Access key 0 - Accessibility, Access key 2 - Jump to content, Access key 7 - Jump to navigation
Skip To Content | Skip To Navigation
 

Home > Radio > Information about stations and licensing > Radio Broadcast Licensing > Community Radio > The Licensing Process > Awards > February 2006


Twenty-one community radio licence awards: February 2006

At its meeting on 9 February, Ofcom's Radio Licensing Committee ('RLC') awarded a further twenty-one community radio licences.

All community radio services must satisfy certain 'characteristics of service' which are specified in Article 3 of the Community Radio Order 2004. The RLC was satisfied that each of the groups awarded a licence met these 'characteristics of service'. In addition, each application was considered having regard to the criteria set out in section 105 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 ('BA 1990') (as modified by the Community Radio Order 2004). A summary of these criteria is set out below. The key considerations in relation to these criteria, which formed the basis of the RLC's decisions to award licences to particular applicants, are also set out below. Where applicable, the relevant subsection of section 105 of the BA 1990 is noted in brackets.

Finally, the RLC was satisfied that each group awarded a licence (with the exceptions of Kool AM and CSR) should be allowed to seek up to 50% of its annual income from the sale of advertising or programme sponsorship if it so wishes, in accordance with section 105(6) BA 1990, and that none of the new services would prejudice unduly the economic viability of any other local service (section 105(3) BA 1990).

Kool AM (Harlow) and CSR (Canterbury) will each have a condition in their licence prohibiting income from the sale of advertising or programme sponsorship. This is because the coverage of each service falls within the existing coverage area of a local radio service with more than 50,000, but fewer than 150,000 adults living in its measured coverage area (Ten 17 and KMFM respectively). Under the legislation, community radio services in such areas are prevented from seeking advertising and programme sponsorship revenue (section 105(4)(b)) if the coverage of the two stations overlaps by 50% or more in terms of adult (15+) population.

Groups awarded a licence

Ofcom's Radio Licensing Committee made licence awards to the following applicants:

  1. Kool AM (Harlow, Essex)
  2. Phoenix FM (Brentwood, Essex)
  3. Link FM (Harold Hill, Essex)
  4. NuSound Radio (Forest Gate, London E7)
  5. Voice of Africa Radio (Plaistow, London E13)
  6. Radio Umma (Manor Park, London E12)
  7. TGR Sound (Bexleyheath, Kent)
  8. Asian Star (Slough)
  9. Hayes FM (Hayes, Middlesex)
  10. Westside Community Radio (Southall, Middlesex)
  11. Irish FM (Hammersmith, London W6)
  12. Life FM (Stonebridge, London NW10)
  13. Edinburgh Garrison Radio
  14. Leith FM (Leith, Edinburgh)
  15. Black Diamond FM (Dalkeith and parts of East and Central Midlothian)
  16. Radio Teesdale (Barnard Castle, County Durham)
  17. Wetherby Community Radio
  18. Sheffield Live!
  19. Burngreave Community Radio (Burngreave, Sheffield)
  20. Bristol Community FM (BCFM)
  21. CSR (Canterbury)

Kool AM (Harlow): This group is currently broadcasting to Burnt Mill School on AM via a long-term restricted service licence. Experience gained from such activities (1a) enabled this group to put forward proposals which were consistently well-developed and appropriate across all criteria. Of particular merit were its proposals in relation to the delivery of 'social gain' (1e). Although this group applied for a licence to broadcast on FM, Ofcom’s frequency planners were unable to identify a suitable frequency (for stereo or mono transmissions) in Harlow. The group made it clear in its application that it was willing to continue to broadcast on AM and demonstrated that it had the budget and experience to do so. Therefore the RLC has offered Kool AM a licence to broadcast on the AM waveband.

Phoenix FM (Brentwood, Essex): This is an experienced group that has run numerous restricted service (RSL) broadcasts in the area (1a). It has put forward sensible and appropriate financial plans (1a) and has wide-ranging and well-established links with the local community and community organisations (1a, 1d and 1e). Phoenix FM already has a training programme in place and sensible plans to develop training for volunteers (1e and 1g).

Link FM (Harold Hill, Essex): This group is an experienced RSL operator, and has a track record in successful fundraising for its radio operation (1a). Link FM already owns premises and has an existing studio and training facility (1a and 1g). It identifies a range of specific underserved communities, and makes clear proposals for addressing their needs (1b and 1e).

