sanitation , 1969, 34:182187 •Morrell S. Cross-sectional relationship between blood pressure of school children and aircraft noise. In N.L. Carter, & R.F.S Job (Eds.), Noise Effects. Proceedings of the 7th International on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Sydney, Australia: Noise Effects Inc , 1998, 275-79. •Morrell S. Cross sectional and longitudinal results of a follow up examination of child blood pressure and aircraft noise. The Inner Sydney Child Blood Pressure Study. Proceedings Internoise, SFA, Nice, France , 2000, 4:2071. •van Kempen E. et al. Noise exposure and children's blood pressure and heart rate: the RANCH project. Occup Environ Med., 2006, 63:632-39 BACKGROUND: Conclusions that can be drawn from earlier studies on noise and children's blood pressure are limited due to inconsistent results, methodological problems, and the focus on school noise exposure. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of aircraft and road traffic noise exposure on children's blood pressure and heart rate. METHODS: Participants were 1283 children (age 9-11 years) attending 62 primary schools around two European airports. Data were pooled and analysed using multilevel modelling. Adjustments were made for a range of socioeconomic and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: After pooling the data, aircraft noise exposure at school was related to a statistically non-significant increase in blood pressure and heart rate. Aircraft noise exposure at home was related to a statistically significant increase in blood pressure. Aircraft noise exposure during the night at home was positively and significantly associated with blood pressure. The findings differed between the Dutch and British samples. Negative associations were found between road traffic noise exposure and blood pressure, which cannot be explained. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this study and previous scientific literature, no unequivocal conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between community noise and children's blood pressure.
Traffic Noise: •Babisch W. Blood pressure of 8-14 year old children in relation to traffic noise at home--results of the German Environmental Survey for Children (GerES IV). The Science of the total environment , 2009, 407(22):5839-43. •Babisch W, Kamp I. Exposure-response relationship of the association between aircraft noise and the risk of hypertension. Noise Health . 2009 Jul-Sep, 11(44):161-8. •Belojevic G et al. Urban road-traffic noise and blood pressure and heart rate in preschool children. Environ Int. 2008, 34(2):226-31. Epub 2007 Sep 14. Children and noise INDIRECT DAMAGE
HYPERTENSION AND EXPOSURE TO NOISE NEAR AIRPORTS The HyENA study Results Significant exposure-response relationship Night time aircraft noise exposure: borderline significant relationship Risk of myocardial infarction in relation to noise exposure: analysis ongoing Effects of noise exposure on stress hormone level (cortisol): statistical analyses and epidemiological ongoing Conclusion Prevalence of hypertension increased with increasing noise exposure Long-term road traffic noise exposure effects on BP Acute effect on hypertension of night-time aircraft noise Highly annoyed people are found at aircraft noise levels 27
An increasing number of people live near airports with considerable noise and air pollution. The Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports (HYENA) project aims to assess the impact of airport-related noise exposure on blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular disease using a cross- sectional study design. Although the study has been made in adults (men and women between 45-70 years old), it might be a good cardiovascular disease predictor in children.
Reference : •Jarup L. Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports (HYENA): Study Design and Noise Exposure Assessment. Environ Health Perspect., 2005, 113(11):1473–1478. Children and noise INDIRECT DAMAGE
PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE
Exposure to moderate level of noise can cause • Psychological stress • Annoyance, interference with activity, isolation • Headache, tiredness and irritability; may impair intellectual function and performance of complex tasks
Exposure to intense level of noise can • Cause personality changes and aggressive/violent reactions • Reduce ability to cope • Alter work performance and intellectual function • May cause muscle spasm and also break a bone (when combined with strong vibration) •Sleep disturbance •Changes in mental health.
Exposure to sudden, unexpected noise can cause • Startle reaction with stress responses • Cause non intentional injuries 28
Psychological effects correlate with intensity (or loudness) of the noise. Exposure to moderate levels of noise can cause psychological stress. Other effects can be: • Annoyance (fear, anger, feeling bothered, feelings of being involuntarily and unavoidably harmed, and feelings of having privacy invaded), interference with activity. •Headache, tiredness and irritability are also common reactions to noise. •Possible impairment of intellectual function and performance of complex tasks. Depends on the nature of sound and individual tolerance.
Exposure to intense level of noise can: • Cause personality changes and provoke aggressive and violent reactions. • Reduce ability to cope. • Alter work performance and intellectual function. • Cause muscle spasm and also break a bone (when combined with strong vibration). • Cause sleep disturbance. • Provoke changes in mental health.
Exposure to sudden, unexpected noise can cause: • Startle reaction with stress responses. •Cause non intentional injuries.
Stress response consisting in acute terror and panic was described in children upon exposure to sonic booms.
References: •Kam PC. Noise pollution in the anaesthetic and intensive care environment. Anaesthesia , 1994, 49(11):982-6 •Kujala T, Brattico E. Detrimental noise effects on brain's speech functions. Biol Psychol. 2009, 81(3):135-43. Epub 2009 Apr 8. •Rosenberg J. Jets over Labrador and Quebec: noise effects on human health. Can. Med. Assoc. J ., 1991, 144(7):869-75 Children and noise INDIRECT DAMAGE
IMPAIRED COGNITIVE FUNCTION
Chronic noise exposure impairs cognitive function • Reading comprehension • Long term memory
Dose-response relationships • Supported by both laboratory and field studies
Study of possible mechanisms and noise reduction interventions • Tuning out of attention / concentration • Impairment of auditory discrimination
29
The most robust area of study on noise and effects in children comes from studies which evaluate the effect of noise on learning and cognitive function; there are possible mechanisms, including noise- related changes in attention or distraction and impaired auditory discrimination. <
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN
Children 6 months - 5 years
Inverse associations between noise level at home and cognitive development
Wachs TD. Early Experience and Human Development. New York Plenum, 1982 Evans GW. Children's Environments,1993,10(1):31-51
30
Effects of noise on cognitive development have been documented in preschool ages as well. Higher levels of noise at home are associated with decrements in cognitive development for age.
References: •Evans GW. Non-auditory effects of noise on children: A critical review . Children's Environments, 1993,10(1):31-51. •Maxwell LE et al. The effects of noise on pre-school children's pre-reading skills. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 2000, 20(1):91-97. •Wachs TD. Early Experience and Human Development. New York Plenum, 1982. •Yang W, Bradley JS. Effects of room acoustics on the intelligibility of speech in classrooms for young children. J Acoust Soc Am . 2009, 125(2):922-33. Children and noise IMPAIRED COGNITION
APARTMENT NOISE AND READING ABILITY
54 children living in apartments above interstate highway 32 nd floor: 55 dBA, 20 th floor: 60 dBA, 8th floor: 66 dBA
Measures of auditory discrimination and reading ability
Correlations between floor level and auditory discrimination vary by duration of residence
Floor level correlates with reading-abolished by adjustment for auditory discrimination
Reading powerfully associated with mothers’ education
Cohen S. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 1973, 9:407-22.
31
This study shows that street traffic noise measured on different floors of a multilevel apartment correlates inversely with auditory discrimination and reading ability. The higher floors were quieter and children scored better on reading ability and auditory discrimination. Correlations varied with duration of residence, and when reading level scores were adjusted for auditory discrimination measures, the floor level effect disappeared. Reading is also powerfully associated with mother’s education.
Reference: •Cohen S. Apartment noise, auditory discrimination, and reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology , 1973, 9:407-22. Children and noise IMPAIRED COGNITION
RAILWAY NOISE AND READING SCORES
Reading scores compared between classes in same school
Exposed/not exposed to railway noise
No selection of children into classes
Poorer performance on achievement test on noisy side
Measuring reading age 3-4 months behind on noisy side
Bronzaft AL. Environment and Behavior, 1975, 7:517-28
32
This study compared reading scores between classrooms in the same school that were exposed and not exposed to railway noise. Poorer performance was noted on the noisy side with a 3-4 month delay compared to the quieter side. There was no selection of the children in each class. This is supportive evidence that noise impaired reading learning.
Reference: •Bronzaft AL. The effect of elevated train noise on reading ability. Environment and Behavior. 1975, 7:517-28. Children and noise IMPAIRED COGNITION
IMPAIRED COGNITIVE FUNCTION
Los Angeles airport study Cohen S. Am Psychol., 1980, 35:231-43. New York airport city Evans G. Environment and Behavior, 1997, 29(5):638-656. Munich airport study Evans G. Psychological Science, 1998, 9:75-77; Psychological Science, 1995,6:333-38 Heathrow studies
Haines MM. Psychological Medicine, 2001a,b,c; J Epidemiol Community Health, 2002, 56(2):139
Over 20 studies have reported that noise adversely affects children’s academic performance 33
Many studies have reported that noise can adversely affect children’s academic performance. Transport noise is well-studied. Some of the most important studies are the Los Angeles airport study, the New York airport study, the Munich and Heathrow studies.
References: •Cohen S. Physiological, motivational and cognitive effects of aircraft noise on children: moving from the laboratory to the field. Am Psychol ., 1980, 35:231-43. •Cohen S. Aircraft noise and children: longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence on adaptation to noise and the effectiveness of noise abatement. J. Pers Soc Psychol. , 1981, 40:331-45 •Evans G. Chronic noise and psychological stress. Psychological Science, 1995, 6:333-38 •Evans G. Chronic noise exposure and physiological response: a prospective study of children living under environmental stress. Psychological Science, 1998, 9:75-77 •Evans G. Chronic noise exposure and reading deficits: The mediating effects of language acquisition. Environment and Behavior , 1997, 29(5):638-656. •Haines MM. Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children. Psychological Medicine , 2001a, 31:265-77. •Haines MM. The West London Schools Study: the effects of chronic aircraft noise exposure on child health. Psychological Medicine , 2001b, 31:1385-96. •Haines MM. A follow-up study of effects of chronic noise exposure on child stress responses and cognition. International Journal of Epidemiology , 2001c, 30:839-45. •Haines MM. Multilevel modelling of aircraft noise on performance tests in schools around Heathrow Airport London. J Epidemiol Community Health , 2002, 56(2):139-44 •Ristovska G. et al. Psychosocial effects of community noise: cross sectional study of school children in urban center of Skopje, Macedonia. Croat Med J. 2004, 45(4):473-6. AIM: To assess noise exposure in school children in urban center in different residential areas and to examine psychosocial effects of chronic noise exposure in school children, taking into account their socioeconomic status. METHODS: We measured community noise on specific measurement points in residential-administrative-market area and suburban residential area. We determined the average energy-equivalent sound level for 8 hours (LAeq, 8 h) or 16 hours (LAeq, 16 h) and compared measured noise levels with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Psychological effects were examined in two groups of children: children exposed to noise level LAeq, 8 h >55 dBA (n=266) and children exposed to noise level LAeq, 8 h <55 dBA (n=263). The examinees were schoolchildren of 10-11 years of age. We used a self-reported questionnaire for each child - Anxiety test (General Anxiety Scale) and Attention Deficit Disorder Questionnaire intended for teachers to rate children's behavior. We used Mann Whitney U test and multiple regression for identifying the significance of differences between the two study groups. RESULTS: School children who lived and studied in the residential-administrative-market area were exposed to noise levels above WHO guidelines (55 dBA), and school children who lived and studied in the suburban residential area were exposed to noise levels below WHO guidelines. Children exposed to LAeq, 8 h >55 dBA had significantly decreased attention (Z=-2.16; p=0.031), decreased social adaptability (Z =-2.16; p=0.029), and increased opposing behavior in their relations to other people (Z=-3; p=0.001). We did not find any correlation between socioeconomic characteristics and development of psychosocial effects. CONCLUSION: School children exposed to elevated noise level had significantly decreased attention, and social adaptability, and increased opposing behavior in comparison with school children who were not exposed to elevated noise levels. Chronic noise exposure is associated with psychosocial effects in school children and should be taken as an important factor in assessing the psychological welfare of the children. •Stansfeld SA. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: a cross-national study. Lancet, 2005, 365: 1942– 49. •van Kempen EE et al. Children's annoyance reactions to aircraft and road traffic noise. J Acoust Soc Am . 2009, 125(2):895-904. Children and noise IMPAIRED COGNITION
MUNICH AIRPORT SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
Closure of old airport, opening of new airport
Deficits in long-term memory and reading around old airport Impairments diminish within 2 years after airport closed
Same impairments develop in new group US Transportation Security of children within 2 years of new airport Administration opening
Hygge S, Psychol Sci. (2002)13(5):469
34
When an old airport was closed down in Munich, deficits in long term memory and reading in children exposed to the old airport improved within 2 years of the airport's closure and the associated decreased noise exposure. Interestingly, the children exposed to noise from the new airport replacing the old began to have the same deficits in long term memory and reading that were seen in the children exposed to the old airport—also within 2 years.
Reference: •Hygge S. et al. A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance in schoolchildren, Psychol Sci., 2002, 13(5):469. Before the opening of the new Munich International Airport and the termination of the old airport, children near both sites were recruited into aircraft-noise groups (aircraft noise at present or pending) and control groups with no aircraft noise (closely matched for socioeconomic status). A total of 326 children (mean age = 10.4 years) took part in three data-collection waves, one before and two after the switch-over of the airports. After the switch, long-term memory and reading were impaired in the noise group at the new airport. and improved in the formerly noise-exposed group at the old airport. Short- term memory also improved in the latter group after the old airport was closed. At the new airport, speech perception was impaired in the newly noise-exposed group. Mediational analyses suggest that poorer reading was not mediated by speech perception, and that impaired recall was in part mediated by reading.
Picture: •US Transportation Security Administration Children and noise IMPAIRED COGNITION STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE ON CHILDREN
HEALTH OUTCOME STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE Annoyance Sufficient Hearing loss Sufficient Cognitive performance - reading Sufficient Cognitive performance - memory Sufficient Cognitive performance - auditory discrimination Sufficient Cognitive performance - speech perception Sufficient Cognitive performance - academic performance Sufficient Cognitive performance - attention Inconclusive Motivation Sufficient / limited Wellbeing/perceived stress Sufficient / limited Catecholamine secretion Limited / inconclusive Hypertension Limited (weak associations) Psychiatric disorder Inconclusive / no effect Sleep disturbance Inadequate / no effect Birth weight Inadequate Immune effects Inadequate 35
Here is a brief summary slide examining the weight of the evidence for health outcomes in children from aircraft noise. We are indebted to Dr. Stephen Stansfeld (Queen Mary, University of London) for kindly lending us this and many of the previous slides for this project. This slide highlights the clear associations in children between annoyance, hearing loss and impaired cognitive performance and excess noise. The lower categories are still in need of investigation.
<
1. Introduction
2. Vulnerability of children
3. Adverse health effects 4. Effects by age-group
5. Taking action
6. Discussion
36 Children and noise
EFFECTS OF NOISE BY AGE -GROUP
Fetus
Infant
Pre-school, school-aged children
Teenager
Youth
37 Children and noise
EFFECTS OF NOISE ON THE FETUS
Growth retardation • Occupational exposure of the mother to noise • Environmental noise unlikely to cause effects, but exposure to chronic low-dose noise requires more study
Hearing impairment • Possible effects
38
There are several paediatric populations which may be at increased risk of harm from noise. The fetus is one in which there is some evidence that occupational exposure to a pregnant woman may result in growth retardation and/or hearing impairment. Little is known about the effects of non-occupational noise on fetal development, and further studies are needed.
