Agenda item

Decision:-

That the application for conversion and variation to a licence in respect of Smiths’, 25 North Street, Bourne be agreed as applied for, including thirty minutes drinking up time and an extension of the exterior licensed area by incorporating part of the grassed area for the consumption of alcohol, subject to the following conditions:- 

1. That the applicant works with the interested party and Environmental Health Services regarding insulation of the void area and roof spaces to minimise noise nuisance to the satisfaction of Environmental Health Services.

2. That there be no amplified live music on the premises.

3. CCTV be operated during opening hours and any recordings from the system to be made available immediately to the Police after a reasonable request and be retained for no less than twenty-eight days.

The committee had before them the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing’s report ENV268 in relation to an application for conversion and variation to a licence for Smiths’, North Street, Bourne. A full copy of the application was attached at appendix 1, including a map showing the premises. An objection from a local resident, including a supporting email from her husband, and representations from Environmental Health Services were attached at appendix 2.

The Committee Support Officer, in introducing the application, clarified the speakers and confirmed that there were no representatives from the police present. The applicant and premises manager were present at the meeting, accompanied by Counsel, and the Chairman sought and received confirmation that they had received and understood the procedure to be followed. A representative from Environmental Health Services was also present.

In introducing the report, the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing outlined the application and referred to the objections. Further correspondence from the objector was circulated, as she was not able to attend the meeting. The Head of Environmental Health and Licensing apologised for the error in the report as to the objector’s address.

The applicant’s representative referred to the application details as appended to the report. He stated that the request for extension in hours for the sale of alcohol had been made in response to customer demand; the extension in premises to allow consumption of alcohol on the grassed area was to allow parents to supervise their children whilst drinking. He added that many other premises within Bourne had been granted extensions. The premises manager also spoke to the committee. He explained that when he had been appointed, it had been apparent that there were problems with noise leakage and that, in cooperation with the neighbouring resident who had objected to this application, he had worked on reducing this. Among other changes implemented, bins were now emptied during the day and amplification was no longer used for quiz announcements and calling time. A major piece of work required for a significant reduction in noise leakage was re-lagging of the roof but access to the neighbour’s property was required and this had previously been denied. Permission had recently been given, however. Upon questioning, the manager confirmed that they asked patrons to leave the grassed area by dusk and children to leave the premises by 20.00hrs.  The committee was also reminded that the planning application to convert the premises from a shop to a public house, did provide the opportunity for conditions on sound proofing and other related issues.

Mrs Evans, representing Environmental Health Services (EHS), spoke about the complaints received concerning the premises when it first opened as a public house. It had been considered initially that these may have been due to certain national events at the time but complaints had continued. These were from the objector to this application and had been made concerning the noise from the premises. Complaints concerning music had ceased but general noise leakage continued.  Mrs Evans had visited the complainant’s home and had been amazed at the level of noise leakage from the premises. She supported the proposed improvement works but also requested that acoustic insulation be installed in the roof as a continued step approach to resolving the problem. Upon questioning from the applicant’s representative and the committee, Mrs Evans confirmed that monitoring following the improvements to the premises is ongoing and that at the time of the planning application, EHS had not requested a full acoustic report. The applicant’s representative added that the applicant was prepared to have no amplified live music on the premises.

The Head of Environmental Health and Licensing summed up his report. The applicant’s representative also summed up by stating that two of the points of objection, i.e. that the extension would add value to the premises and that the extension of hours would increase crime and disorder were not relevant and no evidence in support of these had been provided. The objection concerning noise was genuine, however, and the applicant was prepared to take the necessary steps to resolve the situation. Mrs Evans summed up the case of EHS. She stated that considerable noise could still leak from the building from musical instruments without amplification and that acoustic insulation was required.

The officers, applicant, manager and representatives then left the room. During the ensuing discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be agreed as varied subject to conditions regarding improvement works, no amplification of live music and CCTV. On being put to the vote, this was agreed.

The officers, applicant, manager and representatives then returned to the meeting and were advised of the decision, as noted above. The Committee Support Officer also advised that the decision could be reviewed at any time by any interested party.