Agenda item

The Panel heard an application for a review of a premises licence by Environmental Health, Medway Council, in respect of The Ship, 22 Bill Street Road, Strood, Kent, ME2 4RA.

 

              The Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer advised the meeting that the review related to the following licensing objective: the prevention of public nuisance. She confirmed that the application had been correctly advertised in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003. She also referred to and explained each of the appendices to the report. This included the existing premises licence (Appendix A), a plan showing the location of the premises (Appendix B), a copy of the review application (Appendix C) and three letters in support of the premises (Appendix D).

 

The panel heard from the Applicant:

 

·        That the Council had received complaints from local residents regarding noise nuisance.

 

·        That a statutory nuisance had been witnessed by the Environmental Health Team and subsequently served a notice on the Licence Holder.

 

·        That condition 16 of the premises licence (reproduced or live music is to be set at a level so as not to be audible at the façade of the nearest residential property) had been broken as result of the noise nuisance.

 

·        That the Environmental Health Team did not want the premises licence to be revoked but requested that it was modified with regards to the noise nuisance to neighbouring properties.

 

 

The Premises Licence Holder’s Solicitor asked the applicant questions including:

 

·        Whether there had been any complaints since September 2011?

 

There had been further complaints on 9 October 2011 and 29 October 2011.

 

·        Whether the complaints had been received from one property?

 

The complaints against the Ship had been received from one property.

 

·        Whether Environmental Health were aware of the steps taken by the Licence Holder in the last 18 months?

 

The Environmental Health Officer was aware of a number of steps including the erection of a smoking hut, double-doors to the back of the pub, the installation of double-glazing and the purchase of a noise-limiter although it was unclear whether it had been installed.

 

·        Whether Environmental Health accepted that the Licence Holder had sought their assistance?

 

The Environmental Health Officer agreed that the Licence Holder had sought assistance from the Council.

 

·        Whether the complainant lived at the nearest property to the Ship?

 

The Environmental Health Officer could not confirm this.

 

·        The level of recent communication between Environmental Health and the Licence Holder

 

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that she had hand delivered the application for a review to the premises.

 

·        Whether the complaints related to Saturdays?

 

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed this.

 

·        With reference to 7 August 2011 (a call at 2:10am), as set out on p24 of the agenda, whether there was any amplified music equipment permanently on site?

 

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that there was no such equipment on site.

 

The Panel asked the applicant questions including:

 

·        Whether triple-glazing had been installed at the premises?

 

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed this had been installed other than for some very small windows at the premises.

 

·        The number of occasions that Environmental Health had spoken to the Licence Holder.

 

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that she (or a Member of the Environmental Health Team) had spoken to the Licence Holder on 16 February 2011, 2 March (to discuss an Action Plan, a copy of which was tabled at the meeting for Members’ information), 13 April, 7 May, 14 May and 17 September.

 

·        Whether the Action Plan had been agreed by Environmental Health?

 

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that the Plan was the Licence Holder’s but that the Environmental Health were willing to work with the Licence Holder.

 

·        How did the noise limiter work?

                       

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that a noise limiter was held by the Licence Holder and that the noise limiter was a universal device which allowed sound equipment to be routed through it to ensure that sound did not exceed a certain level, although it was unclear whether this had been installed at the premises.

 

The Applicant and Panel asked a witness questions including:

 

·        The Environmental Health Officer introduced David Edwards (also an Environmental Health Officer) to the meeting and asked him to explain the events of 17 September 2011.

 

The officer explained the events of 17 September 2011 stating that following a call he attended a neighbouring property at 21:50 and that music could be clearly heard in a bedroom of the property, however, that this did not, in his opinion, constitute a statutory nuisance at that particular time of the evening. Following a discussion with a staff member at the Ship in which the staff member was invited to undertake a sound check, the officer left the location. Following a further call, he returned to the location and witnessed a statutory nuisance between 23:22-23.50 (in terms of the volume level of the music from the Ship).

 

·        A Panel Member asked the officer how a statutory nuisance was defined.

 

The officer explained that a statutory nuisance was not specifically defined in law and that the decision was a matter of professional judgement and the context, e.g. the time of day and location.