Reference: •American Academy of Paediatrics, Committee on Environmental Health. Noise: a hazard to the fetus and newborn. Pediatrics . 1997, 100:724-727. Children and noise
EFFECTS OF NOISE ON INFANTS
Pre-term and full-term baby
Exposed to “Neonatal Intensive Care Unit" (NICU) noise • Pre-term babies have immature hearing organs / systems
Adverse noise-induced effects on the pre-term baby • Hearing impairment: possible effect • Sleep disturbances : awakening, sleep disruption • Others : crying
39
Babies who are born pre-term or require intensive care in hospital are exposed to large amounts of noise from incubators and busy hospital settings. Furthermore, this noise may be continuous, 24 hours/day. They are exposed to “Neonatal Intensive Care Unit" (NICU) noise (60 - 90 dBA max. 120 dBA) and noise inside the incubators (60 – 75 dBA max. 100 dBA). Pre-term babies must cope with their environment with immature organ systems (auditory, visual and central nervous system). These last stages of maturation occur, in part, during the time the pre-term child is in an incubator or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).
References : •Brandon DH. Effect of Environmental Changes on Noise in the NICU. Advances in Neonatal Care , 2008, 8(5):S5-S10 •Milette IH, Carnevale FA. I'm trying to heal...noise levels in a pediatric intensive care unit. Dynamics, 2003, 14:14-21. The literature demonstrates clearly that most intensive care units exceed the standard recommendations for noise levels in hospitals, and that high noise levels have negative impacts on patients and staff. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of noise in a PICU and compare it to the recommendations of ternational bodies. We outline recommendations to promote the awareness of this problem and suggest strategies to decrease the level of noise in a PICU. The orientations of these strategies are threefold: 1) architectural-acoustic design, 2) equipment design and, most importantly, 3) staff education. Children and noise EFFECTS OF NOISE IN PRE -SCHOOL AND SCHOOL -AGED CHILDREN
Hearing impairment • In isolated cases by toys or equipment Sleep disturbances • Earlier responses than adults (EEG awakenings) Somatic effects • Blood pressure and stress hormones Psycho-social effects • No studies on behaviour with high environmental noise levels • Cognitive tasks are impaired, like reading, long term memory, attention and motivation Vocal nodule
40
EEG: electroencephalogram
<
References: •Boman, E. The effects of noise and gender on children's episodic and semantic memory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2004, 45: 407 –416. •Bowen C. Vocal nodules and voice strain in pre-adolescents . 1997 (members.tripod.com/Caroline_Bowen/teen- nodules.htm, accessed November 2009). •Clark C et al. Exposure-effect relations between aircraft and road traffic noise exposure at school and reading comprehension: the RANCH project. Am J Epidemiol . 2006, 163:27-37. Transport noise is an increasingly prominent feature of the urban environment, making noise pollution an important environmental public health issue. This paper reports on the 2001-2003 RANCH project, the first cross-national epidemiologic study known to examine exposure-effect relations between aircraft and road traffic noise exposure and reading comprehension. Participants were 2,010 children aged 9-10 years from 89 schools around Amsterdam Schiphol, Madrid Barajas, and London Heathrow airports. Data from The Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom were pooled and analyzed using multilevel modeling. Aircraft noise exposure at school was linearly associated with impaired reading comprehension; the association was maintained after adjustment for socioeconomic variables (beta = -0.008, p = 0.012), aircraft noise annoyance, and other cognitive abilities (episodic memory, working memory, and sustained attention). Aircraft noise exposure at home was highly correlated with aircraft noise exposure at school and demonstrated a similar linear association with impaired reading comprehension. Road traffic noise exposure at school was not associated with reading comprehension in either the absence or the presence of aircraft noise (beta = 0.003, p = 0.509; beta = 0.002, p = 0.540, respectively). Findings were consistent across the three countries, which varied with respect to a range of socioeconomic and environmental variables, thus offering robust evidence of a direct exposure-effect relation between aircraft noise and reading comprehension. •Jessen B, Ruge G. Skolebørn skriger sig syge [Schoolchildren scream until they get sick]. Berlingske Tidende, 2000:26. Children and noise EFFECTS OF NOISE …. A WORD APART FOR TEENAGERS !! Potential sources of hearing impairment • Noisy toys, firecrackers, boom-cars, musical instruments, others Discotheques and pop concerts • Exposure similar to occupational exposures • Use of music headphones
Loss of hearing may go undetected for many years after chronic exposure to high levels of noise
Increased rates of adolescent hearing impairment in last 3 decades
Protection needed from the start • Be instructed to use personal hearing protection
• Not only at work but also at technical and polytechnic schools 41
<
References : •Axelsson A. et al. Early noise-induced hearing loss in teenage boys. Scand Audiol, 1981:10: 91–96. •Baig LA. et al. Health and safety measures available for young labourers in the cottage industries of Karachi. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 2005, 15:380. •Fontana AM. et al. Brazilian young adults and noise: Attitudes, habits, and audiological characteristics. International Journal of Audiology , 2009, 48(10):692-699 •Plontke SK et al. The incidence of acoustic trauma due to New Year's firecrackers . Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2002, 259:247-52 . •Ryberg JB. A national project to evaluate and reduce high sound pressure levels from music. Noise Health, 2009, 11(43):124-8. •Segal S. et al. Inner ear damage in children due to noise exposure from toy cap pistols and firecrackers: a retrospective review of 53 cases. Noise Health, 2003, 5:13-8. •Vogel I et.al. Young People’s Exposure to Loud Music. A Summary of the Literature. Am J Prev Med, 2007, 33(2):124-133. Children and noise CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Vulnerability of children
3. Adverse health effects
4. Effects by age-group 5. Taking action
6. Discussion
42 Children and noise
PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION
More research needed, especially in vulnerable groups
Preventive action Noise has to be controlled at the source Hearing protection devices are a last resort
Child hearing conservation programs
Education and dissemination
43
Future research: •Effects of noise on cognitive functions. •Effects of noise on children’s sleep. •Magnitude/significance of noise annoyance. •Children’s perception and risk perception. •Settings: home, schools, hospital, day care centres. •Teenagers' attention when driving and listening to loud music. •Effect of non-audible noise. •Identification of more vulnerable groups! •Intervention programs/best practices for preventing harmful effects. Preventive actions Noise has to be controlled at the source by: •Reducing. •Enclosing the vibrating surfaces. •Placing sound absorbers and other protections. Hearing protection devices are a last resort! Child hearing conservation program •Noise monitoring where children live, study and play. •Hearing protection programs diffusion for teachers and parents. •Vibration detection and protection. •Protection of the pregnant woman. Education and dissemination
References: •Folmer RL, et al. Hearing conservation education programs for children: a review. J Sch Health. 2002;72:51-7. Prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) among children is increasing. Experts have recommended implementation of hearing conservation education programs in schools. Despite these recommendations made over the past three decades, basic hearing conservation information that could prevent countless cases of NIHL remains absent from most school curricula. This paper reviews existing hearing conservation education programs and materials designed for children or that could be adapted for classroom use. This information will be useful as a resource for educators and school administrators and should encourage further development, implementation, and dissemination of hearing conservation curricula. The overall, and admittedly ambitious, goal of this review is to facilitate implementation of hearing conservation curricula into all US schools on a continuing basis. Ultimately, implementation of such programs should reduce the prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss among children and adults. •Moeller. Environmental Health, Harvard University Press, 1992. Children and noise TAKING ACTION
WHERE TO INTERVENE?
Techniques for reducing or eliminating noise • At the source • By installing a barrier between the source and the recipient • At the point of reception / At the human recipient Potential settings for intervention • NICU • Child care settings • Primary schools • Discotheques and rock festivals
Address external and internal noise sources
44
<
References: •Bistrup M.L., Keiding L., ed. (2002). Children and noise - prevention of adverse effects. Copenhagen, National Institute of Public Health (also available at www.niph.dk). •Byers JF, et al. Sound level exposure of high-risk infants in different environmental conditions. Neonatal Netw . 2006, 25(1):25-32. PURPOSES: To provide descriptive information about the sound levels to which high-risk infants are exposed in various actual environmental conditions in the NICU, including the impact of physical renovation on sound levels, and to assess the contributions of various types of equipment, alarms, and activities to sound levels in simulated conditions in the NICU. DESIGN: Descriptive and comparative design. SAMPLE: Convenience sample of 134 infants at a southeastern quarternary children's hospital. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE: A-weighted decibel (dBA) sound levels under various actual and simulated environmental conditions. RESULTS: The renovated NICU was, on average, 4-6 dBA quieter across all environmental conditions than a comparable nonrenovated room, representing a significant sound level reduction. Sound levels remained above consensus recommendations despite physical redesign and staff training. Respiratory therapy equipment, alarms, staff talking, and infant fussiness contributed to higher sound levels. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based sound-reducing strategies are proposed. Findings were used to plan environment management as part of a developmental, family-centered care, performance improvement program and in new NICU planning. Children and noise
HOW TO INTERVENE? Technically
Planning and designing outdoors and indoors “soundscapes” Improving road surfaces and developing green spaces and green barriers Developing noise barriers, building sound insulation Planning internal spaces according to activities (e.g. schools, sports- centres, others that involve noise), strategically using the space & location Reducing internal noise (eg. fans, ventilators) Using sound-absorbent materials Setting sound limits for concerts Increasing public and professional education to recognize noise pollution and reduction!
45
<
HOW TO INTERVENE?
Organizationally and Educationally
Educating children, adults, professionals Teaching methods/interventions Disseminating information Informing the media and decision-makers and health professionals! Creating silent areas (“silence islands”) for resting Distributing earplugs at work and setting limits for the earphones Identifying and turning off noise at the source!
46
<
HOW TO INTERVENE? Planning
Identifying noise sources and recognizing noise as a problem Recognizing health effects in children caused by noise Recognizing and diagnosing adults' health problems originated in childhood exposure Raising awareness Setting-up noise control campaigns in hospitals and schools Applying the “Precautionary Principle” Thinking about noise exposure when planning the settings where children dwell Promoting sound landscape design Developing noise mapping, action plans, community involvement Standardizing noise measurements
47
<
POINTS FOR DISCUSSION
48
<
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WHO is grateful to the US EPA Office of Children ’s Health Protection for the financial support that made this project possible and for the da ta, graphics and text used in preparing these materials.
First draft prepared by Lilian Corra, MD, Argentina
With the advice of the Working Group on Training Package for the Health Sector: Cristina Alonzo, MD (Uruguay); Yona Amitai, MD, MPH (Israel); Stephan Boese- O’Reilly, MD, MPH (Germany); Stephania Borgo MD (ISDE, Italy); Irena Buka, MD (Canada); Ligia Fruchtengarten, MD (Brazil); Amalia Laborde, MD (Uruguay); Leda Nemer, TO (WHO/EURO); R. Romizzi, MD (ISDE, Italy); Katherine M. Shea, MD, MPH (USA) .
Reviewers: Yoon JungWon (Republic of Korea)
WHO CEH Training Project Coordination: Jenny Pronczuk, MD Medical Consultant: Ruth A. Etzel, MD, PhD Technical Assistance: Marie-Noel Bruné, MSc
Latest update: December 2009 (C. Espina, PhD)
49
We are indebted to Dr. Stephen Stansfeld (Queen Mary, University of London) for kindly lending us slides for this project. Children and noise
DISCLAIMER • The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. • The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. • The opinions and conclusions expressed do not necessarily represent the official position of the World Health Organization. • This publication is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages, including any general, special, incidental, or consequential damages, arising out of the use of this publication • The contents of this training module are based upon references available in the published literature as of June 2004. Users are encouraged to search standard medical databases for updates in the science for issues of particular interest or sensitivity in their regions and areas of specific concern. • If users of this training module should find it necessary to make any modifications (abridgement, addition or deletion) to the presentation, the adaptor shall be responsible for all modifications made. The World Health Organization disclaims all responsibility for adaptations made by others. All modifications shall be clearly distinguished from the original WHO material.
50 Safe Noise Dose Chart: Noise Exposure Limits for Hearing Safety Page 1 of 2
Home Noise Dose Chart: Noise Exposure Limits Examples of noise The risk to your hearing from noise exposure depends on how loud it is How it affects you and how long you're exposed to it. This noise dose chart shows the acceptable safety limits. SOLUTIONS! Ear plugs, ear muffs How Loud and How Long White noise One way that noise can permanently damage your hearing is by a single brief exposure to a high noise level, such as a Noise cancellation firecracker going off near your ear. But hearing damage Soundproofing can also occur gradually at much lower levels of noise, if there is enough exposure over time. To protect your Quieter products hearing, you'll want to limit your exposure to these More ideas ... moderately high noise levels as well, and give your ears a chance to recover after any period of noise exposure.
Facts & figures For example:
Fun & function • At 91 decibels, your ears can tolerate up to two hours of exposure. ______• At 100 decibels, damage can occur with 15 minutes of exposure.
• At 112 decibels, damage can occur with only one minute of exposure. Mail from readers • At 140 decibels, immediate nerve damage can occur. ______Firearms, firecrackers, and jet engines taking off are all louder than 140 dB. If you find yourself near any of these without Latest site updates hearing protection, use your fingers and plug your ears! And at Site map the same time, move away from the noise — even a few extra ______feet can reduce the loudness significantly.
About this site Noise Dose Formula The generally accepted standard to minimize hearing risk is based on an exposure to 85 Contact me dBA for a maximum limit of eight hours per day, followed by at least ten hours of recovery time at 70 dBA or lower (at which the risk of harm to healthy ears is negligible). Then a "3-dB exchange rate" formula is applied, which means that for every [?]Subscribe to Noise Help 3 dB above 85 dBA, the maximum exposure time is cut in half. site updates Noise levels above 140 dB are not considered safe for any period of time, however brief. For children, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends no exposure above 120 dB.
Maximum Recommended Noise Dose Exposure Levels Noise Level (dBA) Maximum Exposure Time per 24 Hours 85 8 hours
88 4 hours
91 2 hours
94 1 hour
97 30 minutes
100 15 minutes
103 7.5 minutes
106 3.7 minutes
109 112 seconds
112 56 seconds
115 28 seconds
118 14 seconds
121 7 seconds
124 3 seconds
127 1 second
130–140 less than 1 second
140 NO EXPOSURE
Click here for an explanation of dBA, dB, and other sound units.
