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 Hanse House, South Quay, King’s Lynn, PE30 5GN.

He introduced the Sub-Committee, the Borough Council officers and the Legal Advisor and explained their roles.

The Applicant introduced herself, Ms Watling.

The Respondent introduced himself, Mr Lee and explained that he would be accompanied by his wife and his daughter.

The Responsible Authority present, Alison Demonty from Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance introduced herself.

The Other Persons present introduced themselves, Mrs Russell-Johnson and Dr. Litten.

All parties confirmed that fifteen minutes would be sufficient to present their case, with the exception of Mr Lee, and it was agreed that he would be permitted twenty minutes if required.

At the request of the Chairman, the Legal Advisor outlined the procedure which would be followed at the Hearing.

The Chairman explained that following the Hearing, the Sub-Committee would retire to make their decision.  The decision 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:

·         This Hearing was for Hanse House only.  A separate Hearing would be held to consider the review application for the Rathskeller.

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

·         The original Licence for Hanse House.

·         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 Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance.

·         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 invited questions from all parties.

In response to a question from the Applicant, the Licensing Manager clarified the change in law regarding live and recorded music up to 11pm.  He explained that the Government had relaxed the law so that if a premises was licensed to sell alcohol, live and recorded music would be permitted up to 11pm without a licence, as long as there were no more than 500 people present at the venue.

There were no questions from the other parties.

Ms Watling presented her case.  She explained that she had requested the review 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 first floor South function room was inappropriate for amplified music as it was in close proximity to residential properties.

She did not feel that the premises were managed well on occasions and often windows were left open and music was too loud.  She referred to informal agreements which had been made between the Licence Holder and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance and she did not feel that these had been taken forward by the Licence Holder.

The Applicant referred to her noise log, which had been included within the Licensing Manager’s report.  She explained that it was sometimes difficult to determine what type of music was being played and whereabouts in Hanse House it was coming from.  The Applicant explained that she started keeping the log following Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance advice and the log started in December 2014, although she had experienced issues with noise since March 2014.  She stated that some of the disturbances had been witnessed by the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team and some had been witnessed by other residents.

The Applicant informed the Sub-Committee that since April 2016 she had not been in her property that often, but reported that on 13^th August 2016 there was a disco at the premises until 12.18am and on 20^th August there was a private function until 11.55pm.

The Applicant stated that noise from the under croft and the Function room affected her bedroom and sometimes it felt as if the walls were vibrating.  She explained that her property was a single depth property parallel to St Margaret’s Lane.  She felt that amenity and enjoyment of her property was significantly reduced at the weekend.

The Applicant supported the recommendations put forward by the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team and felt all live and recorded music should finish by 11pm at the venue.

The Applicant explained that she felt the disturbances from Hanse House were less frequent that the Rathskeller, but private events had increased and she felt that they would continue to do so as business was built up. 

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

The Licensing Manager asked if the Applicant could attribute the entries in her noise log to the different venues.  The Applicant explained that she had stated on the noise log when the noise was attributable to the Function Room.  She explained that the noise log included occasions when she was aware of noise, but it was not necessarily a nuisance, but often the noise was louder after 11pm.

There were no questions from the other persons present.

Mr Lee, the Licence Holder, presented his case.  He confirmed that only the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team had supported the review application and there had been no representations from the other Responsible Authorities.  He stated that the Police had commended the operation of their Business and had no complaints.

He referred to the noise log provided by the Applicant and explained that although it provided lots of detail not all entries were pertinent to Hanse House.  He explained that there were 33 observations made by Ms Watling, however only fifteen could be attributed to Hanse House, as it had only been used on fifteen occasions during the log period.

He referred to the log entry of 16^th May 2015 in which the Applicant stated that she had informed Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance of a disturbance.  However this was a Temporary Event Notice which had been arranged by the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk to celebrate the Hanseatic Anniversary Celebrations.  He also referred to an entry for 3^rd July 2015 and explained that there was a Wedding in the venue, but it had finished by midnight.  The Licence Holder explained that he had reduced the volume of the music at 11.15pm for the event on 25^th July 2015 and on 6^th August there was no live music at the venue, just a Salsa Class.

The Licence Holder went on to explain that on 4^th December 2015 the Applicant had stated that noise from the venue would have been louder had it not been for the strong winds and the Licence Holder felt that this was just speculation and could not be treated as evidence.  He also commented that the music was finished by 11.30pm, which was within his licensed hours.  The Licence Holder also referred to the entry for 30^th December 2015 which stated that the windows to Hanse House Courtyard were open and Mr Lee explained that he was under no obligation to close these windows. 