 

The panel heard from Licence Holder’s Solicitor:

 

·        That the Home Office guidance on the licensing objectives sought a common approach and that had the complainant contacted the Licence Holder directly, he would have been able to deal with any issues.

 

·        That, with reference to page 24 of the agenda, that it was unclear how a complaint about noise would have been made at 2am.

 

·        That there were three letters of support from residents very close to the premises.

 

·        That the Licence Holder had spent in excess of £15,000 in taking  steps to alleviate the noise issues.

 

·        That the Licence Holder had commissioned a report into the noise issues at the Ship which resulted in improvements to the building including sound insulation materials and the erection of a wooden shed including sound insulation materials to reduce the impact of noise on neighbouring properties.

 

·        That the Licence Holder would be present at the Ship on Saturday evenings over the next couple of months to monitor the noise levels.

 

·        That the entertainment only took place on Saturday evenings for a period of 3 hours and that the Licence Holder would be willing to change those hours to 20:30-23:30 to help address the issue.

 

·        That the noise limiter was not compatible with all sound equipment and that the Licence Holder would seek assistance from a Sound Engineer to ensure the noise limiter would be fully operable.

 

·        That there were future plans to build a lobby for the main entrance.

 

·        That the Licence Holder had demonstrated that he wanted to address the issues and that he was willing to speak to complainants.

 

The Panel asked the Licence Holder and Licence Holder’s Solicitor questions including:

 

·        Whether the Licence Holder had other premises?

 

The Licence Holder confirmed that he owned other premises and that he did not run or live at the Ship.

 

·        Whether a staff member referred to earlier (Wayne) ran the Ship?

 

The Licence Holder confirmed that Wayne was a former business partner but that the Ship was now solely his (the Licence Holder’s) concern.

 

·        Whether the Licence Holder could confirm that he would be present on the premises over the next two months when live entertainment was taking place?

 

The Licence Holder confirmed that he would be present.

 

·        Whether the Licence Holder undertook a walkaround the area during live entertainment?

 

The Licence Holder confirmed that he did this and stated that the level of noise outside the pub would depend on factors such as the number of people present in the pub. He also referred to the steps taken to further alleviate the noise issues including the various building works and the commissioning of an Acoustic Engineer’s report.

 

·        Whether the Licence Holder had brought the Acoustic Engineer’s report with him to the meeting?

 

The Licence Holder stated that he had not brought this with him.

 

·        The Panel referred further to the building works and the Licence Holder shared a number of photographs of the works with the Panel. It was confirmed that the photographs had been taken within the last month.

 

·        The Panel asked the Licence Holder about the staffing of the Ship.

 

The Licence Holder stated that there was a full time manager in post and that she resided on the premises.

 

·        Whether there were formal / written instructions for the management of the Ship?

 

The Licence Holder confirmed that this had been undertaken verbally.

 

All parties were invited to add anything further including:

 

·        The Applicant confirmed that they would like a copy of the Acoustic Engineer’s report.

 

·        The Licence Holder’s Solicitor concluded:

 

·     That there were three letters of support for the premises and this needed to be balanced against the complaints against the premises.

 

·     That the Licence Holder was willing to finish live entertainment at 23:30 on Fridays and Saturdays.

 

·     That many steps had been taken to alleviate the noise issues.

 

·     That the Licence Holder had been prepared to act responsibly including the maintenance of a diary to record sound checks.

 

Decision:

 

The Panel, in reaching its decision, heard evidence from both the Applicant and the Designated Premises Supervisor, and the Panel seeking to promote the licensing objectives, agreed to modify the conditions of the Premises Licence as follows:

 

1.      That regulated entertainment (live music) shall finish no later than 23:30 on Fridays and Saturdays.

 

2.      That the Designated Premises Supervisor shall be in attendance on the premises for regulated entertainment (live music).

 

3.      That the Acoustic Engineer’s report, as obtained by the Designated Premises Supervisor, be submitted to the Environmental Health Team within 14 days and that any further reports be submitted to the Environmental Health Officer.

 

4.      That the noise limiter equipment be brought into operation within 21 days and be tested/approved by the Environmental Health Team.

 

5.      That a diary of soundchecks and regulated entertainment be maintained and kept at the premises and be made available for inspection by the Environmental Health Team and Licensing Enforcement Team upon request.