Using the Chart Each line by itself represents 100% of the allowable noise dose per 24-hour day. In other * If you want to monitor your total noise exposure without having to
https://www.noisehelp.com/noise-dose.html 07/03/2019 Safe Noise Dose Chart: Noise Exposure Limits for Hearing Safety Page 2 of 2
words, if you've already experienced 15 minutes keep a time log of readings from a at 100 dBA, you're "done for the day," and the sound level meter, then you want a remainder of your 24-hour period should have device called a noise dosimeter. NO exposure above 85 dBA, and preferably These are normally used only for should be below 70 dBA. If you spend a lot of occupational noise monitoring, time in environments with varying noise levels since they can be quite expensive above 85 dBA, you can wear a noise dosimeter and complicated to use. However, * and let it monitor the noise levels and Etymotic has developed a noise exposure times and calculate the noise dose dosimeter for personal use with a you're getting. more affordable price. You can buy it at their website or at the Ear Plug What kinds of sounds do the different decibel Superstore. levels represent? Check the decibel chart to see examples of sounds across a wide range of decibel levels.
How were these time limits derived? Clearly, it would be unethical to perform controlled experiments on humans to determine what levels of noise and lengths of exposure cause permanent hearing damage. Instead, data have been compiled from cases of hearing loss due to accidental noise exposure, or exposures that occurred before the dangers were well understood, and have been supplemented with known principles of the physics of sound and the physiology of the human ear. Various safety groups and regulatory bodies worldwide have been converging on the above safe noise limits over the past few decades.†
Protecting Your Hearing Because different people's ears differ in their degree of vulnerability to noise, noise exposure levels that are well tolerated by some people may cause harm in others. If after you've been exposed to noise your ears have a rushing, roaring, or ringing sensation, or you notice that ordinary sounds seem muffled or quieter than normal, you know now that that level of noise is damaging and hearing protection is needed in that situation in the future. If this happens to you, rest your ears (which means no noise above 70 dBA) for 24 hours.
Be aware: Your ears aren't able to "get used to" noise levels. If a certain noise level doesn't seem to bother you as much as it did before, it's not because your ears have toughened up to it; it's because you've lost some of your hearing. In this case, it's all the more critical to protect the hearing you have left.
† National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), "Basis for the Exposure Standard," in Publication No 98-126, Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure (1998).
Decibel chart of common sounds
Exposure limits for iPod users
Hearing protection devices
Leave this page (Noise Dose Chart) and go → Back to Facts about Noise & Hearing Leave this page (Noise Dose Chart) and go → Back to Noise Help home page
https://www.noisehelp.com/noise-dose.html 07/03/2019 Dunn,Thomas
From: Angelika Klusmeyer Sent: 15 March 2019 11:07 To: Licensing Subject: License application to stage concerts on Streatham Common (July 2019 - Sept 2022)
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to object, in the strongest terms, to granting this license.
I have been living close to the Common since 1992. There have been a number of concerts in previous years, and the impact on local residents has been substantial and entirely negative. I believe that granting this licence would prolong the agony.
1) Car parking This area does not have a CPZ in place, and in the run-up to concerts and for several days thereafter, it is impossible for residents to park anywhere within walking distance. This is an affluent residential area with large houses, many of whom have different generation of the same family living in them; which means there is always a pressure on parking space. Granting this licence would substantially worsen this, both before and after the events. My friend is severely disabled and cannot walk any distance, and he gets anxious and distressed when there is no place for me to park. This continues even after the concerts have ended - I suspect that many concert- goers choose to sober up before collecting their car - full marks for that - but the misery for local residents continues even after the music stops.
2) Rubbish on the common The level of debris left behind after one of these concerts is truly horrendous, and effectively makes the Common a no-go area for some time after. If anyone chooses to wear open-toed sandals (not unreasonable in a hot summer) they're likely to get a nasty surprise. I cut my toes, twice, on shards from laughing gas canisters, which litter the ground together with broken glass and other hazardous items, and no, I wasn't laughing.
I would urge you to turn this application down. If you feel minded to grant it, there would need to be a CPZ to alleviate the impact on parking for local residents.
Sincerely,
Angelika Klusmeyer
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Annabel Downs Sent: 15 March 2019 22:12 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Cc: Subject: objection to Kisstory event on Streatham Common
Having attended a local consultation meeting earlier this week I am now writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on 27-28 July 2019 for the following reasons
1. The organisers stated that the event is designed for and needs to attract a minimum of 10,000 people each day to make it commercially viable. Streatham common (25 ha) is a fraction of the size of Clapham (89 ha) or Wandsworth (70 ha) or Tooting (89 ha) Commons: it is very clearly not large enough to support this sort of event.
2. The damage caused last year by this and other large events held on Streatham common is still very much in evidence. Lambeth must include clauses in contract agreements with all event organisers that ensures all organiser including Kisstory take due care of the ground by laying weight bearing temporary tracking for vehicles, to get onto site and other measures to protect and minimise any damage to the ground, irrespective of the prevailing weather conditions. 3. The land on the common serves as a huge sustainable surface water drainage sump. Compaction of the clay ground will severely reduce the effectiveness of this and is likely to contribute to flooding in adjacent areas elsewhere.
4. Adjacent to this lower area of Streatham Common, all the other parts of the Streatham Common have been designated as a Local Nature Reserve. This is placed at serious risk from two day events with 20,000 people.
5. Noise levels are too high, obtrusive and are disturbing all the time the event is running. 6. Huge Traffic, parking problems, inadequate signage etc etc 7. Anti social behaviour (urination plus) occurring in local streets and private gardens Only 150 portaloos are provided inside the compound and only 20 outside- this provision is clearly far from adequate. 8. Drugs openly sold in the surrounding streets, and probably on the common and litter arising from drug use is entirely unacceptable. 9. Much more security is required to police these problems 10. Litter generated by the event and not cleared up afterwards is also completely unacceptable - this must be priced into the event contract and overseen by Lambeth 11. A clear division of where responsibilities lie between Lambeth and the event organiser is required and made public with contact information so that complaints can be directed to the correct parties 12. More transparency about payments made by event organisers to hire an area of the common does not seem inappropriate to have publicly available. Leading to knowing what is a reasonable share of profits 13. 13. A reasonable share of profits must be returned to Streatham Common SCOOP for reinvestment in Streatham common areas as they think appropriate 14. Very few of the local residents gain any benefit from Streatham Common being sacrificed in this way. The condition of the Common itself is degraded each year from these commercial events. And it will take longer and longer to restore and repair the land. This type of event represents a short term financial gain for a very few. This is not something I want to support.
Annabel Downs Jerviston Gardens, London
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Arabella McNeill Sent: 08 March 2019 12:17 To: Licensing Subject: upcoming music event on streatham common
Hello i am writing to you about the upcoming music event on Streatham common. I am writing to object to this event on the grounds that it causes major disruption to local residents and brings drugs into the area whilst at the same tie doing absolutely nothing to benefit Streatham Common.
The Common is being used as a 'cash cow' by the the council rather than being treated an invaluable community asset that belongs to residents and that requires investment and care. If the council realised this and actually used the myriad of events as ways of raising funds to invest in the common itself, it would find local residents would be far more supportive of these events.
REgards Arabella McNeill Heybridge Ave,
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Barbara Wright Sent: 13 March 2019 10:39 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Re: Kisstory Concert Streatham Common 2019
Dear Tom,
Thank you for your reply.
My objection is that they should not be given a general license to hold events over any period, it should be on an event by event basis instead, for the following reasons:
Preventing Crime & Disorder Public Safety Preventing Public Nuisance
The reason for this is:
1)alcohol will be served over a number of hours over up to two weekend days and with that always comes a number of risks relating to these 3 criteria.This will increase the risk of the above issues becoming a problem
2) The inevitable noise created by up to 9999 people attending and the related noise from live music, film and dance will increase the risk of the above issues becoming a problem.
3)The risk on the neighbourhood of the cumulative affect of 1)and 2) if several events take place over the summer festival period is much greater if a general license is given,even though each individual event will need approval.
Best Wishes
Barbara Wright
Braxted Park
Streatham
1 FoSC is objecting to the Kisstory Concerts on the Common | Streatham Lodge Comm... Page 1 of 2
Streatham Lodge Community
A community website for residents
FoSC is objecting to the Kisstory Concerts on the Common
FoSC is objecting to the Kisstory Concerts on the Common
In a statement recently released by the Chair of the Friends of Streatham Common, they are objecting to the Kisstory concerts proposed on Streatham Common, currently programmed for the first performances to take place on 27/28 July 2019.
The premises license application, which, if granted, will allow the concerts to be held on the Common for many times during a period of more than 3 years (READ MORE).
FoSC objections include:
• Damage to the Common is never adequately repaired.
• Noise levels are unacceptable with houses only 100m from the stage yet noise levels are monitored over 400m away.
• No transparency on the deal between the council and the events company – the initial agreement was to put 1/3 of the profit back into the Common but this agreement has now disappeared.
• Parking & traffic is severely disrupted from the start of set up to final take down.
http://www.streathamlodgecommunity.co.uk/2019/03/fosc-is-objecting-to-the-kisstory... 13/03/2019 FoSC is objecting to the Kisstory Concerts on the Common | Streatham Lodge Comm... Page 2 of 2
• Rubbish in the surrounding streets is never cleared.
• Drugs are openly sold in the surrounding streets.
• Urination (or worse) in the surrounding streets.
• The event is not run for the benefit of local people or for the Common but instead run entirely for the profit of the council and at the expense of the Common.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized on 01/03/2019 [http://www.streathamlodgecommunity.co.uk/2019/03/fosc-is-objecting-to-the-kisstory-concerts- on-the-common/] by Admin.
http://www.streathamlodgecommunity.co.uk/2019/03/fosc-is-objecting-to-the-kisstory... 13/03/2019 Dunn,Thomas
From: Zee Sent: 03 March 2019 22:24 To: Licensing Cc: Zee; Subject: Streatham Common events
I am a resident of Voss Court, overlooking Streatham Common and would like to object strongly to the proposed application by 'We are the fair Ltd' to stage further concert events 2019-2022 and beyond. This is not an event for 'the local community' and brings with it many problems for the local residents including drugs, crime, parking and travel disruption, noise pollution and restrictions to the use of the Common for several weeks due to set up and dismantle. The use of the Common is for everyone and is particularly used by families, especially in the good weather of the summer and this event definitely affects family usage with it's excessively large crowds and loud music. Events like these have no business being staged in such residential areas affecting the young and old alike and many of the residents that I have had contact with, dread this event taking place, many choosing to escape it. We should not have to suffer this, we should feel happy and comfortable in our homes and environment. Unfortunately many of us feel sidelined as the council has previously, repeatedly granted license to this event despite our objections. We cannot but feel that the allure of financial gain has a part to play. So once again I would like to reiterate my objection to this event and hope that it will be taken into consideration please. Bibi Alli
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: bob colover Sent: 13 March 2019 21:40 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Kisstory on streatham common 27/28 July 2019 too many people too much noise too much rubbish too much damage to the common too big in a little space
I object
Bob Colover Braxted Park
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Brian storey Sent: 14 March 2019 10:53 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Kisstory event on Streatham Common
To whom it may concern,
As a resident of over 30 years in Streatham, I am writing to object to the Kisstory event planned to take place on Streatham Common - 27th / 28th of July.
My objections are:
Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common As the event is closed, local Streatham businesses gain no benefit from increased numbers of people The damage caused to the Common never fully repairs – and if the weather is wet it will be worse than last year. Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets Nitrous oxide capsules are left everywhere, not only embedding themselves in the common itself, but around the surrounding streets (including my own) Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council Plastic water bottles are thrown everywhere, not only on the common, but in surrounding streets and gardens. If it’s windy, these will be blown further afield creating a huge rubbish problem far wider than the common itself Traffic is a nightmare in the area A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks Anti-social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event The event has been sold out for months, so the consultation appears to be a waste of time – it’s a ‘done deal’. Residents should be consulted before the event goes to sale.
Generally, this event benefits almost everyone other than Streatham residents and Streatham businesses, yet we lose the use of our common for two weeks. It’s appalling that locally we have to hold charity events to raise funds for such things as the children’s paddling pool (£5k) and get next to nothing for such a huge event as Kisstory. If a larger amount of their fee came back to Streatham Common to benefit locals, I would be a little more sympathetic to holding the event – but as it stands I find it grossly unfair to lose so much for so little.
Brian Storey
Kempshott Road
Streatham Common
London
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Bryony Leleux Sent: 15 March 2019 09:44 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Kissatory festival objection
Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July. I live on Streatham Common North and since the festival started it has only caused problems for the local community. A variety of other events are held on the common which are very welcome as they both add to the community and only cause acceptible, minor disruption. Kissatory is a completely different kind of event. I am objecting because:
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired, the ground becomes so impacted it causes flooding so the regular activities like the kids football are disrupted Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage Traffic is a nightmare in the area Parking is impossible
Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event, we had drunk people knocking on our door and asking to use our facilities and being abusive when we have't let them in Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal, or worse, (I have witnessed festival goers urinating on Streatham Common station platform too) Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council
I'm certainly not against people having fun, but this is the wrong location for this sort of event and has consistently been poorly managed. I hope that for once the views of the community will be listened to. Yours faithfuly Bryony Leleux
Streatham Common North
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Caroline van den bergh Sent: 07 March 2019 20:52 To: Licensing Subject: Objections to concerts on Streatham Common
To whom it may concern.
I am writing to state objection to opening up Streatham Common to more concerts. I live locally in West Norwood and my main objection is the drug paraphernalia that is left in the wake of previous dance events/concerts that my young children have found when playing in and around the common. The inability to clean up all elements of drug diatris is impossible due to the large amount of drugs being consumed at these events. This is both visible to all and sundry both before, during and after the event by the people attending as well as an increase in open drug dealing during the event. We are also disturbed by the noise and but nothing like the residences who live on the surrounding roads. Last year one of my children was kept awake until the concert was over at 11pm.
I hope this information is useful.
Thanks in advance
Caroline van den Bergh
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Carolyn Serter Sent: 15 March 2019 08:47 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July
I am writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July. I am objecting because:
• The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage • The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired • Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage • Traffic is a nightmare in the area • Parking is impossible • Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets • A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks • Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event • Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) • Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common • Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council
As a local resident who enjoys the peace and wildlife of our common I feel this event is not suitable and brings nothing to our common. I do not have the luxury of a garden so the common is my green refuge and I give back to it by voluntary gardening in the Rookery, please let me know what benefits this event brings to Streatham Common?
Yours
Carolyn Serter
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Christopher Reynolds < Sent: 14 March 2019 11:13 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Kisstory event Streatham Common
The prospect of another music event on Streatham Common is too hideous to contemplate. The noise and disruption of last events has made local residents dread these events. They result in a list weekend of pounding noise. Streets blocked and drugs paraphernalia strewn around the area. It’s not what common land is for and it devalues our lives and neighbourhood. These awful events must be stopped. The damage to the common land is always extensive and it is an insult to the local people.
The event is not compatible with the local residents and simply constitutes an invasion of our local amenities and lives.