Mr Lee explained that on 19^th March 2016 the Applicant had logged a nuisance.   However this was a 40^th Birthday Party with a Ceilidh Band which was acoustic.

The Licence Holder also referred to the logs made during the Hanse Weekend and explained that the Fireworks were nothing to do with Hanse House.

The Licence Holder informed those present that sixty one people had signed to support the current operation of the premises.  He had also received letters of support from residents of Hanse House who lived a lot closer to the licensed venue than Ms Watling.

The Licence Holder offered to read out some of the letters of support from the residents of Hanse House, however following advice from the Legal Advisor it was felt that the letters raised issues regarding a personal dispute, which was not a consideration for the Licensing Committee and was therefore not relevant.  The Chairman confirmed that the Sub-Committee had received documentation provided by  ...  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 taken forward.  She explained that if a detailed Noise Management Plan was in place and adhered to 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.  She explained that the recommendations included not using the South facing function room for amplified music as it was difficult to contain noise.  She also felt that there should be some general monitoring of street music levels and details kept.

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. 

Ms Watling asked if any Noise Management Plans in place could be made available to the public.  The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained that the plan was not part of the licence, so was not published as a matter of course, but there was no reason why it could not be made available if requested.

Mr Lee asked the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer if she was aware of the insulation boards and she confirmed that she was aware.

Mr Lee asked how many visits the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer had made to the premises.  The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer confirmed that she had visited Ms Watlings property on one occasion and had been in the area on other occasions.  The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained that there were two officers available on the out of hours service and if they had been called out elsewhere they were sometimes unable to attend when Ms Watling had reported a disturbance.

Mr Lee asked if the South facing Function Room was converted into a flat, would it solve some of the problems reported, and the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer confirmed that it would.

Councillor Hopkins asked if there had been other complaints against the premises, additional to those made by the Applicant and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Mrs Russell-Johnson

Mrs Russell-Johnson presented her case.  She explained that her main concern was that there had been little attempt to reduce the noise levels from the South function room.  Insulation boards on the windows were removed when the windows were open so there was no point in them being there.  She could not understand why anyone thought that it would be a good idea to have a party venue so close to residential properties.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Russell-Johnson and there were no questions.

Dr Litten

Dr Litten introduced himself and stated that he was Chairman of the 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 events, 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 felt that when 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.

He stated that the St Margaret’s and St Nicholas Residents Forum supported the review application.

The Chairman thanked Dr Litten and 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 had heard from the Applicant and other persons 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 venues which had a licence to sell alcohol.

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.

Mr Lee summed up his case.  He stated that from the start of the planning process all matters were taken into consideration with regard to the operation of the premises.  The licence for the premises was until midnight and Mr Lee stated that he believed that he acted within his licence and took into consideration the concerns of his neighbours.

He felt that he had taken measures to ensure that there was not a nuisance and he did not deliberately try and cause hassle.

He stated that if his terminal hour was reduced this would have a negative impact on his wedding bookings, especially with the other competition for wedding venues in the vicinity.  He requested that the Sub-Committee made no changes to his current licence.

Ms Watling summed up her case.  She reminded the Sub-Committee that she had recorded noise nuisance levels in a log and she was careful with recording accurate dates and times.  She explained that the log was a shortened version of her emails with Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance and that when she had stated in her log that no one from Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance was unable to attend the premises, this was not a criticism, it was just that no one was available.

She acknowledged that noise was louder when her windows were open and that the wind had an effect on noise levels.

She requested that the licensed hours be reduced so that activity finished at 11.00pm and that the same be applied to the Rathskeller so that there was consistency across the venues.

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 she supported the review application and that this was a residential area before Hanse House was an entertainment venue.  She explained that Hanse House was previously Norfolk County Council Offices and she never expected it to be turned into a party venue.  She had also been told that there would be no music on the south side of the venue.  She stated that insulation boards were often removed from the window when the windows were opened.

She felt that an 11.00pm finish time would improve the situation.

Dr Litten

Dr Litten reminded those present that Hanse House was a Listed Building and when the original application for a licence was made there should have been a site visit.

He stated that although the noise may be acceptable to guests, it was not to residents, some of which were elderly, in the vicinity.

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 meeting.

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.

The Sub-Committees Decision was as follows:

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 Hanse House 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 there 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, the south range function room in particular was immediately opposite  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.