Minutes:
(i) Mr Lane (on behalf of Mr Patel)
Mr Lane explained that Mr Patel owned properties to the rear of the White Hart. He referred to the application which meant that food could be served later that 11pm and felt that this was to encourage later drinking. He referred to the proposals to triple the size of the existing premises and explained that it was surrounded by residential properties. He referred to the plant and equipment which would be situated on the roof and could cause a noise nuisance. He felt that noise levels in the garden would be significant even if it was just people talking. Mr Lane referred to light pollution from the glazed windows facing residential properties.
He referred to an acoustic report which had stated that noise levels would be low, but this was with a canopy. He informed the Sub-Committee that there were children living in the surrounding residential properties.
The Chairman invited questions from all parties. In response to a question from the Licensing Manager, Mr Lane confirmed that the children who lived in the surrounding residential properties were tenants or relatives of Mr Patel.
(ii) Mrs Chase
Mrs Chase appreciated that she had always lived next to a pub, but the new application would provide a different operation. She stated that she would like the kitchen to close before 11pm. She acknowledged that there would be no music on site and was reassured by the fact that CCTV would be in operation, but stated that trade would change as the pub would triple in size and this would cause disturbance. She explained that currently the pub did not serve food, there were only three benches outside and the pub usually closed at 11pm. Mrs Chase referred to access to the site for emergency vehicles which she felt would be restricted and she was disappointed that no representations had been received from the Police or Fire Service.
She referred to a noise assessment which had been carried out on behalf of J D Wetherspoon, a copy of which had been made available to the Sub-Committee in advance of the Hearing. She explained that it stated that the density of seating would increase noise levels and referred to the proposed canopy. She also referred to World Health Organisation guidance.
Mrs Chase explained that the wall separating her property from the garden dropped to 1.25m in places and she felt that this would not be a sufficient barrier to abate noise.
There were no questions to Mrs Chase.
(iii) Mr Merry
Mr Merry presented his case. He referred to the fence between his property and the beer garden. He explained that he had put up the fence, at his own expense, to stop customers cutting through his garden. He did not feel that the current fence would make an appropriate acoustic barrier. He also asked that work be carried out to overhanging branches in his garden and commented that often bottles and cans were thrown over his fence.
Mr Merry informed the Sub-Committee that he had lived at the property for over 26 years and the noise levels had not decreased. He explained that he could hear people taking in the beer garden and accepted it to a point.
He felt that light pollution would increase and explained that light from the pub currently came through to his house. He asked that consideration be given to protecting local residents from light pollution.
There were no questions to Mr Merry.