Yours
Chris Reynolds
Braxted Park resident
Sent from my iPhone
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Christopher Reynolds < Sent: 14 March 2019 11:17 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Kisstory
I am writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July. I am objecting because:
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage Traffic is a nightmare in the area
Parking is impossible Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council
Sent from my iPhone
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: LambethCouncil Sent: 18 March 2019 14:43 To: Licensing Subject: Form submission from: Comment on a licence application - form
Submitted on Monday, March 18, 2019 - 14:42 Submitted by user: Anonymous Submitted values are:
==Your personal details== Title: Ms First name: Claire Last name: Cheshire Email: Telephone: 0
==Your address== Address: Leigham Court Road, Streatham, London, UPRN:
==Your comments== Which application do you want to comment on? WE ARE THE FAIR LTD RE: KISSTORY ON THE COMMON Preventing crime and disorder: The filth, excrement, vomit, drugs paraphernalia which was strewn across the garden and doorstep was the vile aftermath of a truly horrific weekend. Public safety: Large crowds of drunk, drugged up party goers screaming and sprawling across the road into the small hours Preventing public nuisance: The unrelenting cacophony of hideous noise which ruined an entire weekend, put the kibosh on an evening BBQ, and was generally very upsetting and disturbing. Protecting children from harm: Children were seen climbing the fences trying to gain admittance. I don't know who would be deemed responsible if there had been an accident or god forbid a death. Any other comments: Streatham is a largely residential area and the Common is our treasured green space. The huge disruption this event causes year after year impact greatly on the local community with additional traffic, pollution and mess. These kind of events should only be held at venues which are deemed open spaces where residents can neither hear or be affected by the noise, smell, rubbish, illegal drug use and disturbance. Supporting evidence 1: Supporting evidence 2: Supporting evidence 3:
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Victoria Cunliffe Sent: 14 March 2019 10:23 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Kisstory Event Streatham Common
Dear Mr Dunn,
I write as a long term resident of Streatham and a strong supporter of the increased productive use of our open spaces.
My husband and I both object to the use of Streatham Common for the above event.
We have in the past supported the council in the running of events on the Common as a way of using the space for a wider reach of the community, as a way of generating funds, and as a way of “putting Streatham on the map”. We believed Lambeth Council when they asserted that the funds would be split and used for the improvement of the common and that the even would be closely overseen in standards (noise, parking, disturbance, crime and damage), however Lambeth has not managed to fulfil their part of the bargain.
Our objections are:
There is no transparency on funds generated and their use. This was promised but has not been followed through. Crime in the immediate area is higher during the event with drug use and indecency in the surrounding streets, evidence by the proliferation of drug bottles etc as well as eye witness accounts of couple having sex or urinating in the surrounding streets . I literally can watch people dealing drugs on our street corner during the event. The Common is left looking like a ploughed field, cordoned off and unusable at exactly the time it should be being fully utillised by those who live in the area and who pay towards its’ maintainance. No doubt there is a cost involved in repairing the common too. The noise is only monitored in a small area which is a significant distance from the staging (400m) and your measuring does not take into account the impact on residents before this area (as near as 100m to the stage) but the noise levels are very significant, intrusive and upsetting for residents, particulrly those in sheltered and care accommodation that fronts the common. The levels and their sustained manner is almost abusive to those who are elderly or suffer from learning and mental issues. Finally, the parking in the surrounding area become hazardous to pedestrians and other road users as cars are parked on prohibited areas screening visibility at junctions and restricting traffic flow to such an extent that road users become agitated.
I would ask that the council listen carefully to residents on this matter as the increased commercial use without regard for the impact on council tax paying resident of the borough will have a long term detrimaental effect on the support of the council from this area.
Yours Sincerely,
DF and VL Cunliffe
Braxted Park Streatham
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: David Hogan Sent: 19 March 2019 10:38 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing; Roger Subject: Kisstory Concerts on the Common
Thomas Dunn & Lambeth Licensing,
I am writing to you in objection of the application for more Kisstory concerts on Streatham Common. This event is not run for the benefit of local people or for the Common but instead run entirely for the profit of the council and at the expense of the Common. What are you spending the money on? Please tell me. The Lambeth Christmas party??! This event should be cancelled now and for the future until you can put in measures that address our concerns.
If you look at the ground in which the concert takes place you can still see damage to the grass on the common. Some areas are so damaged that they can no longer be used for football practice. Why should our public park, that I take my young kids to every weekend, be taken over by a load of kids doing drugs, littering and using our local streets as their public toilet? Not just that, I live at the Green Lane end of Strathbrook Road, I thought far enough away to not be affected but I can hear the noise from my back garden. You can't escape it. Even on concert day the roads around our area are jam packed with cars using my road as a car park. Let's take over your local family park and see how you like it.
Thomas Dunn I bet you £100 - yes a hundred English pounds that you completely ignore the concerns of the local residents and the concert goes ahead. You can come to my house to collect if you actually manage to do anything about this racket at the end of my road.
I very much look forward to hearing from you.
Kind Regards, Dave Hogan Strathbrook Road
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: David Mattinson Sent: 08 March 2019 10:31 To: Dunn,Thomas Cc: ' Subject: RE: AGAINST !!!
Hi Thomas, for the avoidance of doubt I am AGAINST the licence application.
David Mattinson Managing Director
From: Dunn,Thomas
Good morning David,
Can I confirm you are happy for me to include your email as a representation against the premises licence application submitted by We Are the Fair at Streatham Common (Prem2205)?
Kind regards,
Tom Dunn Licensing Officer London Borough of Lambeth Public Protection and Regulatory Services Resident Services Lambeth Council 3rd Floor Civic Centre 6 Brixton Hill London, SW2 1EG
Phone: 020 7926 1866 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/licensing/
Items by post should be sent to: London Borough of Lambeth, Community Safety, PO Box 734, Winchester SO23 5DG
Items for courier or hand delivery should be delivered to:
1 London Borough of Lambeth, Community Safety, Civic Centre, 6 Brixton Hill, LONDON, SW2 1EG
Public Access - for information on current licences and new applications please use the following link http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online- applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=LicencingApplication
We are working with our partners to build a #BetterLambeth - find out more at http://love.lambeth.gov.uk/better
From: David Mattinson [mailto: Sent: 08 March 2019 08:59 To: Dunn,Thomas
I’d be grateful if you would forward this on to the relevant contacts. regards
From: David Mattinson Sent: 08 March 2019 08:21 To: [email protected] Subject: FW: in full support of ruining the common
Dear sirs,
Id like to extend my support to the council for the intended plan of regular music venues hosted on the common. As a local resident, I think it is only right that the council should seek to extract as much profit from the last few open spaces in the Borough. The council must grab all the money it can regardless of the impact to the local community and damage to the land. Every last open public space must be exploited for profit. Please do not worry about the effect this will have to this common land or the enjoyment of residents or the noise and rubbish left everywhere.
My children play football on the common over the weekend and it is perfectly reasonable that they should kick a ball around in Broken glass, drinks cans and laughing gas cannisters. I take great comfort in the knowledge that the council motivation is driven purely by profit with scant regard to the local community. Its what we pay our council tax for and what an incredible legacy too.
I would like to propose that the council also run tests to see if the land is viable for fracking. It would be incredible to see a large industrial installation destroying the land along side music festivals and camp sites. What a vision !
Please keep up the good work.
David Mattinson Braxted Park
2 Dunn,Thomas
From: David Mead Sent: 21 March 2019 07:29 To: Licensing Subject: Objection to licence for ‘we are the fair’
I live in guildersfield rd and regularly use the Streatham common. I object to the granting of licence to ticketed event organiser we are the fair. My reasons are Loss of access to large section of common for several days for set up / take down. This prevents casual users and other groups using the common.
Ticket cost - the event is much more expensive than fair ground, and users are from further afield rather than providing local families with activity.
Noise - situation has improved for neighbouring areas but still discourages general use of the common.
Crowds and anti social behaviour. Users arriving for a timed event arrive in waves. Any driving in cause congestion and parking issues and those coming by public transport are often intoxicated. Laughing gas canisters and dead balloons have littered the base of the common after similar events.
Revenue does not directly benefit those using the common. We lose use of common, have to put up with parking, crowds and noise, and we get nothing tangible back.
Regards
David Mead
Save paper - please think before you print.
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: taylor Sent: 07 March 2019 10:52 To: Licensing Subject: Streatham Common
I have been told that more applications have been made to hold concerts on Streatham Common. I live at Baldry Gardens, one road away from the common. I strongly object to any concerts being held on the common. The music sound levels are so high - especially the base - that all of the glass in our house rattles. The sound also reverberates off our neighbours houses so you can’t escape the noise.
The parking is also an issue as while there are some parking controls the organisers clearly issue permits to their staff and crew because we have a high concentration of additional cars despite the controls. I was also concerned after the concerts to see a large amount of used laughing gas canisters. Many kids thought they were shinny and wanted to collect them. There was clearly not enough of a police presence to stop drug taking.
There was also extensive damage to the common itself, which has taken months to repair. I am not against the common being used by the community but it is surrounded by family houses and those families would love to see concerts which engage with their children and families. I think you need to keep this in mind when considering any future applications. Regards Eleftheria Taylor
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Eva Perera Sent: 14 March 2019 18:38 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Kisstory music event
I am writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July. I am objecting because:
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage Traffic is a nightmare in the area
Parking is impossible Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council
I will add that if a large amount of money eaised were to be spent on the common, I would consider changing my mind
Regards Eva perera Albert Carr Gardens London
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Fiammetta Alley Sent: 14 March 2019 11:31 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Streatham Common: Kisstory:
Hi.
As a long term resident of Lambeth and frequent user of Streatham Common I am dismayed to see that there is talk of having another music festival there. I don’t want to stop people having a good time or Lambeth Council making much needed money out of it’s amenities but perhaps this could be done a little more thoughtfully. Sore people are, (with good reason, in my view) very upset.
These occasions exclude it’s regular users, sometimes for weeks and leave the ground too uneven for buggy or wheelchair users such as me. Poor local residents have had to endure having their gardens used as public toilets, drug dens and all sorts whilst they hide indoors, unable even to converse because of the noise coming from outside.
Assuming that Lambeth Council is paid by the festival organisers, perhaps people who live in immediate proximity could be offered a reduction of their council tax (to be taken from funds earned from letting out the common).
If the festival management were to leave the common improved in some way, rather than wrecked, as in previous times, then maybe local residents would be more inclined to grit their teeth and put up with the din, dirt and inconvenience of it. Spring bulb panting? Running lawn rollers over the whole of the grassy part so it becomes an even surface for a while? Restoring public toilets and paths?
Hope this is useful,
Regards,
Fiammetta Alley
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Geoff Perkin Sent: 15 March 2019 16:46 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Objection to licence application We Are The Fair Ltd. for Streatham Common
To: Mr. Thomas Dunn, Lambeth Licensing From: Geoff Perkin Fontaine road
I object to the premises license application submitted by We Are The Fair Ltd for permission to hold concerts on Streatham Common during the period between July 2019 and September 2022. We agree with the views below set out on 28th February 2019 by Friends of Streatham Common.
Damage to the Common is never adequately repaired.
Noise levels are unacceptable with houses only 100m from the stage yet noise levels are monitored over 400m away.
No transparency on the deal between the council and the events company – the initial agreement was to put 1/3 of the profit back into the Common but this agreement has now disappeared.
Parking & traffic is severely disrupted from the start of set up to final take down.
Rubbish in the surrounding streets is never cleared.
Drugs are openly sold in the surrounding streets.
Urination (or worse) in the surrounding streets.
The event is not run for the benefit of local people or for the Common but instead run entirely for the profit of the council and at the expense of the Common.
I would also conclude that while the Council does need to generate funds, Streatham Common is simply too small for such events, being so close to houses in a family oriented environment. Other more low key events are fine, but certainly not music events, with all the problems and disruption they bring.
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Helen Marasha Sent: 14 March 2019 10:45 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Kisstory
I am writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July. I am objecting because:
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage Traffic is a nightmare in the area
Parking is impossible Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council
Yours Helen Marasha Fawcett Close
Sent from my BlackBerry — the most secure mobile device — via the O2 Network
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Humphrey Drummond Sent: 13 March 2019 09:58 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: We Are The Fair Ltd" is applying for a premises licence
Dear Mr Dunn
I live at number Streatham Common South and object to the license being granted on the basis of the noise and litter.
The noise is well above the allowed limits as I live closer than the point at which the noise monitors are set. The noise monitors are actually positioned so as to allow the noise levels to be passed rather than making sure the noise level is tolerable.
In addition the amount of broken glass on the footpaths is appalling.
Regards
Humphrey Drummond
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Jane Renner < Sent: 09 March 2019 10:12 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Objection to We Are the Fair licencing application Streatham common
Dear sirs
Will you please record our objection to this application
In short the events proposed are much too large for the space and poximinty to housing, - causing local traffic and congestion chaos, noise, and most of all severe damage to the common. The normal enjoyment of the common for play, the playground,, and outdoor enjoyment is destroyed during the nicest time of the year and families inconvenienced and excluded.
It is a huge imposition on the many people living within earshot - which with the amplification is most of the roads around - and deprives the surrounding communities of an outdoor space to enjoy in the summer weekends. yours faithfully
J & J Renner Braxted SW16
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: John Coleman Sent: 07 March 2019 12:48 To: Licensing; Kazantzis,John Cllr; [email protected]; Hopkins,Jack Cllr Cc: Subject: Proposed Use of Streatham Common for Concerts
Dear All
It is with enormous astonishment that we read of proposed use of Streatham Common as a venue for live bands/concerts and similar events over the next three years. We have suffered enough.
Such events inflict carnage to the fabric of the Common such that it resembles a ploughed field after each event making it an impossible environment for people to picnic and to relax and enjoy the fresh air. A limited commodity in Lambeth.
Each event brings unacceptable levels of noise, traffic chaos for days to local residents and most disturbing of all, for the duration of the event, drugs being openly sold in the surrounding streets. A fact known to our local police force, as is the simultaneous significant increase in vehicle and property crime.
Giving consent would be a truly unconscionable action on the part of the council. This is meant to be a conservation area.
Sadly all we can conclude is that clearly these events/concerts are not run for the benefit of the local people or for the Common at all, but instead entirely for the profit of the council at the expense of the Common and the residents such as ourselves .
Enough is enough, our continued support of the Labour Party will be discontinued if this goes ahead and we shall encourage like mined neighbours and friends elsewhere in Streatham to do the same.
Sincerely
John Coleman and Eileen Coan Braxted Park, residents of 17 years.
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: John Holland Sent: 21 March 2019 08:54 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: The proposed use of Streatham Common
Dear Lambeth Licensing
Re: The proposed use of Streatham Common as a venue for live bands/concerts and similar events over the next three years
I understand the argument that Lambeth Council needs to increase its revenue in these difficult times. However, unless adequate measures are taken to address the issues below, I must add my support for the position taken by the Friends of Streatham Common (FOSC) in opposing the proposed use of Streatham Common as a venue for live bands/concerts and similar events over the next three years.
It is important that there is transparency in any action that is taken to address residents’ objections, which include concern over an increase in vehicle, property and other crime at a time when police resources are sorely stretched. Local support and approval must be obtained for any proposed remedial action. In other words, action to address the concerns listed below should be real and substantial and not amount merely to empty assurances that “appropriate steps will be taken.”
