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.

Councillor Clare Aparicio Paul declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 3, as she knew of the parties concerned due to the proximity of her ward to the venue.

The Chairman advised that there had been a delay in the commencement of the meeting as not all Parties had received a copy of the correspondence submitted by the Notice Giver prior to the hearing.  He confirmed that all Parties had been given the opportunity to read the Notice Giver’s submission.

The Committee noted the procedure to be followed under the Licensing Act 2003 when an objection to a Temporary Events Notice (TEN) has been received.  The Chairman introduced the members of the Sub-Committee, the Officers and Parties present at the hearing.

The Chairman confirmed the following points:

·         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·         That no objections had been withdrawn;

·         That two standard temporary event notices had been received and each one would be determined separately on its own merits.

The Licensing Officer presented the report as detailed on page 5 of the agenda and drew members’ attention to the following points:

·         2 standard temporary event notices had been received from Mrs Rebecca Jones for Old Oak Farm, Back Lane, Curry Rivel;

·         The 2 temporary event notices related to weddings on 9^th July 2016 and 6^th August 2016 with a maximum number of 200 people attending each event;

·         The proposed activities related to sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late night refreshment; 

·         2 objection notices had been duly served by the Council’s Environmental Protection Department;

·         Conditions could not be imposed on the standard temporary event notices because the venue did not have a premises licence;

·         Each temporary event notice should be considered separately on its own merits;

·         The premises was defined as a marquee and converted stable located within a field and did not extend to the whole of Old Oak Farm;

·         Mrs Jones had already submitted 8 temporary event notices for 2016, for which  no objection notices had been received;

·         Reference was made to the options available to the Sub-Committee and the Right of Appeal as outlined in the agenda.

The Chairman invited the representative from the Environmental Health Service to address the Committee.  The Senior Environmental Protection Officer explained that Environmental Health had been investigating several noise complaints relating to temporary event notices held during the year at the venue.  A number of complaints had been received about the premises in July and as a result the venue was placed onto the ‘out of hours’ system. A complaint was received about the venue on 19^th September and an officer attended to assess the situation.  He arrived at a property approximately 400 metres away from the venue at 10.00pm and found music to be clearly audible inside the bedroom with the window open.  He could clearly hear the lyrics of a song being sung.  The level of noise would be a problem for anyone trying to sleep with the window open.  When the assessment took place the officer took into account the volume of the music, the nature and character of the area and the frequency of occurrence.  On this occasion the officer did not feel the nuisance was sufficient to warrant serving an Abatement Notice.  The owners of the venue had been written to and advised that a visit had taken place.  He explained that he was concerned about the potential for public nuisance and commented that there were several residential properties that were closer to the venue than the one visited.

The Notice Giver was then invited to address the Sub-Committee.  She explained that she had been operating the business since 2013 with a significant increase in bookings in the last 12-18 months.  In spite of going down the correct licence and planning avenues she was unaware of the distance sound travelled.  Since the problems had been brought to her attention she had taken action and following health and safety advice applied her own  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.