To consider an application for a Review of a Premises Licence.

Members considered a report on an application for review of a Premises Licence in respect of Torbay Court Hotel, Steartfield Road, Paignton.

Written Representations received from:

Additional Information:

Prior to the Hearing the Respondent’s Representative provided additional information which was circulated to Members and Interested Parties. 

During the hearing it became apparent that the applicant required an extension of time for their oral submissions, the extension of time was granted to all Interested Parties.

Oral Representations received from:

Decision

That the Premises Licence in respect of The Torbay Hotel, Steartfield Road, Paignton be amended to include the following additional conditions:

i)       The exemptions under the Live Music Act 2012 shall be repealed in respect of these premises;

ii)      All amplified live and recorded music shall be played through a noise limiter;

iii)     The noise limiter shall be set at a level agreed by the Licensing Authority;

iv)     The noise limiter shall be kept in a tamper proof container in a location where there is no public access;

v)      Any adjustments to the noise limiters level shall only be made in consultation with the Licensing Authority;

vi)     The premises shall have an in-house PA system or something similar to ensure that the agreed level set on the noise limiter is maintained;

vii)    All entertainers and performers using amplified equipment must use the premises in-house PA system or something similar to ensure that the agreed levels set on the noise limiter are maintained;

viii)   A suitable and sufficient ventilation system must be installed and maintained in the areas of the premises where regulated entertainment takes place by 31 May 2018;

ix)     There shall be no more than 6 persons associated with the Premises being permitted in the designated smoking area after 8 pm;

x)      Suitable and sufficient size signage agreed by the Licensing Authority shall be displayed in prominent positions within the Premisesand its outside areas to remind guests to respect neighbours and keep noise to a minimum.

Reasons for Decision

Having carefully considered all the written and oral Representations, Members resolved to modify the Premises Licence having been satisfied that the premises operations were undermining the Licensing Objective ‘The Prevention of Public Nuisance’ and causing a nuisance to nearby residents. 

In coming to that decision, Members were alarmed by the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and the Premises Licence Holder’s (PLH) Legal Representative impervious response to the concerns raised over a number of years by members of the public who live in the immediate vicinity and that of the Licensing Authority’s Public Protection Officer, regardless of the written Representations and oral submissions of those present at the hearingand being presented with audio clips played by the Public Protection Officer of which the majority were taken from within the homes of three nearby residents.

In listening to these clips, Members noted that  they could clearly hear exact numbers being called by a bingo caller and words of songs being played from within the premises and therefore in their opinion, determined that the noise emanating from these premises was having a detrimental impact on nearby residents so as to cause them a nuisance.

Despite being questioned in regards to this evidence and its effects, Members were seriously concerned as to the DPS’s futureability to operate these premises in a responsible manner which ensured that the Licensing Objective, ‘The Prevention of Public Nuisance’ was promoted, given her continued opinion that there was no public nuisance and even if there was, she was not aware of this. This Members determined fell well below the standard reasonably expected by them of someone in a position of such authority.

Members resolved that the DPS’s attitude and approach to the noise complaints was dismissive and irresponsible and on the evidence before them, were satisfied that the premises were aware of the historical and ongoing noise outbreak from the premises and its effects but had chosen not to address these, due to the perceived cost implications.

By the DPS’s own written and oral submission, residents concerns had been brought to her attention and as a result, she convened a meeting on the 2^nd July 2016 in an attempt to resolve these. Members further noted the number of times complaints were raised directly with the premises and the prolonged period of thisby the person who had called the Review and others and that of the Licensing Authority’s Public Protection Officer who had met with the DPS on a number of occasions following their receipt of noise complaints from nearby residents and had given advice and warnings to the premises in respect of noise outbreak. This was in addition to the findings of the Private Investigators report which was commissioned by the PLH and clearly showed other residents in the adjoining roads who he had spoken to could hear noise emanating from these premises, although they had chosen not to complain.

Notwithstanding that these premises were exempt under the Live Music Act 2012, Members noted the oral submission of the DPS that she was not aware of this and had continued to operate the premises in compliance with the conditions of the Premises Licence.. This coupled with the premises written manual at point 6 under the heading ‘Advice and Guidance which states that ‘All windows and doors must be kept closed during all entertainment, regular sound checks around the outside of the building must be made to ensure no unacceptable noise outbreak and recorded should any action need be taken’ and  ‘During any events using a Temporary Event Notice sound checks must be carried out every hour and logged on the events log’, which too were submitted to have been complied with, resulted in Members determining that such action had not been undertaken effectively, if at all, given the evidence before them and the absence of sight of a record or events log.

In noting that the DPS and the Premises Legal Representative agreed to all of the conditions put forward, except to that of installing a PA system or something of a similar nature, Members resolved that without such a condition, a noise limiter would be ineffective and noise nuisance would continue to emanate from these premises. In their opinion and experience, Members resolved that installing such a system where the premises was in such close proximity to nearby residents was an appropriate and proportionate condition to ensure that ‘The Prevention of Public Nuisance’ Licensing Objective would be promoted, given the evidence before them.

In line with its Statement of Principles, Members gave careful consideration to removing and/or limiting licensable activities at these premises due to the close proximity of residential premises and the removal of the DPS but resolved  on this occasion that the proposed conditions which were agreed in majority should alleviate the concerns raised by members of the public and the Responsible Authority.

Should issues of concern continue to arise as a result of this decision, Members would welcome a further Review of this Premises Licence so that a decision may be taken to address these.