NuSound Radio (Forest Gate, London E7): This is another group that has gained much broadcasting experience in its target area by broadcasting on RSLs over many years (1a). It has strong links with local community groups, and is actively involved with community events (1a and 1e). Its commitment to training, and previous experience in training volunteers, is evident in the application (1g).

Voice of Africa Radio (Plaistow, London E13): This station seeks to serve the African and African Caribbean community around Plaistow. It has gained radio broadcasting experience via satellite and the internet (1a). The group has established links with existing community groups and service organisations (1d and 1e), and proposes plenty of opportunities for participation in the station on an informal basis as well as via formal training and work placements (1e and 1g).

Radio Umma (Manor Park, London E12): Radio Umma will serve the Muslim community in Manor Park and surrounding areas. The group has strong and appropriate links within the target community through mosques, educational establishments and welfare groups (1a and 1e) and is able to demonstrate a strong level of support for the proposed service (1d). It seeks to serve an underserved community with appropriate output and social benefit objectives (1b and 1e)

TGR Sound (Bexleyheath, Kent): Members of TGR Sound have gained useful and relevant experience through broadcasting on the internet, commercial radio and RSLs (1a). The group demonstrates well-researched, appropriate and distinct programming most of which has been piloted (1b and 1c). Its plans for access and representation across most facets of its organisation are well thought-through (1f and 1g). Its social gain objectives reflect the group’s commitment, experience and community links (1e).

Asian Star (Slough): The directors of this group have relevant experience gained from commercial and BBC radio, satellite radio, and local statutory, voluntary and commercial organisations (1a). Training and other social benefits, and access to the station are well-considered and embedded in the application (1e and 1g).

Hayes FM (Hayes Middlesex): Overall this was considered to be a well thought-through application which demonstrates an understanding of local community needs, and the group has tailored its programming to reflect these (1b). The group also focuses on training, employment and aiding community improvement (1e). The social benefit aspects of the application were strong and the group also demonstrates its understanding of the need for accountability to the target community (1e and 1f).

Westside Community Radio (Southall, Middlesex): The applicant demonstrates a high level of support from the local community and groups working within the target community (1d). A steering group of community organisation representatives is in place to act as a community link and a mechanism for accountability (1e and 1f). Training and education plans and experience are core strengths (1e and 1g).

Irish FM (Hammersmith, London W6): Irish FM would operate as part of the Hammersmith Irish Centre which is a well-resourced and well-established community centre (1a). There is an emphasis on training, and group members have experience in delivering training programmes (1e and 1g). The group has experience in fund-raising, and detailed plans for obtaining the finance to run the service (1a).

Life FM (Stonebridge, London NW10): The applicant is an established training provider, operates an on-line radio service and has run RSLs (1a). It has a high profile in its area and good appropriate community links (1a and 1e). It is clearly able to demonstrate its experience and interest in providing training and access to the station, with dedicated facilities, contracts and funding support available (1e and 1g).

Edinburgh Garrison Radio: This group will serve soldiers, their families and other Ministry of Defence personnel. A financially secure group (1a) with programming proposals relevant to its specific target community (1b), it has demonstrated a high level of demand and support for its proposals (1d). This group includes strong proposals for the provision of training (1e) as well as appropriate mechanisms for ensuring its accountability (1f) and access to, and training in, the use of broadcasting facilities (1g).

Leith FM (Leith, Edinburgh): This group brings local restricted service broadcasting experience and has considerable local support (1d) for its proposals. The group puts forward well thought-through proposals for ensuring its accountability to the local community (1f), and in relation to providing access to, and training in the use of, broadcast facilities (1g). Leith FM's proposals were also particularly strong in relation to the delivery of 'social gain' (1e).

Black Diamond FM (Dalkeith and parts of East and Central Midlothian): Although having only limited broadcasting experience, this group has considerable local community involvement at board level (1a) and is well supported by various strategic organisations in the proposed broadcast area (1d). The strongest features of this group's proposals are to be found in relation to the delivery of 'social gain' (1e) and ensuring accountability to the community (1f).

Radio Teesdale (Barnard Castle, County Durham): This group has considerable relevant expertise at board level (1a). It puts forward proposals which will be appropriate for the community it will serve (1b) and which will broaden choice locally (1c). There was considerable local support for this group's proposals (1d) which were particularly strong in relation to ensuring accountability (1f) and providing access to, and training in the use of, its facilities (1g).