The objections cited by FOSC, which I support, are as follows:
Damage to the Common is never adequately repaired. Noise levels are unacceptable with houses only 100m from the stage yet noise levels are monitored over 400m away. No transparency on the deal between the council and the events company – the initial agreement was to put 1/3 of the profit back into the Common but this agreement has now disappeared. Parking & traffic is severely disrupted from the start of set up to final take down. Rubbish in the surrounding streets is never cleared. Drugs are openly sold in the surrounding streets. Urination (or worse) in the surrounding streets. The event is not run for the benefit of local people or for the Common but instead run entirely for the profit of the council and at the expense of the Common.
The position taken by local residents is not a case of “nimby”-ism. The concerns are real and need to be addressed.
Yours sincerely
John Holland
Braxted Park London UK
Mobile: +44 Landline: +44
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: [email protected] Sent: 08 March 2019 12:36 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Comments for Licensing Application 19/00061/PRMTLE
Licensing Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is provided below.
Comments were submitted at 12:36 PM on 08 Mar 2019 from Mr John Smith.
Application Summary Address: Streatham Common London Proposal: Premises Licence (Time Limited Event) Case Officer: Mr Thomas Dunn
Click for further information
Customer Details Name: Mr John Smith Email: Address: Sherwood Avenue, London
Comments Details Commenter Neighbour/Public Type: Stance: Customer objects to the Licensing Application Reasons for - Objection to application comment: Comments: 12:36 PM on 08 Mar 2019 Fair Trade effectively take over the common for a 2 week period denying users and residents leisure access to the common. It generates noise which can be heard well away from the common. It is a totally inappropriate place to hold this event being surrounded by residential housing. It causes major traffic problems - parking and public transport.. It attracts a drug culture and the likelyhood of associated crime. Attenders have being urinating in peoples gardens and on the strrets. It does damage to the common and cause environmental pollution from generators. It is not wanted by residents and users of the common. It is dumped on streatham by lambeth council so that they can make money withouty any considereration of residents and users of the common. I am a pensioner who regulary uses the common for excercise and I will be denied this for a 2 week period . As far as lambeth council are concerned pensioners don't count.
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Juliet Mitchell Sent: 19 March 2019 12:48 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: We Are Fair Ltd Application re Streatham Common
I wish to object to this application for the following reasons: 1. The Common is always damaged and never properly put back to its former state. 2. There is sadly a lot of those who attend who indulge in anti-social behaviour, drink, drugs, bad language and intimidating behaviour which makes life uncomfortable for adults never mind children in the area. I have actually felt frightened whilst driving my car by the Common! 3. I don’t live on the Common but the noise for the residents is horrendous Juliet Mitchell Churchmore Road,
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your priv acy , Outlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Karen Davey Sent: 18 March 2019 23:01 To: Licensing; Dunn,Thomas Cc: Subject: Kissory event - July 19
Dear Lambeth Licensing,
We are writing to object to the planned event on Streatham Common at the end of July.
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage. The Common is an open green space, on a hill.
The Common is out of action for a long weekend & longer to set up. The play ground cannot be used, due to the excessive noise. There cannot be any community football & no general use of the area.
Every year these events destroy the grass on the Common. Lambeth are now spending time & effort & money draining the area, re-seeding etc. Only for the grass area to be destroyed again.
The fallout in the surrounding streets is high. Urine, drug taking and drug paraphernalia is left along the streets and around the station & never properly cleared up.
Hopefully you will consider these options & encourage the production company to go & find a larger common whereby the event has less impact on the local community
Kind regards,
Karen & Chris Davey Barrow Road,
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Karen Davey Sent: 18 March 2019 23:01 To: Licensing; Dunn,Thomas Cc: Subject: Kissory event - July 19
Dear Lambeth Licensing,
We are writing to object to the planned event on Streatham Common at the end of July.
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage. The Common is an open green space, on a hill.
The Common is out of action for a long weekend & longer to set up. The play ground cannot be used, due to the excessive noise. There cannot be any community football & no general use of the area.
Every year these events destroy the grass on the Common. Lambeth are now spending time & effort & money draining the area, re-seeding etc. Only for the grass area to be destroyed again.
The fallout in the surrounding streets is high. Urine, drug taking and drug paraphernalia is left along the streets and around the station & never properly cleared up.
Hopefully you will consider these options & encourage the production company to go & find a larger common whereby the event has less impact on the local community
Kind regards,
Karen & Chris Davey Barrow Road,
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Katrina Vines Sent: 14 March 2019 11:30 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: No Kisstory Event on Streatham Common
I am writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July. I am objecting because:
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage Traffic is a nightmare in the area
Parking is impossible Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council
The common is a very precious public asset and it is wrong for the council to sell it out in such a way. Furthermore I have no confidence in Lambeth’s ability to use whatever funds this kind of event raises with any responsibility.
Yours sincerely
Katrina Vines Chichester Mews
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Keith Norman Sent: 07 March 2019 17:29 To: Licensing Subject: "We are the fair Ltd" Streatham Common.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to object to the proposed granting of this licence for concerts for the next three years.
The common is too small. The noise is unbearable. The traffic diabolical. The surface of the common is becoming ruined by these events.
Please consider my objection at the decision meeting
Yours faithfully,
Keith Norman
Streatham Common South.
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Kym Bartlett Sent: 14 March 2019 19:53 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Cc: Subject: Kisstory music event
To whom it may concern
I wish to lodge my strong objection to the hosting of this event on Streatham Common. I have been a local resident for 9 years living on one of the streets that serves as a thoroughfare from the station to the common and therefore have witnessed the following during the event:
- Drinking alcohol in the street - Broken glass on the pavements - there is a nursery on my road - Obstructions from traffic and parking - High noise levels, anti social behaviour, fighting - Drugs being sold, taken and the remaining drug paraphernalia being left in public either on the street or on the common - People publicly urinating - A ridiculous amount of rubbish left - last year I took a video of the rubbish left on the common and posted it on a local Facebook group. It received a lot of attention and people were horrified - Severe damage to the turf and grass on the common which is never properly rectified - Last year I witnessed a hysterical, screaming woman being dragged along the road by a man by her feet after the gig. We called the police.
Streatham Common is a lovely open space, much adored and well used by the locals and thanks to local investment of time and money, has really blossomed in the past few years. We have attended many of the events held there such as Kite Day, Rookfest, the Christmas market, Streatham Festival and the Farmers Market, as well as being regulars in the Rookery, the cafe, paddling pool, playground, blackberry picking and just running on the common. I feel very fortunate to have such a local treasure on my doorstep.
It is not acceptable for this space to be closed to residents for nearly two weeks for a festival which causes the level of disruption described above. We believe this is not the right space for this type of large scale event. We are fortunate in London to have access to a vast amount of public green space. Please don't spoil this one. The festival can surely be diverted to one of the far larger spaces in London where some of the disruption would be less and can be better managed.
I look forward to receiving a positive response.
Yours sincerely Kym Schmauss, Lewin Road
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Laura Reynolds Sent: 14 March 2019 15:56 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Kisstory music event
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the Kisstory Even being held on Streatham Common on 27-28 July. I am objecting because I know from previous music events held on Streatham Common that it will be detrimental to the Common, residents in the surrounding area and of no benefit to Streatham Common itself. In particular:
The Common is not large enough to stage such events - there are many residential houses near to the event that will have to suffer the noise and disruption. Some houses are less than 100m from the stage.
As I know from previous years, the impact of large numbers of people trampling over the common at the event, vehicles driving over the common to set up the event and all the temporary erections on site will damage the grass and ground. This is at a time when ordinary members of the public want to be able to enjoy their common for picnics, dog walking, sports etc during the summer months. Last time the damage to the ground was appalling and, despite the Council claiming that there was insurance for the damage (which is not the solution as we don't want the damage in the first place), the damage was never fully repaired.
The noise levels generated by such events are too high and only monitored 400m from the stage which is further away than many of the residential homes that are affected.
The A23 has enough problems with congestion through Streatham, particularly on the stretch by the common and such an event makes the situation a hundred times worse. Parking during normal use of the common is difficult in any event and becomes a complete nightmare during such music events - no adequate provision is made or can be made since it would not be a solution to prevent local residents from parking as they normally would or for vehicles to park on the common causing further damage to the ground.
During previous events drugs have been sold openly and there is anti social behaviour by festival goers - the local residents should NOT have to put up with this. They use the surrounding roads as urinals and strew the surrounding areas with litter that the council takes weeks to clear up (if ever).
Finally we don't even get recompensed by the Council for this inconvenience - only a small amount of the profit is returned to the Common and so there is no justification to use the Common in this way - it is only to the Common's detriment. kind regards
Laura Reynolds
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Hopkins, Leo - LONDON Sent: 15 March 2019 16:49 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Cc: Claire Hopkins Subject: Kisstory on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July - objection commentary
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July 2019 and onwards until the below conditions can be properly managed, controlled and actioned.
We are objecting because of the following conditions.
The sheer mess and littering of both food, drink(bottles, cans etc), paper / card waste, and all such marketing promotional materials that are left behind afterwards which is never properly cleared up (on the common, surrounding roads and locals front gardens). The volume of drugs that is openly being used / sold and then dumped on the common on the roads, or the pavements. (gas bottles especially and the balloons used to inhale the gas! empty small plastic bags of hash, and empty small bags of pills etc)
The damage caused to the Common is never repaired even in part let alone in full. Traffic is a nightmare in the area and parking is impossible even on the roads that are meant to be closed, controlled and monitored during the event – e.g. You close the road we live on (Streatham Common South) and only vehicles with permits are “supposedly” allowed to park there, YET its bumper to bumper with cars on both sides of the road the ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE ROAD on both the Saturday and Sunday – most vehicles (normally swanky highly polished rude boy Audi’s or Mercs) with no permit being displayed, and no penalty notices being enforced on these illegally parked vehicles. Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event. Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common – IF ANY! Just because the organisers pay Lambeth loads of money to take over the common, doesn’t mean you or they then wash your hands of all obligations to look after it, the surrounding areas and most importantly to do the right thing.! you are each as much to blame as each other
We also have 2 small children and they should not be stepping/crawling out of their own front garden gate to instantly be confronted by such an utter mess and used drug paraphernalia where ever you look.
1 I’m not complaining about the noise or the type of music (as we used to dance to it when at Uni 20 yrs ago) what we do object to is the total lack of any respect or attention or control or proper handling for the aspects all clearly detailed above.
Thanks for adding these comments to the massive pile I’m sure you already have.
Regards
Leo & Claire Hopkins (and family) Streatham Common South.
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
2 Dunn,Thomas
From: Sent: 15 March 2019 16:44 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Objection to licence application WE are Fair Ltd
To: Mr. Thomas Dunn, Lambeth Licensing From: Linda Perkin Fontaine road Streatham Common
I object to the premises license application submitted by We Are The Fair Ltd for permission to hold concerts on Streatham Common during the period between July 2019 and September 2022. We agree with the views below set out on 28th February 2019 by Friends of Streatham Common.
Damage to the Common is never adequately repaired.
Noise levels are unacceptable with houses only 100m from the stage yet noise levels are monitored over 400m away.
No transparency on the deal between the council and the events company – the initial agreement was to put 1/3 of the profit back into the Common but this agreement has now disappeared.
Parking & traffic is severely disrupted from the start of set up to final take down.
Rubbish in the surrounding streets is never cleared.
Drugs are openly sold in the surrounding streets.
Urination (or worse) in the surrounding streets.
The event is not run for the benefit of local people or for the Common but instead run entirely for the profit of the council and at the expense of the Common. I understand that while the Council does need to generate funds, Streatham Common is simply too small for such events, being so close to houses in a family oriented environment. Other small more low key events may be fine, but certainly not music events, with all the problems and disruption they bring.
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Louise Coleman Sent: 07 March 2019 10:40 To: Licensing Subject: Streatham Common events
To whom it may concern, I have been made aware that Wearethefair have submitted an application for several events on the common over the next 3 years. I have significant concerns about this as a local resident. We live at Baldry Gardens, one road away from the common with a young family. I strongly object to any concerts being held on the common. The music sound levels are so high - especially the bass and the noise will differ depending on the direction of the wind. It is impossible to sit in our back garden and enjoy a summer afternoon/ evening without the constant thud of the bass. My main objection to the concerts though is the antisocial behavior and drug taking. Last year the area around our streets were littered with nitrous oxide canisters. Many of which my then 2 year old tried to pick up. He saw concert goers taking drugs in plain sight and hauling boxes of nitrous oxide out of the boot of their cars. Coupled with the stench from cannabis smoke and teenagers sitting in cars, this is not an experience suitable for a family area. The Rookery Gardens is a beautiful calming and welcoming environment for many young families and it is ruined by the concerts on the common. Clearly there is a lack of police presence to stop drug taking. The parking is also an issue as while there are some parking controls the organisers clearly issue permits to their staff and crew because we have a high concentration of additional cars despite the controls. I am loathe to go out for the day in the event that I won’t be able to park on my return. I am not against the common being used by the community but it is surrounded by family houses and those families would love to see concerts which engage with their children and families such as Kite Day. I would rather pay additional council tax than have more of these type of events on the common! These events are more suited to larger spaces such as Clapham Common or Brockwell Park. I think you need to keep this in mind when considering any future applications I am unable to attend the public meeting on 12th March, but have made my views clear here. I look forward to your response. Regards Louise Coleman Baldry Gardens
______Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete this e-mail and any attachment(s) and notify us immediately. Unauthorized use, reliance, disclosure or copying of the contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s), or any similar action, is strictly prohibited. Fitch Solutions reserves the right, to the extent permitted by applicable law, to
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: LambethCouncil Sent: 07 March 2019 13:11 To: Licensing Subject: Form submission from: Comment on a licence application - form
Submitted on Thursday, March 7, 2019 - 13:10 Submitted by user: Anonymous Submitted values are:
==Your personal details== Title: Ms First name: Louise Last name: Coleman Email: Telephone:
==Your address== Address: Baldry Gardens, London, Greater London, UPRN:
==Your comments== Which application do you want to comment on? We are the Fair Preventing crime and disorder: Drugs are taken openly in the streets surrounding the common during the music festival Public safety: Drugs are taken openly in the residential streets surrounding the common during the music festival with many drunken/ drug addled festival goers Preventing public nuisance: Drugs are taken openly in the residential streets surrounding the common during the music festival with many drunken/ drug addled festival goers. Parking is not easy for residents as staff seem to let their friends in and parking restrictions are not adhered to. Noise levels are too loud with measurement points too far away from the concert and not taking direction of the wind into consideration Protecting children from harm: I do not want my 3 year old to see drug taking and drug paraphenalia in the streets surrounding our home. Any other comments: This is not a family friendly event and should be held at a larger venue AWAY from residential areas Supporting evidence 1: Supporting evidence 2: Supporting evidence 3:
1 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Stiebel [mailto Sent: 04 March 2019 05:22 To: Licensing
I have been told that more applications have been made to hold concerts on Streatham Common.
I live at Baldry Gardens, one road away from the common.
I strongly object to any concerts being held on the common. The music sound levels are so high - especially the base - that all of the glass in our house rattles. The sound also reverberates off our neighbours houses so you can’t escape the noise.
The parking is also an issue as while there are some parking controls the organisers clearly issue permits to their staff and crew because we have a high concentration of additional cars despite the controls.
I was also concerned after the concerts to see a large amount of used gas canisters. My kids thought they were shinny and wanted to collect them. There was clearly not enough of a police presence to stop drug taking.
