Minutes:
The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained that her role was to look at the application from a public nuisance aspect. She explained that effort had been made with the applicant to manage noise levels and operation of the premises during the Temporary Event Notices had been monitored.
The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer commented that the monitoring undertaken suggested that a public nuisance was likely. She explained that the surrounding area was a mix of residential and commercial and consideration needed to be given to local residents. She felt that the application as it stood at the moment could not operate, even with conditions, without causing a public nuisance.
The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained that her team had suggested installing two sets of doors to reduce noise leakage, but she felt that the further internal work was required before the application could be considered.
The Sub Committee was informed whilst the premises was operating under a Temporary Event Notice monitoring had been undertaken. One of the other persons who had made representations on the application had been visited by the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team in February. The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer informed the Committee that a Member of the Team had visited a neighbour who lived opposite the premises at 11.30pm on a Friday evening.
She explained that the property visited had five double glazed windows facing Norfolk Street and the visiting officer had reported that loud music could be heard in the flat, even with all of the windows closed. It was explained that noise levels doubled each time the door was opened at NJoy and noise levels were recorded from several areas in the property. Noise levels were consistent all across the flat. The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained that the resident had lived in the flat for four years.
The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer stated that the Applicant needed to implement measures to reduce noise breakout and if operation continued in the same way as when the premises was operating under a Temporary Event Notice it was likely that a statutory nuisance would occur.
The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer also stated that opening times were unreasonable for residents.
The Sub Committee was informed that usually the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance team could work with premises to add conditions to the licence to address noise nuisance, but at this stage it was not felt that conditions would be sufficient to prevent a public nuisance. The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team therefore objected to the application.
The Chairman thanked the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer and invited questions from all parties.
In response to a question from the Applicant’s Representative, the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer confirmed that monitoring had been carried out at the residential property opposite the premises on Friday 5th February, which she thought was the last time that the premises had operated under a Temporary Event Notice. The Applicant’s Representative stated that operation had finished by 1am on this day and was surprised that drum, bass and techno music had been heard as the intention was to play 80s and 90s music. The Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer explained that it was heavy bass and high tempo music which often caused a problem. The Applicant’s Representative confirmed that on the night in question a guest DJ was playing.
The Licensing Manager referred to page 47 of his report and explained that in his objection the other person referred to risen levels, which indicated that the problem was ongoing and not just apparent on the evening the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team had visited.
In response to a question from Councillor White, the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team explained that when investigating a complaint the officer put themselves in the position of the resident.
In response to a further question from Councillor White it was confirmed that the resident lived closer to Dr Thirsty than NJoy and the Applicant’s Representative commented that it was likely that some noise nuisance would be from Dr Thirsty.