Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There was none.

To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was none.

Please indicate if there are any interests which should be declared.  A declaration of an interest should indicate the nature of the interest (if not already declared on the Register of Interests) and the agenda item to which it relates.  If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared, the member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed.

There was none.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and declared that the Sub-Committee was sitting to consider a review application for the Rathskeller, Hanse House, South Quay, King’s Lynn, PE30 5GN.

All parties present at the Hearing were present at the Hearing which had been held immediately prior.  All parties agreed that it was not necessary to go through introductions again

The Legal Advisor outlined the procedure which would be followed at the Hearing.

All parties were advised that following the Hearing, the Sub-Committee would retire to make their decision.  The decision from the Hearing would be sent to all interested parties by post.

The Licensing Manager presented his report and provided an overview of the review application.  In presenting his report, the Licensing Manager referred to the following:

·         The Review Application, which had been included within the Licensing Manager’s Report.

·         The original licence for the Rathskeller.

·         The current operating times of the premises and the licensable activity permitted.

·         Since the original licence had been granted there had been a change in the Law which meant that no licence was required for recorded or live music between the hours of 8am and 11pm if the premises had a licence for the sale of alcohol.  Any existing licensing conditions were suspended between 8am and 11pm.

·         The Review Application was made under the ‘prevention of public nuisance’ licensing objective.

·         There had been representations from the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team

·         There had been six representations made by Other Persons in support of the Review Application.

·         The Borough Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Section 182 Guidance.

The Chairman thanked the Licensing Manager for his report and there were no questions.

Ms Watling presented her case.  She confirmed that she understood that this was a separate licence to Hanse House, but some of her points may be a repeat of what she had presented at the Hanse House Hearing.

She explained that she had requested a review of the licence as no decibel levels for monitoring purposes had been set, despite the Sub-Committee requesting this when the original application was approved.

She felt that the Noise Management Plan needed to be improved in order to protect residents.

Ms Watling felt that there had been a change in the nature of the events since the original application.  Now openly promoted events were held and she thought that the initial intention of the Licence Holder was to make the venue an ‘upmarket wine bar’.

She referred to page 36 and 37 of the Licensing Managers report which provided evidence of the change in operation of music events.

Ms Watling explained that the Premises Managers did not always manage noise levels and often doors and windows were left open and music was played too loudly.

She informed those present that the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team had made informal agreements with the Licence Holder, but she did not feel that these were being followed.

Ms Watling referred to the noise log which had been included within the Licensing Manager’s report and explained that this was a summary of the emails she had sent to the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team.  She stated that when she had said that no one from the team was unable to attend, this was not a criticism of the Team, it just meant that no one was available at the time.

Ms Watling concluded that she would welcome and supported the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance recommendations with regards to the Rathskeller.

The Chairman thanked the Applicant for presenting her case and invited questions from all parties.

The Licensing Manager referred to the Applicant’s noise log and asked if she could determine if any particular incidents were linked to the Rathskeller.  The Applicant stated that if she had not mentioned that the activity was linked to the South Function Room it was to do with the Rathskeller.  She commented that some incidents had also been witnessed by the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team.

The Licensing Manager asked if the noise was more of an issue after 11.00pm.  Ms Watling explained that she could hear music often as soon as it started but it was more of an inconvenience after 11.00pm.

Mr Lee, the Licence Holder, presented his case.  He apologised if he repeated himself from detail provided at the previous Hearing relating to Hanse House.  He noted that the complainant had indicated that there was music at the Rathskeller on most weekends, but this was not the case.  He commented that only eighteen entries on the complainant’s noise log related to the Rathskeller and he felt that there may be some mistakes in her observations.

He explained that on the 18^th April 2015 a noise nuisance had been logged on the Applicant’s noise log which stated that the music could be heard until 10.30pm, which was well within the licensed hours.

He also referred to the log entry for 11^th July 2015 which stated that the Applicant had left her property at 9.30pm to sleep elsewhere as she had been kept up the night before due to noise nuisance from another venue.  Mr Lee said that this did not have any relevance to the Rathskeller.

Mr Lee referred to the entry for the 31^st July 2015 in which Ms Watling said she had listened to her own music via headphones due to noise from drumming from a live band.  Mr Lee said that there were no drums that evening, it was an open mic night and on that occasion it was a poet.