There was also extensive damage to the common itself which has taken months to repair.
1 I am no against the common being used by the community but it is surrounded by family houses and those families would love to see concerts which engage with their children and families. I think you need to keep this in mind when considering any future applications.
Regards
Mark Stiebel
2 Dunn,Thomas
From: Martin York Sent: 14 March 2019 11:21 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Music on Streatham Common
Dear Sirs
I am writing to object to the Kisstory event to be held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July. I am objecting for the following reasons:
• The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage • The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired • Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage • Traffic is a nightmare in the area • Parking is impossible • Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets • A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks • Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event • Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) • Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common • Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council
Yours faithfully
Martin York Stanthorpe Road London
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Matt Bender Sent: 13 March 2019 09:49 To: Dunn,Thomas Cc: Annabel Helm Subject: Objection to the premises licence submitted by "We Are The Fair Ltd"
To: Thomas Dunn, Lambeth Licensing From: Matt Bender of Streatham Common South,
We are objecting to the premises license application submitted by We Are The Fair Ltd for permission to hold concerts on Streatham Common during the period between July 2019 and September 2022. We agree with the views set out by Friends of Streatham Common below on 28th February 2019.
• Damage to the Common is never adequately repaired and it remains scarred for many months after the event. • Noise levels are unacceptable with houses only 100m from the stage yet noise levels are monitored over 400m away. Our house is one of the closest to the festival site and our doors and windows shake aggressively all through the weekend each year. I would be interested to hear whether noise readings are taken during the weekend and if so where from and what readings are recorded. I would suggest that it would make sense to take readings from the houses closest to the festival site. • No transparency on the deal between the council and the events company – the initial agreement was to put 1/3 of the profit back into the Common but this agreement has now disappeared. • Parking & traffic is severely disrupted from the start of set up to final take down. • Rubbish in the surrounding streets is never cleared. • Drugs are openly used in the surrounding streets and pubs and evidence of drug use, particularly laughing gas canisters, are left behind in the street after the festival. • Urination (or worse) in the surrounding streets. • The event is not run for the benefit of local people or for the Common but instead run entirely for the profit of the council and at the expense of the Common.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the above. Please let me know if you wish to discuss.
Kind regards
Matt
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Maureen Sent: 14 March 2019 15:21 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Kisstory - 27th and 28th July
I object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common for the following reasons:
The Common is not large enough for such events; a very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly two weeks.
Damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired. Traffic is a nightmare in the area, which is already a busy section.
Parking is impossible and rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the Council.
Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common.
Anti-social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event.
Maureen Papa
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Meera Shah < Sent: 14 March 2019 10:53 To: Dunn,Thomas Cc: Mr Angus Rodger Subject: Objections to concerts on Streatham Common
Dear Mr Dunn I would like to take this opportunity to voice my grave concerns for concerts that take in Streatham Common Which are: - increased crime / use of drugs in family residential area - concerts goers defecating in residents front gardens - the sheer amount of litter as a result that is not managed - the vans and trucks that block roads and don’t have high safety / road awareness. Potential to cause injury to pedestrians - the grounds for the last concert have not been remedied to the state that they were in before the concerts - long term damage to the grounds
I understand that the council are under pressure with rising costs but I feel we cannot allow this unless the above are addressed. And the contract can not allow the concert companies to get away with this.
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
1
Dunn,Thomas
From: Meredith Sutcliffe Sent: 16 March 2019 13:47 To: Dunn,Thomas Cc: Licensing Subject: please no Kisstory event
I am writing to object to the proposed Kisstory event on Streatham Common, July 27 and 28. Experience has shown that the Common is not big enough for an event like this and that Lambeth council is unable or unwilling to protect the people in the surrounding streets from people peeing in their gardens, throwing bottles etc. The resulting mess has not on previous occasions been cleared up properly, the damage to the Common has not been made good and very little money comes back to the Common. I live several streets away (Stanthorpe Road) and the noise is a complete pain even so. In general Lambeth council is allowing far too many events to take place on the Common. The distress to its wild inhabitants must be considerable. It's meant to be a peaceful and beautiful place where things can grow properly and where people can walk without having whole areas fenced off. In an age when it's vital to encourage people to respect nature, the message sent by having all these destructive events on the Common is really shortsighted and unfortunate
Meredith Oakes Sutcliffe
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Mike Robinson Sent: 14 March 2019 09:53 To: Licensing Cc: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July
I am writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July. I am the chair of the Friends of Streatham Common and represent the views of approximately 500 people in our group. This event is far too large for our Common and the ground is never repaired after any Lambeth event - we still have visible damage from the Day of Portugal event 5 years ago. The original intention of these events was to provide money to the Common to provide funding for essential work but sadly the funding we receive has now dwindled to almost nothing. A complete list of our objections include:
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage Traffic is a nightmare in the area
Parking is impossible Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets, we had a gang selling drugs from the boot of their car outside my neighbours home People just don't feel safe in their own homes during these events A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council
Michael Robinson (Chair Friends of Streatham Common)
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Michael Strevens Sent: 21 March 2019 13:37 To: Licensing Subject: Objection to "We are the Fair LTD" Attachments: Urinating.jpg; Hanging around entrance.jpg
To whom it may concern. I am a resident on Streatham Common North and wish to object to the licence application mentioned above. I have been living in the community for almost four years now and find the continued re-licensing for this event unacceptable. I have no choice but to leave my residence for the duration (at my own expense). The noise levels are such that even with secondary glazing I cannot watch the TV in my living room at full volume and still hear the conversations in the programme (that’s with a Sonos Sound bar). Last year, when I returned from the concert, I called the sound engineer to visit. He did not take measurement and left saying the levels were clearly too loud and unacceptable. He asked for the volume to be reduced. I understand it was, but witnessed no discernible difference. He noted that the decibel level differential is only taken at ground level, higher up, where there is no traffic, or boardings to absorb sounds, the levels are unacceptable for the course of normal living. Given the Summer heat levels, we should be able to open our windows without having the choice of migraines caused by heat or migraines caused by sound levels. I have videos on my phone if required. Note even with the windows closed we cannot hear the TV. Secondly, I witnessed people urinating in my front garden. I was able to picture one person, see attached. This is not only highly unhygienic, but leaves residents of the building scared to leave. It is scary enough (especially for the older residents) to leave our flats with people hanging the entrances, let alone when they are exposing themselves and urinating on our plants and shrubs. Lastly the levels of Nitros oxide canisters around after is frankly embarrassing. I have various pictures from my walk to work the following morning. I can provide upon request, however they are too large to attach to this email. The build up to the event causes me high levels of anxiety which affects my work and person. It has gotten to the stage where I will sell my property next year as I cannot bear the thought of an additional year of this nightmare. This is a great personal shame for me as I have found Streatham a great and vibrant place to live. I have particularly enjoyed seeing it grow and establish itself as a serious competitor to the likes of Balham and Tooting. As such it is with a heavy heart that I will have to bring my stay there to an earlier than anticipated end. It is also clear to me that with such an event now a regular occurrence, raising a family at my current residence is now out of the question. Regards Mike Michael Strevens
t m e
1
The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 1 of 11
Home News Sport Weather iPlayer Sounds CBBC
Home UK World Business Politics Tech Science Health
UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru
The drugs being used at UK festivals
By Jon Waldron and Prof Valerie Curran University College London
5 July 2018 Share
ALAMY
Over the summer, thousands of people will flock to festivals to socialise and enjoy music. Despite all the warnings, some will take drugs - but what do we know about the substances being used and the risks they pose?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 2 of 11
In May two young adults died at the Mutiny dance music festival in Portsmouth, after organisers issued an alert about the availability of dangerous drugs at the site.
The parents of victims Georgia Jones, 18, and Tommy Cowan, 20, warned others about drug use, but such stories are not uncommon - every year we hear of people dying at festivals.
Knowing more about what people are using - and what the risks might be - is crucial to protect them from harm.
Who is using drugs?
Up-to-date information about the drugs being used at festivals and the number of people taking them is limited.
However, as a large proportion of people at festivals are under the age of 35, drug use figures for UK 15- to 34-year- olds from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) may give some insight.
These suggest that across the population as a whole, illegal drugs are used by a minority of young adults.
The most common, cannabis, was used by 12% of people in this age group in 2017, while cocaine was used by 4%, ecstasy by 3% and ketamine and amphetamines by 1%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 3 of 11
It is thought that rates of use are higher among clubbers and festivalgoers than the population as a whole.
◾ Bestival to provide drug testing service
◾ Nearly half of young women harassed at festivals
◾ Reality Check: Are festivals bad for the environment?
◾ Festival boss: 'Long way to go' on gender balance
But figures from 10 major UK festivals between 2008-11 showed that seizures of drugs fell rapidly over the period.
A later Freedom of Information request for drug seizures at the Glastonbury Festival between 2014-16 showed a sharp fall in the number of arrests but a rise in the amount of cocaine, ecstasy/MDMA and ketamine confiscated by police.
Stronger drugs
Perhaps the most worrying trend is the recent rise in deaths attributed to club drugs, notably ecstasy and cocaine.
Deaths in England and Wales linked to ecstasy pills reached their highest level in 2016 at 63 - up from 10 in 2010.
Meanwhile, the number of cocaine-related deaths rose from 112 in 2011 to 371 in 2016.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 4 of 11
GETTY IMAGES The number of people using drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy has remained largely stable, which suggests that the rise in deaths and hospital admissions is not down to more drugs being used.
Instead, the big change has been a dramatic rise in purity and strength.
For example, while the average content of MDMA - the active ingredient in ecstasy pills - was between 50mg and 80mg in the 2000s, it is thought that pills in Europe now contain an average of about 125mg. "Super strength" pills containing over 270mg have also been seen.
Another worrying development is the emergence of so-called new psychoactive substances - synthetic drugs made in laboratories, designed to mimic the effects of "traditional" substances. By 2015 the EMCDDA was actively monitoring more than 450 substances, with the potential risks varying with each one.
Often, they can have the same appearance as "traditional" drugs - frequently fine white powders - allowing them to be intentionally mis-sold to unwitting customers.
The problems caused by drugs
◾ Cocaine: Overheating, paranoia, psychosis-like experiences, heart failure, nasal damage, dependence
◾ Ecstasy/MDMA: Dehydration, overheating, panic attacks, heart attack, stroke, psychosis-like experiences, low mood in days after use
◾ Ketamine: Accidents, psychosis-like experiences, severe bladder problems, nasal damage, dependence
◾ Amphetamines: Heart problems, overheating, anxiety, high blood pressure, psychosis-like experiences, dependence
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 5 of 11
◾ Cannabis: Paranoia, psychosis-like experiences, anxiety, lung damage, nausea, dependence
◾ Alcohol: Accidents, nausea, high blood pressure, strokes, liver damage, cancer, dependence
Source: The Loop, Talk to Frank, NHS Choices
Ultimately, no drug use can be considered truly safe and the only way to avoid the risk of harm completely is to avoid using them.
However, the reality is that, for some, drugs and festivals go hand in hand.
Drugs campaign group The Loop has previously tested the contents of substances seized by police and security at events but wants more festivalgoers to be allowed to have samples tested themselves.
It offered the service at a number of events last year and says that where this has happened about 20% of people decide not to take their drugs after hearing the results.
GETTY IMAGES
This year, Bestival has said that although it "strongly advises festivalgoers to avoid taking any illegal substances", it will allow testing by The Loop to give people "the opportunity to make
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 6 of 11
informed choices". Local police are aware and say they "are exploring all safety options".
The Loop, which has said people who do use drugs should take only a small amount to test how it affects them, also issues alerts via social media about potentially dangerous adulterated or high-strength batches they have identified.
However, some festival organisers have previously called for police to clarify whether they support offering testing to festivalgoers and have raised concerns that the results "have the ability to mislead". The Home Office has said "no drug- taking can be assumed to be safe".
More like this:
◾ The UK's rapid return to city centre living
◾ Why working from home was never an easy option
◾ The UK's changing mixed-race population
◾ Why is alcohol getting more expensive?
Those who do decide to keep their drugs after testing cannot be certain about all of the drugs they have.
Substances can vary markedly in their content even within the same batches. And popular designs of pills, including logos, are often copied. It is not possible for someone to know all the pills they have are the same.
Combining different drugs can cause very dangerous interactions.
It would be an oversight not to mention the most ubiquitous festival drug - alcohol.
Across society, it causes more harm than any other drug and has been linked to 337,000 hospital admissions in England in 2016-2017 and 5,507 deaths in 2016.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 7 of 11
Almost six out of 10 UK adults drink alcohol weekly and at festivals it is not unreasonable to assume that many people will be drinking more than usual.
So, while some festivalgoers need to think very carefully about banned substances they plan to take, the problem facing a greater number will be making sure they don't overdo it on the drink.
About this piece
This analysis piece was commissioned by the BBC from experts working for an outside organisation.
Jon Waldron and Prof Val Curran are members of the Electronic Music Scene Survey team, a European research project (funded in the UK by the Department of Health) and based at the Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 8 of 11
Edited by Duncan Walker
Related Topics
Music festivals Expert Network Drug use
Share this story About sharing
UK
Commons tries to break EU plans vehicle speed Tributes as The Beat Brexit deadlock limiters from 2022 star Ranking Roger dies 27 March 2019 27 March 2019 UK Politics 27 March 2019 Business Entertainment & Arts
Top Stories
Commons tries to break Brexit EU plans vehicle speed limiters deadlock from 2022 As MPs seek a way forward on leaving 17 minutes ago the EU, the PM will meet Tory backbenchers to sell her deal. US county declares measles 10 minutes ago emergency
2 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 9 of 11
Features
The murder of an Here's what you need Children's joy at Instagram star to know in five seeing dolls like them minutes
How it feels to save a Cycling heaven: The How lunch with a life African capital with friend caused years of 'no traffic' trauma
Where is IS still active How to create a Round the world in 20 around the world? period-friendly days workplace
Elsewhere on the BBC
The Yorkshire Daily news briefing Ripper direct to your inbox A historic case is re- Sign up for our examined newsletter
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 10 of 11
Most Read
Road safety: EU plans vehicle speed limiters from 2022 1
UK man arrested fleeing Australia on jet ski, police say 2 Brexit: MPs prepare for votes in bid to break deadlock 3
News Daily: More Brexit votes - and is this the end of speeding? 4
Ranking Roger: The Beat singer dies aged 56 5 New York county declares measles outbreak emergency 6
How lunch with a friend caused years of trauma 7
Newspaper headlines: Must May quit to secure Brexit? 8 Tate Modern overtakes British Museum as top UK visitor attraction 9
Craft workers 'need their own titles' 10
Why you can trust BBC News
BBC News Services
On your mobile On your Get news alerts Contact BBC connected tv News
Explore the BBC
Home News
Sport Weather iPlayer Sounds
CBBC CBeebies
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 The drugs being used at UK festivals - BBC News Page 11 of 11
Earth Arts
Make It Digital Taster
Local Tomorrow's World
TV Radio
Terms of Use About the BBC
Privacy Policy Cookies
Accessibility Help Parental Guidance
Contact the BBC Get Personalised Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44482290 27/03/2019 Dunn,Thomas
From: Munaf Dayal Sent: 18 March 2019 12:29 To: Licensing Subject: OBJECTION TO LICENCING APPLICATION
This is to confirm our objection to the Licencing applicaiton of "We Are The Fair Ltd" who are applying for a licence to stage many concerts on Streatham Common for a periodof more than three years from July 2019 to September 2022.
