Agenda item

Decision: -

That the application for conversion and variation to a licence in respect of The Shirley Croft Hotel, Harrowby Road, Grantham be agreed for the current entitlement only and that public music/entertainment be not allowed (variation not agreed).

Note to applicant – if the applicant reapplies with a full and independent acoustic survey, accompanied by detailed proposals for its implementation, then the committee will review the application.

The committee had before them the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing’s report ENV302 in relation to an application for conversion and variation to a licence for The Shirley Croft Hotel, Harrowby Road, Grantham.  A full copy of the application was attached at appendix one, including a map showing the premises, and objections from local residents and from Environmental Health Services were attached at appendix two.

The Corporate Manager, in introducing the application, clarified the speakers and confirmed that there were local residents present who had sought permission to speak.  The applicant attended, accompanied by her solicitor.  The Chairman sought and received confirmation that they had received and understood the procedure to be followed.

In introducing the report, the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing outlined the application and referred to the objections.  He said that there were issues of noise and nuisance connected with the premises and told the committee that a noise abatement notice had been served in 2004.  

The applicant’s representatives presented the case for the applicant, pointing out that they were only seeking to incorporate within the application what was permitted under the act.  A small variation had been made to the amount of drinking up time permitted but there was no intention to introduce significant extensions to the times the premises were permitted to be open.  The interested parties then asked questions of the applicant’s solicitor in relation to the distinction between private parties and public entertainment, and precisely what was permitted within those descriptions, and this was clarified.  The applicant’s solicitor clarified that the current licence permitted private parties only in the function room and the usual “two in the bar” for other musical entertainment.  He confirmed that the application was now for public entertainment, to include live and recorded music up to twelve midnight.

Mrs Evans, representing Environmental Health Services (EHS) spoke about complaints received concerning noise from the premises, which had occurred over a number of years.  These had escalated in 2003 and numerous letters had been sent to the owners of the premises.  Complaints had continued to be received during 2004 and monitoring had been undertaken.  It was clear that a noise nuisance was occurring and the owners had undertaken to complete a full acoustic survey.  However, this had not been done and the complaints worsened, resulting in a noise abatement notice being served in November 2004.  In response to a query in relation to the length of time the notice stood for, Mrs Evans said that once served it remained outstanding and if not complied with, court action could result.  In this case, no further action had been taken as the noise had not been witnessed and there was no evidence.  Lengthy discussion took place in relation to the problems associated with the noise, in particular as to what levels would be acceptable.  Mrs Evans said that there were no set permitted levels, and it would depend on measurements being taken to eliminate background noise before an acceptable level could be arrived at.  In response to further questions, Mrs Evans said that the last complaint had been received in relation to an event on 8^th October 2005 and the levels had last been officially checked in November 2004, just prior to the service of the noise abatement notice. 

The local residents then spoke to the committee.  A principal concern of two objectors was that as the function room was situated only twenty five yards away from their property, the noise, particularly from discos, affected them greatly.  Fire doors and windows were frequently left open and although they had talked to the owners of the premises and a meeting had been suggested, this had not been held.  Whilst the noise reduced for a while, it then seemed to increase and there was no permanent solution apparent.  The noise from discos, particularly at weekends, was the principal cause of complaint from two other objectors, together with the effect of the noise on neighbours, particularly the very young and the old. In the view of the objectors, it was significant that there had been no improvement to the situation, even though a noise abatement notice had been served. In the view of the objectors, the hall was not suitable for the purpose. 

During questions, the applicant’s solicitor said that if his clients were to provide an undertaking that they would soundproof the function room within six months, would that be acceptable?  An objector said that there was no problem with activities in the main building, and an undertaking would be acceptable if it worked, but as had been seen with the undertaking to carry out a survey, this would be of no use whatsoever until it was completed.

For clarification, the Corporate Manager said that if an undertaking was given and then not honoured then the committee would be likely to take enforcement action and could close the premises.

In summing up his report, the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing said that there was clear evidence of nuisance to take into account as well as matters covered by the existing licence.  He asked the committee to consider the undertaking but pointed out that proper consideration would have to be given to an acoustic survey, so that it could be established what was needed to abate the nuisance.

The applicant, in summing up, asked the committee to look at copies of the newspaper articles which had been circulated earlier in the meeting.  It was agreed on behalf of the applicants to commence works for soundproofing within six months.

To assist the committee in its deliberation, the Corporate Manager clarified that an acoustic survey had not been carried out and that in relation to the objections, the entertainment noise was the particular problem, from the annex and car park.  He asked Mrs Evans if, in relation to decibel levels, there were any conditions that the committee could consider imposing.  Mrs Evans responded that there was difficulty in measuring decibel levels and, although it could be done, it would take some time.

The officers, applicant, representatives and members of the public then left the room.

The committee then considered the application and it was proposed and seconded that the application be granted for the conversion only, and that the variation be not granted, although if the applicant reapplies with a full, independent acoustic survey and with detailed proposals for its implementation, the committee will reconsider the application.  On being put to the vote the proposition was carried. 

The officers, applicant, representatives and members of the public then returned to the meeting.  Prior to reading out the decision, the Corporate Manager said that the committee were very concerned at reports of noise from the premises and at the implications of this and the noise abatement notice which had been served, and they were then advised of the decision, as noted above.  The Corporate Manager also advised those present that the committee’s decision could be reviewed at any time and that this also applied to residents/objectors if, now or at any time in the future, there were any issues connected to the application.

The meeting adjourned from 10.55am to 11.14am.