Mr Lee referred to the log entry for 19^th December 2015 in which Ms Watling reported that Bass from a live band was audible.  Mr Lee stated that the Band playing was called Hush and used Bongos and acoustic Guitar.

Mr Lee referred to New Year’s Eve 2015 in which Ms Watling had indicated that music had been played until 12.30am, and she had questioned if this was a breach of the Licence.  Mr Lee confirmed that it was New Year’s Eve and extended hours were permitted, so there was no breach of the Licence.

The Chairman thanked Mr Lee for presenting his case and invited questions from all parties.

Ms Watling asked Mr Lee if she felt it was appropriate to play loud music even during licensed hours.  Mr Lee responded that he did not think the music was too loud and no other complaints had been received.  He stated that the Police had commended him on how the Business had been operating within its Licence.  He stated that Ms Watling had complained at 9.00pm on New Year’s Eve and had been seen at the Premises taking decibel readings.  Ms Watling stated that she had entered the premises on one occasion to take photos of the open windows and was asked to leave.

Lucy Lee, the Licence Holders Daughter, stated that she had seen Ms Watling looking in through the windows and taking photos, so she had asked her to leave.  She felt that Mrs Lee was not polite and could still have photos of customers, which she should not have kept.  Mr Lee stated that it was unacceptable to take photos  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Alison Demonty from the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team presented her case.  She referred to the representations made by the team, which had been included in the agenda and supported the review application.  She explained that complaints about the premises had been received over a long period of time, however there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance, which meant that the team could not intervene.  The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team had witnessed noise at the venue and had tried to work informally with the Licence Holder, but it was felt that their suggestions and recommendations had not been followed.  She provided an example of suggesting that air conditioning units were installed so that windows and doors could remain closed.

The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained that if a detailed Noise Management Plan was in place, and followed, it could limit the requirement for Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance intervention.

The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer did not feel that the recommendations made by the team were burdensome or unreasonable and referred to the recommendations which had been included in the agenda at page 49.  She confirmed that they included asking for an 11pm finish, the windows and doors to remain closed and for the Noise Management Plan to be updated.

The Chairman thanked the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer for presenting her case and invited questions from all parties.

The Licensing Manager referred to the recording of decibel levels and the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained that the recording of decibel levels was not considered to be of great benefit for determining statutory nuisances as it was often not the only factor.  Other issues such as frequency, duration, type of music and the surrounding environment also needed to be taken into consideration.  This was why it had not been included in the Noise Management plan.

Mrs Russell-Johnson

Mrs Russell-Johnson presented her case.  She explained that she supported the review of the Licence and felt that no amplified music should be played after 11.00pm as it was very disruptive.  She reminded those present that the venue was in the middle of a residential area.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Russell-Johnson for presenting her case.  There were no questions.

Dr Litten

Dr Litten introduced himself and stated that he was Chairman of St Margaret’s and St Nicholas Residents Forum.  He referred to a Council document which had been produced relating to the control of noise and prevention of public nuisance.  He felt that consideration needed to be given to the nature of the building and the location of nearby residential properties.

He felt that often noise built up during the course of an event, often later on in the evening when background and residential noise levels dropped off, which meant that complaints could be justified later on in the evening.

Dr Litten commented that the St Margaret’s and St Nicholas Residents Forum supported the recommendations put forward by the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team.

Dr Litten explained that where licenses were being considered for Listed Buildings, a Site Visit should take place and no premises should hold events until an examination had been conducted by a Noise Abatement Officer.

Dr Litten concluded that the St Margaret’s and St Nicholas Residents Forum supported Ms Watling in her review of the Licence.

The Chairman thanked Dr Litten for presenting his case.  There were no questions.

The Licensing Manager summed up his case.  He asked the Panel to consider the representations contained within his report and put forward at the Hearing.

He reminded the Sub-Committee that they heard that the problem was mainly occurring from 11pm onwards and he reminded those present that the change of law meant that regulated entertainment was not a licensable activity prior to 11pm in premises which had a sale of alcohol licence.

The Licensing Manager referred to the Borough Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Section 182 Guidance and he explained that the Sub-Committee must have regard to the guidance, or valid reasons why they would deviate from it.

The Licensing Manager outlined the options available to the Sub-Committee as set out in his report.  He reminded them that they needed to focus on the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective.

He reminded the Sub-Committee that full reasons for their decision must be given as there was a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.