The licence is not appropriate use of the common and will cause damage and excess noise, as well traffic chaos to local residents and the drugs being openly sold in the surrounding streets etc, etc.
Drugs crime has increased dramatically since concerts were introduced into the Common in the summer of 2015 A large number of laughing gas canisters were found scattering around the concert venue last July.
These concerts are not run for the benefit of the local people at all or for the Common but it seems instead it is run entirely for the profit of the council at the expense of the Common and the residents.
Yours faithfully, M Dayal Green lane
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Sent: 14 March 2019 10:39 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Streatham Common concert
To: Mr. Thomas Dunn, Lambeth Licensing From: Mrs N Mallick Heybridge Avenue
We object to the premises license application submitted by We Are The Fair Ltd for permission to hold concerts on Streatham Common during the period between July 2019 and September 2022. We agree with the views below set out on 28th February 2019 by Friends of Streatham Common.
Damage to the Common is never adequately repaired.
Noise levels are unacceptable with houses only 100m from the stage yet noise levels are monitored over 400m away.
No transparency on the deal between the council and the events company – the initial agreement was to put 1/3 of the profit back into the Common but this agreement has now disappeared. Also, it creates havoc around our streets with people parking in front of drive ways. Throwing empty bottles, and empty marijuana shells. The safety of local residents should be paramount which gets compromised when such events are conducted so near a residential area.
Regards Mrs N Mallick
1 Dunn,Thomas
Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Mar 2019, at 11:04, nick wright wrote:
Dear Mr Dunn
I am al local resident of Streatham Common (Heathdene Road) and am writing to object to the application by We Are Fair Ltd for a premises Licence on Streatham Common to run between July 2019 to September 2022.
I find it of deep concern that this licence would allow multiple events to be held on the common over the next three years. The common is enjoyed by a large cross section of the community and these concerts produce much disruption to the community as a whole:
The events take a considerable amount of time to construct and dismantle either side of the event itself, thus depriving residents access to large areas of the common, the event itself usually held over a weekend when many families would like to relax on the common find themselves fighting for space with event goers.
The event itself produces a huge amount of rubbish which inevitably is not all cleared or the bags are torn by wildlife at night and end up being scattered over the common, in addition to the general additional rubbish left by event participants in the surrounding streets.
Parking is disturbed in the surrounding area, it is all very well to restrict parking in the immediate area but this just means the problem moves to nearby streets.
1 The noise levels I know are very unpleasant for the immediate residents of the common and I know from walking my dog in the area they spread over a vast distance, which many residents find distressing and unpleasant.
Drug use in the area also rises when these events take place, I witness the general drug detritus left abandoned in the area over the weekends past events have taken place and I have personally witnessed a group of event goers urinating through the railings of a property on Greyhound lane.
These events have always produced much damage to the common itself, especially when unseasonal rainfall is heavy either just before or during the events, the recovery time often being lengthy.
I also find concerning that the above application was only posted by the council on 28th February giving residents scant time to consider their objections, this combined with a report I have been given suggesting that the council has backed out of it’s previous offer to pass 1/3 of any profits to the bodies representing the common seems to suggest that the council does not have the wellbeing of the local residents as part of it’s core values.
I would strongly urge you to reject this application as not being in the best interests of the local residents and those of the surrounding area who use the common for recreational purposes with their family and friends and will find a succession of such events over a 3 year period a large restriction of their ability to use the common freely.
Yours sincerely
Nicholas Wright
Kind regards Nicholas Wright Sent from my iPhone
2 Dunn,Thomas
From: odile < Sent: 09 March 2019 10:53 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Fwd: Streatham Common use for concerts and events
Dear Mr. Dunn, After experiencing problems with my email which came back as “undeliverable“, I managed to get hold of your email address and hope it will now be successfully delivered! Thank you for your help. Best regards, Odile GILLAN.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Date: 8 March 2019 at 16:36:12 GMT To: [email protected] Subject: Streatham Common use for concerts and events
Dear licensing department,
Please, please don’t allow more concerts or events to take place on Streatham Common. We have had enough! What are the benefits for us, local residents? NONE! What we “benefit” from are noise, litter, parking problems, drugs, crimes, etc... We don’t want any of that anymore! We have had events and the result has been disastrous for the Common itself, looking terrible, and no longer a place to be enjoyed by families due to the state it was left in... The council should realise that in the summer months not everyone can go away, not everyone has a garden, so please let everyone enjoy this common land, free for all. Why have we got to fight so hard to be heard? Why aren’t the rights of local people better protected? Lambeth is failing us... I was proud to be from Lambeth, but, sadly I am getting more and more disillusioned. Please restore my faith in Lambeth.
Yours faithfully, Odile GILLAN. Resident in Braxted Park for over 40 years...
Sent from my iPad
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: paul townsend Sent: 14 March 2019 16:44 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Objection to We Are The Fair Ltd
To: Mr. Thomas Dunn, Lambeth Licensing From: Paul Townsend, Braxted Park,
Dear Mr Dunn,
I have copied below the form of objection that people from around here are circulating to you.
I do appreciate that Lambeth has limited funds with which to provide all the services required; but I cannot see that the relatively paltry sums raised from this (What; £50k after costs?) are worth this level of debate and negotiation, and bad feeling, for the council.
Why has Streatham Common been selected for this? It is relatively narrow and the event itself is set in one part of the common which is very close to some social housing. It cannot be right that the people in those flats are subject to this festival at such close quarters - 100m seems far too close; is that legal? There are old people in there and families and it seems cruel for them to be subjected to this. I know it is only a couple of days but it is a couple of days in the height of summer when flats are sweltering indoors. Obviously we don’t particularly suffer on this side of the common as we, clearly, all have the resources to take ourselves away somewhere or just to shut our doors and windows. I cannot, therefore, see why it seems to be acceptable to place this event so very close to the social housing; it must feel like it is in their front rooms! If it must go ahead can it please be limited to two days. I have been to many of these types of events; the music isn’t loud enough and they end far too early - you leave feeling a bit cheated. Please reconsider this decision to allow festivals on Streatham Common; it is not really an appropriate venue for this. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that Lambeth is determined to have these festivals just to spite people living in nice houses around Streatham and Clapham Commons. The problem is that this one hurts those living in social housing; the very people that I would assume Lambeth is all about.
Last year the parking was managed very well and the disturbance to our side of the common was minimal. Please do not take this email as a request to move it to our side of the common! Thanks.
———
We object to the premises license application submitted by We Are The Fair Ltd for permission to hold concerts on Streatham Common during the period between July 2019 and September 2022. We agree with the views below set out on 28th February 2019 by Friends of Streatham Common.
Damage to the Common is never adequately repaired.
Noise levels are unacceptable with houses only 100m from the stage yet noise levels are monitored over 400m away.
1 No transparency on the deal between the council and the events company – the initial agreement was to put 1/3 of the profit back into the Common but this agreement has now disappeared.
Parking & traffic is severely disrupted from the start of set up to final take down.
Rubbish in the surrounding streets is never cleared.
Drugs are openly sold in the surrounding streets.
Urination (or worse) in the surrounding streets.
The event is not run for the benefit of local people or for the Common but instead run entirely for the profit of the council and at the expense of the Common. Kind regards, Paul Townsend.
2 Dunn,Thomas
From: Sent: 17 March 2019 11:28 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Objection to holding more events on Streatham Common
Dear Mr Dunn I wish to record my strong opposition to the idea of holding yet more money-making events on Streatham Common. As we have seen from last year’s events promoted by Garage Nation and various fairs, there is often significant damage to the fabric of Common itself, which takes a great deal of time to recover. Despite promises from the organisers, such damage is never repaired adequately. Increasingly extreme weather patterns caused by global warming – such as the exceptionally dry summer last year and more intensive spells of rainfall – only serve to exacerbate the problem. Events held on Streatham Common in recent years have also caused severe traffic and parking problems for local residents, despite organisers encouraging attendees not to arrive by car. Neither have the ensuing problems of rubbish and drug litter ever been addressed adequately by council services, if at all. Noise levels from rock concerts have also shown to be regularly in excess of those promised by the organisers. This can on occasion be so bad that those leaving nearest the Common have no option but to move out for the duration. In short, the Common should exist as a valued green amenity and an antidote to the adjacent heavily polluted A23 corridor to be enjoyed by local and other Lambeth residents on a 24/7 basis. It should not be regarded as a ‘milk cow’ to boost council finances while doing nothing for the local community but doing damage to the environment. Yours, Peter Griggs
Braxted Park, London
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Philip Sent: 14 March 2019 10:42 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Streatham Common
From: Philip Kitchingman Sent: 14 March 2019 10:38 To: philip kitchingman Subject: Streatham Common Dear Mr Dunn,
The treatment of your residents especially those around the Common is appalling, when allowing certain events organised by "We Are The Fair Ltd" to take place on the Common.
The disruption including the damage to the Common; the excess noise; the traffic chaos in the area and the drugs being openly sold in the surrounding streets etc, etc.is considerable. If you are to continue in such an inconsiderate way then the very least you should do is to organise a private company to police the event over its duration to effectively deal with all the above to the satisfaction of local residents. Something that is sadly lacking at the moment.
Yours sincerely
Philip Kitchingman Strathbrook Road Streatham London
Tel Mob:
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Pina Giannotto Sent: 14 March 2019 11:54 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Ref: Objection to event Kisstory on the Common
Dear Mr Dunn
I am a resident on Covington Way and this is the first year that I am lodging a formal objection to the event which is proposed to be held on the Common in July. I initially didn't have an issue when the event first launched however recent events in the neighbourhood have made me increasingly uneasy at the prospect of an event of this type being hosted on the common.
My main concern is regarding the increasing number of drug related crimes in the area. On Saturday 9th February a young man was stabbed outside our front door at 20:30pm over a botched drug deal. Fortunately this man did not sustain life-threatening injuries. The trauma caused to myself and my two young children (not to mention my elderly neighbours) having to listen to this man's screams whilst being attacked and then having to witness the evidence of this brutal attack the next day is something that will stay with me for life.
This area is a quiet, friendly neighbourhood. This is why we chose to move hear to start and raise our family. I firmly believe that our area is now being targeted by gangs as a convenient place to deal drugs as a direct result of this event due to it being quiet. Plus, the presence of both the common and Rookery make it easier for such activity to go undetected. It is unfortunate that social events such as these do tend to go hand-in-hand with drugs. That will never change I'm afraid, but what can change is the location of where these events are held. I DON'T THINK HOSTING AN EVENT SUCH AS THIS NEXT TO A CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND IS APPROPRIATE OR SAFE. I'm sorry to seemingly shout. But previous objections seem to have gone unheard!
Let me ask you this. If you are not going to help to keep our children safe then who are we supposed to rely on? Would you want an event of this nature on your own doorstep? I do not want my 3 year old and 6 year old to have to witness what we did on that night. The more worrying fact is that this event is held during the day (and next to a playground???) and thus poses even more risk to exposing young children to horrendous acts of violence and the misuse of drugs. What more will it take for the Council to listen to our requests? Surely, no amount of money is worth exposing our children to the potential dangers that come with an event such as this?
If the event is allowed to go ahead and any acts of violence take place that any child witnesses, then the Council will have to be made accountable. Forget the disruption it causes, the destruction to the common, the noise, the traffic, the parking chaos...the rubbish. All of this is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The safety of children in our neighbourhood has to be paramount. If some unfortunate event were to happen, the press would have an absolute field day! The Council would be called irresponsible and greedy for even considering such an event. Let's not wait for something to happen, stop it before it does.
We urge you to hear our concerns and keep our neighbourhood safe.
Yours sincerely
Pina
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Richard Andrews Sent: 18 March 2019 11:47 To: Licensing Subject: KISSTORY
Hi I would like to agree with all the following points and object to Kisstory being held.
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage Traffic is a nightmare in the area
Parking is impossible Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council
Many thanks, Richard Andrews.
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Richard Laidlaw Sent: 21 March 2019 23:06 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Kisstory music event - OBJECTION to license for this event
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July. I am objecting because:
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage Traffic is a nightmare in the area
Parking is impossible Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) Only a minimal amount of money comes back to the Common Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and never cleared by the council
I have seen what happens on Clapham Common and I am upset when I see the damage that is done to the common for weeks after. It has got worse as more and more events have been added to the calendar.
Also Commons should be open for all to use all year round and not sectioned off to only ticketed events that do not allow the poorer members of the community to participate. That is not inclusiveness and equality.
Yours faithfully
Richard Laidlaw
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Roger Harvey Sent: 13 March 2019 14:28 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Re We are the fair Ltd & Streatham Common
Dear Mr Dunn,
I, like many local residents, wish to express my objection to Lambeth Council granting this extended licence to We are the Fair Ltd.
Each year since the first event was held, we who live in the area ( I live at Streatham Common South), are subjected to unreasonable and maybe even unlawful levels of noise pollution. The event is very costly for me and my family as we have to go away as we cannot tolerate the constant noise. The company know that the volume is too high but hide behind weasel words about where the sound monitors are placed and that they have no control over the placement. The cost benefits to the council for allowing such an event to take place have to be balanced against the needs and wishes of the council’s long term customers – i.e. us the local residents whose monthly council tax helps allow the council to provide its services.
Apart from the noise problem there are two other interconnected problems.
Firstly, the disruption to the normal day to day enjoyment of the common for all people is severely curtailed. Not just for the 7-10 days involved in the setting up and breaking down of the equipment for the concert but for a long time afterwards as the damage caused by up to 10,000 people crammed into a space that rarely has more than a few dozen makes that area unusable for a long time. It seems that the company have factored in the re-instatement costs as part of the overall fee that they pay to the council.
Secondly, the drug taking that inevitably accompanies such evens has left an unwanted legacy to the Streatham Common region that was not there before. This is caused by the types of people who attend these events and take drugs to realise that they have found a nice (Generally quiet) area that they can go to. There is ample evidence of the profusion of discarded Nitrous Oxide cannisters littering the pavements and gutters of Streatham Common South to prove this point. In fact, I believe the council now employ someone to specifically go around, on a regular basis, picking up the discarded canisters in case any children accidentally pick one up.
After all the cost benefit analyses have been done, is the council’s only guiding principle about how much money it can make from allowing this type of behaviour to prevail in our area?
