Minutes:
Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube
The Applicant presented their case and outlined their vision to create a premium, calm and inclusive venue distinct from a nightclub, aimed at a mature audience and centred on live music from local and visiting artists.
The Applicant highlighted to the Sub-Committee their combined 47 years of experience in managing licensed venues and confirmed they had worked closely with the Planning, Licensing and Community Safety Neighbourhood Nuisance departments and that no objections had been raised by responsible authorities.
The Applicant referred to the objection raised from Mr Chilvers and stated that the proposed hours of 12 midday to 2am were reasonable and consistent with neighbouring venues, whereas the suggested hours of 11am to 11pm would have threatened business viability.
The Sub-Committee were informed that an independent acoustic report confirmed that they were compliant with NR20 standards and that the Applicants had implemented all recommendations including secondary glazing, sealing gaps, inward-facing stage layout, upgraded fire doors and professional security.
The Applicant highlighted that the tenants of the neighbouring property had expressed full support.
The Applicant emphasised that The Encore intended to operate responsibly, had taken all reasonable measures to manage noise and that a lobby was unnecessary given compliance with NR20 standards.
In response to questions from the Licensing Services Manager, the Applicant explained that the venue intended to operate as a place for people to sit and enjoy live music, rather than as a bar where there was a constant flow of customers in and out, and this would be supported by educating and building a consistent reputation with customers. The Applicant further explained that if it was conditioned, an SIA registered door staff member would be present during all live music events from 9pm until 15 minutes after close.
The Licensing Services Manager asked if the 91-decibel limit would be included in the noise management plan. The Applicant confirmed it would, explaining that staff were trained to manage sound and that all performers would be monitored to ensure volume levels were controlled.
In response to questions from Councillor Moriarty, the Applicant explained entry to the building would be controlled through instructions to the SIA registered door staff member and added that live performances would be limited to individual songs of three to four minutes rather than extended sets which was considered sufficient to allow customers to leave in an orderly manner whilst remaining compliant with NR20 standards. The Applicant confirmed that performances would consist of acoustic acts, duos or soloists and that bands (i.e. louder groups) were not suitable for the premises and were not part of the business model or theme.
Councillor Moriarty asked for clarification on the location of the CCTV and the Applicant highlighted where CCTV had been installed.
Councillor Moriarty queried the dotted lines shown on page 7 of the audio report. The Applicant explained that they represented RSJs which supported the upper floors.
In response to a further question from Councillor Moriarty, the Applicant stated that the noise report had concluded a lobby was not feasible due to size constraints and that the current structural layout did not allow for such changes.
In response to a question from Councillor Everett, the Applicant explained the sound management measures which they had undertaken and highlighted the most substantial cost related to the secondary glazing which was just over £3,000.
In response to a concern raised from Councillor Bhondi, the Applicant confirmed their decision not to install a lobby was based on the noise report which concluded it was not feasible due to the size of the premises.
In response to a question from Councillor Bhondi, the Applicant explained staffing on the door could commence earlier than 9pm if necessary but the 9pm requirement was imposed by the Norfolk Constabulary.