Wetherby Community Radio: This group demonstrates considerable local support for its plans to provide a service to a mixed rural and urban community (1d). Of particular note was the relevance of this group's programming in relation to the tastes and interests of the target community (1b) and the quality of its proposals for ensuring its accountability to this community (1f).

Sheffield Live!: With considerable broadcasting experience and expertise (1a), this group put forward proposals which are comprehensively well-structured and appropriate. With a high level of support (1d), this group's training proposals were well developed (1e and 1 g). Proposals for ensuring accountability to the target community (1f) and for the provision of access to facilities (1g) were also strong.

Burngreave Community Radio (Burngreave, Sheffield): Seeking to serve a clearly defined area within the City of Sheffield, this group's proposals appear relevant to the multi-cultural population which this group will serve (1b) and will broaden choice locally (1c). 'Social gain' proposals are well thought-out (1e), as are mechanisms to provide access to, and training in, the use of facilities (1g). Accountability mechanisms appear particularly robust (1f).

Bristol Community FM (BCFM): With local restricted service broadcasting experience (1a), this group seeks to serve the most deprived inner-city wards of Bristol. Its programming proposals appear relevant to the target community (1b) and would broaden choice locally (1c). 'Social gain' proposals (1e) and mechanisms by which this group will provide access to, and training in, the use of its facilities (1g) were the strongest features of this applicant.

CSR (Canterbury): With a central educational ethos, this group puts forward ambitious programming proposals based on considerable experience (1a) which would broaden choice (1c) and which are well-supported locally (1d). Other particular strengths of this applicant were to be found in relation to accountability (1f) and the provision of access to, and training in, the use of facilities (1g).

All of the above services will be licensed for a five-year period.

Statutory requirements relating to community radio licensing

The following pages set out the statutory requirements relating to community radio licensing, and details of the licensing process. Further information about these, and detailed information relating to community radio, can be found at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radio/ifi/rbl/commun_radio/

In carrying out all of its functions, Ofcom is required to have regard to the general duties set out in section 3 of the Communications Act 2003. In addition, under section 85(2)(b) BA 1990, it is the duty of Ofcom to do all that it can to secure the provision within the UK of a range and diversity of local radio services.

The characteristics of a community radio service

In respect of the licensing of community radio services in particular, all community radio licensees must satisfy 'characteristics of service' requirements which are specified in Article 3 of the Community Radio Order. The characteristics of community radio services are:

Article 2 of the Community Radio Order includes four mandatory “social gain” objectives. ”Social gain” means the achievement, in respect of individuals or groups of individuals in the community that the service is intended to serve, or in respect of other members of the public, of the following objectives:

Specific community radio licence award criteria

There are seven specific selection criteria set out in section 105(1) BA 1990 that Ofcom must have regard to when considering whether to make a community radio licence award. In summary these are:

Considering whether, or to whom (and on what conditions), to grant a community radio licence, Ofcom must also have regard to the need to ensure that any service provided under that licence does not prejudice unduly the economic viability of any other local service. Sections 105(4) to (6) BA 1990 require Ofcom:

Ofcom is also prohibited, by subsection 2 of section 105, from granting a licence to any applicant who proposes to receive from any one person (or company) more than 50% of its annual funding.

Process for assessment of applications

On 1 September 2004 Ofcom invited applications for licences to provide community radio services in most parts of the United Kingdom. These licences were offered for the provision of services on either the FM (VHF) or AM (medium wave) wavebands. The invitation did not specify the locations of services, but left it for applicants to decide where they wanted to be located.

Ofcom received 194 applications, the non-confidential sections of which were made available for public scrutiny on the Ofcom website.

Given the large number of applications received for community radio licences, Ofcom decided to assess them in order of priority by first considering applications in areas where the 14 pilot community radio (formerly known as 'Access Radio') stations were broadcasting, before moving on to look at applications for areas not involved in the pilot scheme. Ofcom expects to complete this round of the community radio awards process shortly.

The membership of the RLC for the licence awards detailed above was as follows:

Tim Suter, Partner - Content & Standards (Chair)
Pam Giddy, Content Board Member
Peter Bury, Director of Strategic Resources
Martin Campbell, Head of Radio Content
Peter Davies, Director, Radio & Multimedia
Neil Stock, Head of Radio Planning & Licensing

A summary and assessment of each application was presented to the RLC at its meeting on 9 February 2006. These papers summarised the proposals put forward by the applicants as they relate to the statutory criteria, and highlighted any issues of relevance under those criteria.

February 2006


Back to top Back to top