Ms Watling summed up her case.  She felt that the use of the under croft had changed from the original application and its original intention was that of an ‘upmarket wine bar’.  She now felt that the venue was an open event venue which advertised live music.

She reiterated that she was disturbed by the live bands and referred back to her log of evidence which had been included in the Licensing Manager’s report.  She explained that she had logged music of when she first started hearing the bands, irrelevant of if it was outside of the licensed hours or not.

Ms Watling explained that when she was at the premises taking photos, she had left when she was asked to do so and had not been back.  She stated that she had only taken photos of the open windows.

She supported the recommendations put forward by the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team.

Mr Lee summed up his case.  He felt that he had worked to promote the licensing objectives and took exception to the fact that the Applicant did not consider his venue as an upmarket wine bar.  He explained that live music was infrequent at the venue and referred to a list of signatures which had been received in support of the current operation of the venue.

He stated that the Police had also not objected to the way the premises were operating.  Mr Lee felt that some of the evidence provided by Ms Watling was factually incorrect.

He felt that he did not deliberately cause problems and there were signs on the exits asking customers to leave the premises quietly and respect residents.

Mr Lee asked the Sub-Committee to leave his licence intact.

The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer summed up her case.  She confirmed that the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team supported the review application as they had received a number of complaints and had witnessed non-statutory nuisance.

She referred to the recommendations put forward by the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team and she felt that these should be incorporated into the licence as conditions.  She did not feel that they would be burdensome. 

Mrs Russell-Johnson

Mrs Russell-Johnson summed up her case.  She stated that noise was unacceptable late at night and despite informal agreements between the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team and the Licence Holder, there had been no improvement.

She supported the recommendations put forward by the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team. 

Dr Litten

Dr Litten summed up his case.  He explained that the quiet enjoyment of residence was important and peace was no longer guaranteed around the Hampton Court area.  He stated that an 11pm close and the introduction of decibel monitoring would allow residents to enjoy their property and held mitigate the situation.

The Legal Advisor reminded the Sub-Committee that other representations had been made and were contained within the Licensing Managers report.  She confirmed that they still needed to be taken into consideration, even though they were not present at the Hearing.

The Sub-Committee retired to consider its decision in private, accompanied by the Democratic Services Officer and the Legal Advisor on specific points of law and procedure.

APPLICATION

The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk (the Council), being the relevant licensing authority, received an application to review the premises licence for Rathskeller under ‘the prevention of public nuisance’ Licensing Objective.

Representations:

-          Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance had made a representation in support of the review application.

-          There were no representations from the remaining responsible authorities.

-          There were six representations from other persons in support of the review application to consider.

-           

HEARING

On 21^st September 2016, a Hearing was held to consider the review application. The Sub-Committee determined the application with a view to promoting the four licensing objectives. It considered the application on its own merits. In reaching its determination, the Sub-Committee had regard to the following matters:

• The relevant parts of the written and oral evidence before them;
• The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Licensing Policy;
• Statutory Guidance issued under the Licensing Act 2003;

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions. It heard from:

• The Licensing Manager
• The Applicant for Review
• The Licence Holder
• The Responsible Authorities
• The other persons present who had made representations in support of the review.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

The Licensing Manager presented his report to the Sub-Committee and identified relevant extracts from the Council’s Licensing Policy and the statutory guidance issued under the Licensing Act 2003.  He particularly drew every ones attention to the change in law which meant that live music and amplified live music and recorded music played to audience of less than 500 does not require to be licensed between 8am and 11pm.  He explained, therefore, any existing conditions specifically relating to this were suspended between those hours, and the committee could not impose conditions specifically relating to these activities during those times unless it was satisfied that the were grounds to do so, i.e. in this case they would need to be satisfied that there was sufficient public nuisance occurring prior to 11pm.  He also reminded the sub-committee that since the review was only relating to regulated entertainment they should not be concerned with the other licensable activities, such as the provision of alcohol or late night refreshments, and accordingly a suspension or revocation of the entire licence would not be appropriate.

The Applicant for Review presented her case and responded to questions from all parties.  She summarised her written representations, explaining in the main that she was disturbed by noise coming from events at this Premises and had been so since March 2014.  After having no success liaising with the Licence Holder directly, she contacted and involved the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance (CSNN) Team at the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk.  She stated that from inside her flat it was often difficult to discern where the music was coming from, and so would open her windows or go outside to do so.  However, she had been frequently disturbed by music, and bass beats from the bar during this time, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.