Regards
Roger Harvey
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Roger Wood Sent: 11 March 2019 10:07 To: Licensing Subject: Streatham Common Concerts 2019
Dear Sir/Madam,
I object to Streatham Common being exploited by We Are The Fair Ltd for an unlimited number of concerts in 2019 an d onwards for the following reasons:
Damage to the Common is never adequately repaired and the common is still damaged from previous concerts and fairs from 2018. The noise levels are unacceptable to residents living in a 100m to 400m radius of the common. Situating noise monitoring stations 400m away from the common is ridiculous and doesn’t effectively record the noise levels closer to the common. There is no transparency on the deal between the council and the events company ‘We are The Fair Ltd’ – the initial agreement was to put 1/3 of the profit back into the Common but this agreement has now disappeared. Why is this and what is going to be done about it? Parking & traffic is severely disrupted from the start of set up to final take down of the concerts causing additional traffic jams to those already on the heavily congested A23/Streatham High Rd. Rubbish in the surrounding streets is never cleared up and is a disgrace. Drugs are openly sold in the surrounding streets with limited policing which makes the common out of bounds to those with families over the course of a concert weekend. Urination occurs in the surrounding streets from people under the influence of drugs and alcohol which often leads to threatening behaviour. The event is not run for the benefit of local people or for the Common but instead run entirely for the profit of the council and at the expense of the Common.
Regards
Roger Wood
(Sent from iPhone)
This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Saif Qamar < Sent: 08 March 2019 20:21 To: Licensing Subject: Events on Streatham Common
Dear Sir/Madame,
I am writing as a long term resident of Streatham Common ward for over 40 years.
I am writing in objection to the proposed "Kisstory" event planned on Streatham Common
Garage Nation/ Kisstory events held on our common every summer encourage people who engage in the behaviour described above to descend on the streets around the common en- mass. We not only have to put up with the inconvenience of road closures. These events also create a hostile environment for residents as we feel intimidated by the visitors to this event congregating outside our homes, nor do we wish to confront these people.
The attendees of these events engage in drug taking and sexual activity outside our homes and create a very hostile and threatening environment in the streets around our homes.
We as a community of residents feel marginalised, ignored and completely over looked by the lack of support and concern from Lambeth in this matter.
We strongly object to this permissions given to host these events on the common and do not wish to see such events held on Streatham common.
Kind regards
M.S Qamar BSc (Hons) MSc Covington Way London
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Sara Sullivan Sent: 17 March 2019 15:43 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: FW: We Object to a license for concerts etc on Streatham Common
KInd Regards Sara Sullivan
From: Sara Sullivan Date: Monday, 4 March 2019 at 10:38 To:
Dear Sir , We understand that The Commercial Operator "We Are The Fair Ltd" is applying for a premises licence to stage many concerts on Streatham Common for a period of more than three years from July 2019 to September 2022.
We live at Streatham Common South and have lived here for 18 years . Streatham common is small and is not suitable for these concerts .
All residents are hugely disrupted with loud noise , excess drug taking of visitors , cars parking illegally and terrible congestion of our surrounding residential roads .
Other commons like Clapham Common , Battersea common , BRockwell park are far better suited for these types of events , they are far larger with major roads running through them and with residents living further away from the site of entertainment .
Please take this email as a formal representation against this license being issued . Please notify us further of any further licenses to be issued or proposed ?
KInd Regards Sara and Vince Sullivan
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Sharon Maxim Sent: 07 March 2019 13:40 To: Licensing Subject: Objection
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to air my concerns about granting a license to 'We are the Fair Ltd' who is applying for a three year license to promote concerts on Streatham Common from July 2019 to Sept 2022.
These concerts most definitely do NOT benefit local residents; all they do is cause excess traffic, both cars and people, excessive noise and disruption to family week-ends for families living near the Common, and increase the use of drugs in our area and damage the Common itself. This has proved to be the case on numerous other concert occasions.
Please consider the people who have to have their lives totally disrupted when these events our on, over the profits made for the Council. Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
Sharon Maxim Streatham Common South.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help pr priv acy , Outlook prev ented automatic download o from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Stephanie Bradley Sent: 20 March 2019 17:25 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: proposed Kisstory event Streatham Common 27 and 28 July
I am writing to object to this event. I have a direct interest because I live about 100 yards away in Valley Road. I am objecting because:
last year's event was so loud that it was impossible to have the house windows open, let alone sit in the garden the attempts to keep traffic away were chaotic and completely ineffective. Cars were constantly driving up to the barriers just beyond my house and then reversing at speed to turn into Oakdale Road, which should have been blocked att the bottom but wasn't the event generated large amounts of litter which were not properly cleared up considerable damage was caused to the Common, as it is with other events like the funfairs. These never seem to be properly repaired.
The Council makes money from events like this, which I sure it badly needs, but it should put tighter controls in place so that nearby residents are not disadvantaged during the event, and so that the Common is properly restored afterwards.
Stephanie Bradley Valley Road
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Sent: 21 March 2019 12:09 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Kisstory event, 27-28 July 2019
Dear Sir/ Madam,
"We Are The Fair Ltd" is applying for a premises licence to stage many concerts on Streatham Common for a period of more than three years from July 2019 to September 2022.
I wish to lodge my objection to the use of our common for the concerts .
There are damages to the Common; the excess noises; the traffic chaos to local residents and the drugs being openly sold in the surrounding streets etc. Crime has increased dramatically since concerts were introduced into the Common in the summer of 2015. A large number of laughing gas canisters were found scattering around the concert venue last July.
As a local resident to Streatham Common I have to endure hours of thumping music reverberating around my house when these events are held. I conclude that these concerts are not run for the benefit of the local people or for the Common but instead it is run entirely for the profit of the council at the expense of the Common and the residents.
Please do not grant anymore licences to this company.
Regards ,
Mr Terence Hanson, Bournevale Road,
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Toby Freestone Sent: 09 March 2019 08:46 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Fwd: Objection to we are the fair license for events on streatham common
Hi Thomas
Forwarding this as received a bounce back last time
Thanks Toby Freestone
------Forwarded message ------From: Toby Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 08:47 Subject: Objection to we are the fair license for events on streatham common To: [email protected]
Hi
I would like to be object to wearethefair?s application for a license for events on streatham common for the next three years.
I live on Covington Way and my experience of the events are that they bring a great deal of disruption to the local community and damage to the common. We are not overly impacted by the noise as we are far enough away, but I think if events are held on the common then there should be a more direct link between the revenue gained from the events and the upkeep and improvement of the common.
If you require more details please let me know
Kind regards Toby Freestone
1 From: Tom Appleton [mailto Sent: 04 March 2019 10:20 To: Licensing
I am writing on behalf of myself and wife who live on at Braxted Park which is close to the Common. We totally oppose the way the Council are exploiting the use of the common as a cash cow and do not want any further events being allowed in the summer months. A lot of money has been spent renovating the playground at the bottom of the common which has been a great success. With the increasing number of events being allowed this will issues and will probably result in the closure of the playground during the events which is a great shame. If it is kept open i can only see there being a great deal of unpleasant confrontations between parents and event goers. The cafe at the top of the common has also been a success and can only see issues there if it remains open when events are on. We have had issues with parking outside of our own house during the course of events which has resulted in heated arguments with event goers. We have also had to have a local resident clean up of laughing gas canisters and other rubbish left during the course of events. The councilors who agree to these events should come and experience first hand the havoc that they course and deal with the verbal and physical abuse some of the local residents have to put up with. please register our opposition to any further events being granted licenses. Regards, Tom & Jane Appleton Braxted Park
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Trushauk Sent: 18 March 2019 17:14 To: Licensing Subject: RE: events on streatham common
Please can you note my objection to the common being used for the yearly music festivals. While appreciate it brings revenue to the council it has a negative impact on the environment. The noise, use of drugs, litter, lack of consideration for residents who live near the common, problems with parking and impact on the common alone are many of the reasons why these events should not run.
Your sincerely Miss Trusha Patel Braxted Park SW16
Sent from my iPad
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Val Sent: 09 March 2019 09:06 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Subject: Proposed use of Streatham Common for Concerts
Dear Mr Dunn,
I want to protest at Lambeth Councils proposed use of Streatham Common for music festivals/events.
There are several reasons including the level of traffic congestion, noise and loss of amenity but the most important, I feel, are ; the significant increase in drug usage and dealing with substantial numbers of nitrous oxide containers littering the streets after events; the common turf has been left badly damaged, to the extent that it has been unusable for recreation.
In this busy age, green spaces are becoming increasingly important for mental well being, not just as a license for the Council to generation income.
Best regards, Val in Newey Resident, Braxted Park
Sent from BlueMail
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Sent: 15 March 2019 13:07 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Event on Streatham Common
Dear Mr Dunn
I live in Braxted Park which is near to Streatham Common.
I am writing to object to the Kisstory event being held on Streatham Common on the 27th and 28th of July. I am objecting because:
The Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage The damage caused to the Common never appears to be fully repaired - this is a real shame and blights the Common which is used by local people,especially families for rest and relaxation during the Summer and particularly at weekends Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage Traffic is a nightmare in the area
Parking is impossible Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks when it should be available for local people, especially families who do not have a garden Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event Festival goers use the surrounding streets as a urinal (or worse) Only a minimal amount of money received for this event is then used for the benefit of the Common Rubbish is strewn over the surrounding streets and only slowly cleared by the council
Please carefully consider the views of local residents before a decision is made that affects us. yours sincerely
Virginia Wilde
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: mitocons Sent: 20 March 2019 13:56 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Licence Application by We Are The Fair Ltd
To: Mr. Thomas Dunn, Lambeth Licensing From: Michael Hollings, Streatham Common South I write to object to the license application submitted by We Are The Fair Ltd for permission to hold concerts on Streatham Common during the period between July 2019 and September 2022. Firstly I strongly oppose any intention to allow a 3 year period which is excessive and will effectively prevent any proper consultation with residents over that period on any events to be held on the Common and would represent a failure by Lambeth in their duty to local residents and rate payers The Common remains an unsuitable venue for events of this type and size because of the very close proximity to residents The noise level of these events is at an unacceptable level especially for the many residents close to the event and the council have chosen in previous years not to properly monitor sound levels in close proximity to the stages Despite repeated assurances prior to previous events parking restrictions have not been enforced and in addition the disruption to local traffic has been very significant There has been clear evidence of drug taking at all previous concerts with no apparent attempt by the police or Lambeth to control or prevent. Over the last few years a great deal of damage has been inflicted on the Common by these unsuitable events and this damage, to a large extent, remains unresolved and is exacerbated by each succeeding event I agree strongly with the views below set out on 28th February 2019 by Friends of Streatham Common Michael Hollings Streatham Common South
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: mitocons Sent: 27 March 2019 13:51 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Re: Licence Application by We Are The Fair Ltd
Dear Mr Dunn, Thank you for your message and the opportunity to elaborate on one element of my email of 20th ultimo in which I end with a note that I support the representation made by the Friends of Streatham Common. It is my understanding that this was submitted to the Council by the Friends on 28th ultimo and contain the following remarks
FoSC is objecting to the Kisstory Concerts on the Common
In a statement recently released by the Chair of the Friends of Streatham Common, they are objecting to the Kisstory concerts proposed on Streatham Common, currently programmed for the first performances to take place on 27/28 July 2019.
The premises license application, which, if granted, will allow the concerts to be held on the Common for several times during a period of more than 3 years
FoSC objections include:
Damage to the Common is never adequately repaired. Noise levels are unacceptable with houses only 100m from the stage yet noise levels are monitored over 400m away. No transparency on the deal between the council and the events company – the initial agreement was to put 1/3 of the profit back into the Common but this agreement has now disappeared. Parking & traffic is severely disrupted from the start of set up to final take down. Rubbish in the surrounding streets is never cleared. Drugs are openly sold in the surrounding streets. Urination (or worse) in the surrounding streets. The event is not run for the benefit of local people or for the Common but instead run entirely for the profit of the council and at the expense of the Common.
I hope this additional information is a suitable response to your above-mentioned email and thank you for the opportunity afforded by your email. Rgds Michael Hollings
-----Original Message----- From: Dunn,Thomas
Good morning Mr Hollings,
1 Thank you for your email and representation against the application for Streatham Common (Prem2205). Within your email you mention ‘I agree strongly with the views below set out on 28th February 2019 by Friends of Streatham Common’, however there were no further comments in your email. To allow the Sub- Committee to consider all the information you are referring to, please forward any views you wish to include in your representation Shortly you shall receive an invite to the Licensing Sub-Committee meeting, which will be required to determine the outcome of the application. Should you have any queries in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact myself or the Licensing Team. Kind regards, Tom Dunn Licensing Officer London Borough of Lambeth Public Protection and Regulatory Services Resident Services Lambeth Council 3rd Floor Civic Centre 6 Brixton Hill London, SW2 1EG Phone: 020 7926 1866 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/licensing/ Items by post should be sent to: London Borough of Lambeth, Community Safety, PO Box 734, Winchester SO23 5DG Items for courier or hand delivery should be delivered to: London Borough of Lambeth, Community Safety, Civic Centre, 6 Brixton Hill, LONDON, SW2 1EG
Public Access - for information on current licences and new applications please use the following link http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=LicencingApplication We are working with our partners to build a #BetterLambeth - find out more at http://love.lambeth.gov.uk/better From: mitocons [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 March 2019 13:56 To: Dunn,Thomas
2 Dunn,Thomas
From: one of us is real Sent: 21 March 2019 06:04 To: Dunn,Thomas; Licensing Subject: Kisstory objections
Hello
I saw signs stating Kisstory wishes to return to Streatham Common for TWO days this year and I wish to object.
I am objecting because of the long hours involved playing loud music and to go through this again for an entire weekend would be unbearable for the residents closest to the event.
I live Valley Road and could hear the music loudly, Kisstory need to reduce the leakage of sound.
Streatham Common is not large enough for such events and homes are less than 100m from the stage unlike Clapham Common, there is no buffer zone.
The damage caused to Streatham Common is never fully repaired.
Noise levels are too high and only monitored 400m away from the stage
Parking is already stretched for residents, a two day event would encourage more to drive impacting on an already traffic dense area.
Drugs are sold openly in the neighbouring streets and the remains of which are left scattered in the streets eg nitrous tubes.
A very large section of the usable area of the Common is unavailable to the public for nearly 2 weeks at a timw of year when all residents ahoulsbbe abkento enjoy the Common.
Anti social behaviour by festival goers for the duration of the event whether that be public
Kind regards
Mr D Marks
Valley Road
Get Outlook for Android
1 Dunn,Thomas
From: one of us is real Sent: 27 March 2019 15:21 To: Dunn,Thomas Subject: Re: Kisstory objections
Hello Tom
Thank you for the reply.
Apologies for the typing error, joys of typing on a mobile but it should have read "residents should be able to enjoy the Common at this time of year"
Kind regards
Daniel
Get Outlook for Android
From: Dunn,Thomas
Public Access - for information on current licences and new applications please use the following link http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online- applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=LicencingApplication We are working with our partners to build a #BetterLambeth - find out more at http://love.lambeth.gov.uk/better 1 Dunn,Thomas
From: Sally Hobden Sent: 14 March 2019 12:33 To: Dunn,Thomas Cc: Licensing Subject: Kissitory event
Dear Sir
As a resident of streAtham Common south who endured the Garage Nation festival for three years - we don’t need another. Living through this is utter hell.
Please don’t conflict this on our area. Festivals of this size cannot be staged in a landlocked residential area. We suffer the repercussions, breakdown and damage for weeks following.
Sent from my iPhone
1