All Posts

Source: contemporaneous email correspondence with Gabriel of Broadwick’s Magazine Open-Air Community Liaison Team. Precise residential access details are omitted from this public record. 15:29 — proposed attendance Gabriel introduced himself as responsible for community engagement and proposed coming over to meet the resident near the residence with Broadwick’s Noise Management consultant, saying it would be useful to speak in person to see whether the concerns could be mitig

Source: contemporaneous correspondence between Andrew Montlake and Lucy / Magazine London Community Liaison Team, copied to Adam Daniels. Lucy’s 16:39 email Lucy, introduced as Head of Operations, apologised that the proposed visit to the property the previous weekend had not taken place after contact details were supplied. She said Broadwick’s consultants could take readings outside the property but would not enter, and that she would contact the resident to agree a suitable

Source: contemporaneous email correspondence between Andrew Montlake, Adam Daniels / Broadwick, Royal Greenwich and the Magazine Open-Air Community Team. Personal telephone numbers and precise residential access details are omitted from this public record. What Broadwick said On 15 August Adam Daniels wrote that Broadwick would be pleased to arrange for a sound reading to be taken ‘at your residence’ by Joynes Nash, subject to availability. In a further email the same day he

Source: Lucy / Magazine London Community Liaison Team email of 27 August 2026, responding to the resident’s 25 August request for particulars of Broadwick’s stated additional measures. The request Broadwick had been asked to answer On 25 August Broadwick was asked to put basic particulars behind statements that consultant numbers had increased, liaison capacity had increased, speakers had been reduced, monitoring had been expanded, low-frequency output had been changed and en

Correspondence on 15 August records discussion of approved monitoring methodology, ground-floor/off-site measurements and a proposed visit to the resident’s property. The proposed visit did not ultimately take place. The episode is relevant to whether the actual effect of low-frequency bass inside the home was ever effectively assessed while the event was operating.

Suriah Choudhury confirmed that the proposed light-nuisance visit had been passed to the Out of Hours team, who “should be in contact shortly”. The later 24 August email is significant because Tower Hamlets then accepted that the Out of Hours team had not in fact made contact despite the referral.

The evidence archive contains the two-page Magazine Open-Air consultation/resident communication supplied in connection with the proposed events. It is relevant to the consultation issue because it refers to an earlier communication said to have been issued in June, while residents in the 99-flat block have reported that they did not receive that earlier letter. The document’s descriptions of anticipated noise/light are to be compared with the su

Broadwick stated: “Our Noise Management Plan sets a limit of 65 dBA at properties on the Tower Hamlets side, and our acoustic consultants, Joynes Nash, monitor levels continuously on site and at representative off-site locations.” This contemporaneous statement is central to the adequacy of the agreed control regime. The record does not presently establish that Joynes Nash authored the NMP or selected the 65 dBA figure.

Contemporaneous correspondence from Greenwich councillor Claire Selby records that other residents had complained and that Greenwich was in active dialogue concerning the events. The correspondence also sought reductions in bass/noise. This is relevant to the proposition that the problem was not an isolated complaint from one household.

Tower Hamlets Environmental Protection Officer Suriah Choudhury wrote that, to progress the artificial-light complaint, “we will need to carry out a light assessment from within your property” and said the assessment would need to be undertaken by the Out of Hours Team. This is a clear contemporaneous statement of the Council’s proposed investigative step.

The 23 August correspondence records continued complaints of intrusive bass inside the home and overnight lighting notwithstanding the additional consultants, changed speaker arrangements, lower-frequency adjustments and revised monitoring. The resident expressly told Broadwick and both councils that the later operational changes strengthened the Article 8 concern because the interference continued after regulatory involvement.

Tower Hamlets Environmental Protection Officer Yale Sherlock explained that the Out of Hours officers had a duty to assess noise for statutory nuisance and invited the resident to contact the Noise Response Service when music was loud or intrusive so officers could witness the noise within the property. He also relayed the operator’s position that licence monitoring was at the façade/outside the property.

At 02:36 on 22 August the resident emailed Broadwick: “Please, why are these lights still on and shining at us at 02.33?” The message was sent contemporaneously with the complained-of overnight lighting and forms part of the visual-evidence sequence.

At 10:17 on 25 August Yale Sherlock asked: “Btw, have the OOH Officers been contacted to witness the loud music within your property?” He also stated that there was no escalation process in the Environmental Protection Noise Team and that he did not believe there was a specific bass condition. The final advertised event had already taken place.

Suriah Choudhury wrote: “I understand that the Out of Hours team has not yet been in touch regarding the light nuisance assessment, despite a referral being sent to them. I apologise for the inconvenience this has caused.” This is a direct contemporaneous admission that the proposed investigative route failed to produce the promised assessment during the event series.

Broadwick’s later correspondence acknowledged practical changes including speaker deployment and reduction of low-frequency output. It also accepted that post-event working lights produced an orange hue visible across the river and said it was reviewing whether those lights could be reduced, redirected or switched off earlier. These admissions are central to causation and feasibility of abatement.

The resident wrote directly to Jane Dyer: “Apart from forwarding my original email to Adam and Gabriel, please can you tell me what you have done about this matter.” This question became a recurring issue in the correspondence. No later substantive response correcting the proposition has been identified in the correspondence reviewed through 25 August.

Broadwick’s Head of Operations described changes following resident feedback, review and meetings with Royal Greenwich and Tower Hamlets. The measures included increased specialist noise monitoring, reduced speaker deployment following propagation testing, revised artist monitoring arrangements, expanded monitoring locations and operational instructions to respond and adjust. These are significant post-complaint changes.

Tower Hamlets Environmental Protection sent an unsigned response headed “Fw: Nosie Complaint - 394968”. It discussed outdoor concerts generally, including their cultural, social and economic benefits, while also accepting that licence compliance and statutory nuisance are separate questions. It stated that the Noise Management Plan had been shared with Tower Hamlets. The response did not resolve the specific questions about the 65 dBA regime, low

The resident wrote to Greenwich councillors and officers after another disturbed night and asked Jane Dyer whether it was really the case that her only actions had been to send the original complaint once to Adam Daniels and once to the community team. The email expressly invited correction and further explanation.