Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (adopted July 2012), which includes all the provisions relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI), personal and prejudicial interests , Members are asked to declare any DPI and also any personal interests (and whether or not such personal interests are also "prejudicial") in relation to any matter on the Agenda for this meeting. A DPI is defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1464) and Appendix 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct.  A personal interest is defined in paragraph 2.8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 2.9. In the interests of complete transparency, Members of the County Council, who are not also members of this committee, are encouraged to declare any interests they may have in any matters being discussed even though they may not be under any obligation to do so under any relevant code of conduct.

There were no declarations of interest made.

The Committee noted the procedure to be followed when considering Licensing Applications under the Licensing Act 2003.  The Chairman introduced the members of the Sub-Committee and the Officers present at the hearing.

The Chairman confirmed the following:

·         That the Officer’s report relating to the case, the procedure to be adopted during the hearing and the documents which the authority is required to provide under the Regulations had been received by all Parties in advance of the meeting;

·         That no representations had been withdrawn.

·         That all parties had received the additional information submitted by the applicants dated 31^st August 2017.

The Licensing Officer advised that representations had been received from the Environmental Protection Team and seven local residents in opposition to the application relating to noise issues and 15 in support of the application.  She noted that up to 15 Temporary Event Notices (TENs) were allowed in a one year period and the applicant had already submitted 15 in the current year.  The Licensing Act had been relaxed to a degree so that where a premises was permitted to be open for the sale of alcohol ‘on’ the premises and they actually were, live and recorded music was allowed at the premises from 8.00am to 11.00pm (provided this was within the permitted hours) so this could be 365 days per year; further that any conditions relating to live and recorded music would be suspended during 08:00 to 23:00.  However, if granted conditions relating to music could be attached to the licence if appropriate at a review hearing.  She noted that events held in private, for example weddings, where guests were by invitation only and no charge was made with a view to profit, were not normally classed as regulated entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003, however, they would be regulated by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

The Senior Environmental Protection Officer advised that although they had submitted a representation requesting that the applicants submit a noise management plan, it was difficult to request suitable conditions due to uncertainties in the law.  He explained the differences between statutory nuisance and public nuisance

The Environmental Health Officer advised that following a complaint received, she had attended a property close to Old Bridge on 26^th August and in her opinion, the noise from an event being held at Old Bridge was a statutory nuisance.  A Notice had been served on them under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the previous week to cease the nuisance. 

In response to questions from Members, the Environmental Health Officer and Licensing Officer confirmed:-

·         A draft noise management plan had been submitted by the applicants and they were in discussion with them regarding this.

·         The statutory noise nuisance was a professional judgement of the officer and it was not recorded in decibels.

·         If the applicants were not involved in the management of the music at events held on their site, then this was not a licensable activity, however, they had mentioned other events in their application which could be classed as a licensable activity.

The Committee were then addressed by Mr Blake, one of the applicants.  He advised that the property, Old Bridge, had been in his family for 150 years, they were all very involved in the local community and had no wish to have poor relations with their neighbours.  Although the wedding venue business had grown it was their intention to remain below the VAT level.  He said that other local businesses like B&B accommodation, caterers, photographers etc. also benefitted.  He concluded that he had discussed noise reduction measures with Environmental Health Officers and he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.