The Islington Gazette is reporting today:
http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/environment/friends-of-finsb...
Friends of Finsbury Park campaigners could restrict private events in parks across London
Legal action by campaigners trying to stop Wireless Festival in Finsbury Park could end up restricting events across the whole of London.
The Friends of Finsbury Park failed with a bid to ban the event last year after taking Haringey Council to a judicial review on grounds the park was being overused for private functions.
But the group did win an appeal to challenge Mr Justice Supperstone’s decision, which will take place at the Court of Appeal on November 2.
If they win the appeal, the ruling will not ban commercial events, but it will restrict the number of days they go on for and the size – and will apply to every council in the capital.
“This is not just about protecting Finsbury Park and safeguarding it for future generations,” said FOFP campaigner Tom Palin. “It will decide whether parks will be protected for local communities against commercial over-exploitation, or given away indefinitely for local authorities to hire out to whoever they want, for however long, regardless of its condition or the customer.”
Tags for Forum Posts: finsbury park, finsbury park events, nitrous oxide
Why don't they just change the respective acts?
I am not part of FoFP so just heard about this here. I am really glad I don't live too near the park as although the bass is omnipresent on festival days, I can go out or shut my windows. It is a bit difficult to enjoy my garden on those days but not impossible. However for the general park users a lot of the park is used up and it is left in a mess afterwards. A lot of families use the park if they have no gardens and these events happening in the middle of the summer is really hard. There is open drug dealing going on, the park and streets around are littered with bottles and used nitrous oxide canisters and people who live nearby have had human excrement in their gardens etc. Thats why I am glad to be a bit away. The smaller concerts just don't cause this problem but I have just seen a raft of applications sent via SGRA and 1 has 45,000 and the other 50,000 audience. It feels to me there should be a way to limit concert numbers to 20,000 max as there are clearly some promotors who are happy with this number given other applications are 12,000. The park does need protection and I think the local residents could do with a break. Having door knocked the area at recent elections, there is huge diversity around the park and it would be interesting to know the impact on those residents as some are unlikely to be on here or SGRA.
See my post - a few minutes ago
For details of the six event applications for next summer.
Fortunately you too have a surname worthy of Lording it over us and passing your judgements ;)
All will be revealed tomorrow afternoon.... judgment is due to be delivered at 2pm.
I've read the only thing that matters, the judgment. It's refreshing to read from a judge rather than a post on the internet.
The FOFP had their arses handed to them and to say otherwise is specious. What the case was largely about was combing through a number of laws on topic and interpreting them in a non-conflicting manner. Also at issue was specific application of a certain statutory instrument to London boroughs (councils).
The court held that as a general proposition the park is held in trust for the public. But that a different law (the s.145 mentioned) clearly allows for an event like Wireless on the terms we have all seen.
---
FOFP: Crucially, the Court of Appeal raises therefore the prospect that where a local authority uses s.145 to exclude the public from a park, that decision can be challenged by residents asserting that the closure of a park is unlawful because it interferes too much with the public’s right to use the park for recreation.
No. The Court implied that some way out there abstract sense, the Council could use it's s. 145 power unlawfully, but that is a case by case matter.
____
The Court: "This appeal concerns the issue of whether, as a matter of jurisdiction, the Council had power under section 145 to hire out part of the Park for the purposes of the Wireless Festival; or whether, as a matter of jurisdiction, they were limited to considering the application for hire only under section 44 of the 1890 Act or article 7 of the 1967 Act. In respect of that issue, it seems to me that that the statutory trust provisions of section 10 of the 1906 Act are of limited value, because section 145 clearly gives local authorities the power to enclose parts of a park that is subject to that trust: the issue is whether it applies to London, and hence the Park. [The court found s.145 applies to London--emphasis added].
The above is the language of the law, not someone on the internet looking to raise money by an emotional appeal. You can see the FOFP's assertion about trusts is bogus.
What was kind of funny to me is there is a common law rule that the court only considers issue(s) properly put before it. These FOFP didn't even raise the right legal question and the court commented on that anyway, although it did not have to:
The Court: "There is no challenge to the Council’s exercise of the section 145 power in this case, if it had such a power; and, consequently, no evidence has been lodged by the Council in respect of it. Given the consultation and other processes that went into the Council’s policy on events in the park generally, and its decision to grant Festival Republic a premises licence and Live Nation a hiring of part of the Park for the festival, it may be that such a challenge would have been difficult to mount or even untenable; but, as no such challenge has been made, it would be inappropriate to say anything further about it.
___
I should mention that the decision was unanimous (3 judges) and that the lower court (High Court) judge's legal conclusions were wholly affirmed. It is likely if the Supreme Court hears the case the outcome will not change.
Are you really, really saying that Cliver Carter doesn't get very far in court? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, although the Firoka affair does predate Twitter.
© 2024 Created by Hugh. Powered by
© Copyright Harringay Online Created by Hugh