Agenda item

Decision: -

That the application for conversion and variation to a licence in respect of The Red Lion, 14 South Street, Bourne be agreed as amended, for the following hours for the sale of alcohol: -

10.00hrs to 00.00hrs – Sunday to Thursday

10.00hrs to 01.00hrs – Friday and Saturday

subject to thirty minutes drinking up time, and subject to an acoustic consultant’s survey being carried out and report submitted to Environmental Health and Licensing within three months, and to any improvements recommended being carried out.

The committee had before them the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing’s report ENV301 in relation to an application for conversion and variation to a licence in respect of The Red Lion, 14 South Street, Bourne.  A full copy of the application was attached at appendix one, including a map showing the premises.  A letter of objection from two local residents and a letter from Lincolnshire Police was attached at appendix two. 

The Corporate Manager introduced the application and clarified those present and who would be speaking for the applicant.  Two local residents were present at the meeting and had previously indicated that they would wish to speak, and a representative from Lincolnshire Police also attended.  The Chairman sought and received confirmation that the applicant and his representative had received and understood the procedure to be followed.

The Head of Environmental Health and Licensing introduced the report and drew attention to the amendments which had been made to the timings.  The applicant had confirmed that he would accept the police and Trading Standards’ requirements.

The applicant’s representative confirmed that the applicant would be prepared to accept the amendments to the timings and conditions required by the police and also the requirements of Trading Standards.  He also confirmed acceptance of thirty minutes drinking up time.

The local residents then made points in relation to excessive sound and noise from the premises.  They had discussed this with the manager and owner of the premises and although this had changed for a while, it had now resumed its previous levels, due mainly to discos on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights.  This sound could be heard through the thick stone walls of their premises and was totally unacceptable.  In response to questions, the objector confirmed that he had lived at the premises for two years and that the premises were there when he bought the house.  The objectors confirmed that they were aware that the premises were a pub and they had no objection to that as such but the problem was the level of noise from entertainment.

The owner of the premises confirmed that there was no public entertainment.  Music with DJs was provided, with noise at the same level as the jukebox.  There was no dancing or karaoke permitted.  Following complaints the situation had been monitored, large speakers had been removed, televisions had been re-sited and the chimney breast had been insulated with fibreglass and plasterboard.  In addition, a sound monitor had been bought to monitor levels.  The problems mentioned over the last six weeks were not accepted.  Meter readings had been taken which did not reveal such a level of noise as had been suggested by the objector.  The owner reiterated the work which had been carried out to reduce the likelihood of noise being a nuisance in adjoining premises.  The objector confirmed that he would allow the owner or his representatives into his premises to listen to the noise, and confirmed that he had no problem with the premises apart from the noise element.

The applicant’s representative introduced a sound a music consultant who explained that the new method of amplification was limited by the power of the output and that a trip on the machine would ensure that it was switched off when a certain level was reached.  In response to a query he confirmed that a decibel level could be set, beyond which the machine would not operate.

Various questions were then asked of the applicant’s representative and the sound and music consultant and the applicant’s representative confirmed that the applicant was canvassing a workable system for controlling the noise.  The objectors pointed out that most of the problems mentioned had occurred since the new measures had been installed. 

The Head of Environmental Health and Licensing, in summarising the application, suggested that conditions could be imposed regarding the acoustic consultant’s survey and the carrying out on any work recommended.  He outlined the amended proposal and suggested conditions.

The applicant’s representative, in summarising, referred to the letter of objection from neighbouring residents.  It was his view that they had bought knowing that the premises were a pub and knowing also of the possibility of changes to the licensing regime.  The applicant had tried to improve the control of noise from the premises and would agree to an acoustic consultant’s report and to the carrying out of any work if the report revealed anything that would help to control the noise, and also if it was practical.  The objectors summarised their position, following which the applicant, his representative, officers, objectors and police left the room.

The committee considered the application in detail and it was proposed, seconded and agreed that the application be agreed as amended, subject to an acoustic consultant’s survey and report being required within three months, to the amended hours and subject to the conditions required by the police.

The applicant, his representative, the objectors, officers and police then returned to the meeting and were informed of the decision as noted above.  The Corporate Manager, in advising of the decision, said that the committee had taken all matters into account and hoped that, following the acoustic report, matters could be resolved in the manner suggested.  He also drew attention to the fact that the decision could be reviewed at any time by any interested party.