NEWARK & SHERWOOD
DISTRICT COUNCIL
LICENSING
SUB-COMMITTEE
RECORD OF HEARING
HELD ON
10 OCTOBER 2019
14:00 HOURS
ROOMS F2 and F3,
CASTLE HOUSE
HEARING TO CONSIDER
AN APPLICATION TO VARY A
PREMISES LICENCE
MCCARROLLS BARBERS, 32
KING STREET, SOUTHWELL, NG25 0EN
SUB –
COMMITTEE: Councillor Mrs R.
Crowe (Chairman)
Councillor
L. Brazier
Councillor
Ms R. White
ALSO
IN ATTENDANCE: Caroline O’Hare (Senior
Legal Advisor - NSDC)
Nicola
Kellas (Licensing Officer - NSDC)
Alan
Batty (Business Manager – Public Protection - NSDC)
Anna
Meacham (Licensing Support Officer - NSDC)
Applicant: Paul McCarroll
Representors: Rachel Thackery
and Guest
Councillor Penny
Rainbow
Brian Beddows (EHO –
NSDC)
APOLOGIES: Richard Marshall (Planning
Officer – Enforcement)
Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the
Panel’s Legal Advisor advised all parties present of the key considerations for
determining the application to vary the premises licence. She acknowledged the already agreed additional
condition between the applicant and the Police and reminded those present that
any decision must be based on the four licensing objectives, highlighting that
the key one for this hearing was the Prevention of Public Nuisance. She advised that any decision must be
justified and proportionate to the application and any applied condition must
be reasonable.
Presentation by Licensing Officer
The Licensing Officer presented to the Panel
details of the reason for the Hearing which sought Members’ consideration for a
variation to a premises licence to extend the current opening hours on a Friday
and Saturday. The report before the Panel presented Members with the background
information in relation to the licensing history, including complaints received
concerning excessive noise from both inside and outside the premises from music
and customers. Representations had been
received in relation to the application and were contained within the report.
The report set out the legislation in
relation to the powers that licensing authorities had to vary the premises
licence, the options available to the Panel and the relevant policies and
guidance.
Presentation by the Applicant
Mr. McCarroll was
in attendance and addressed the Panel.
He stated that the reason for his application to vary the licence was in
order to afford him flexibility on Friday and Saturday evenings on what time he
closed his premises. He added that often
the premises did not get customers in until 8pm and that the applied for
extension to the current termination hour of 9.30pm act as a buffer to make the
business financially viable. He added
that, if granted, it was not his intention to use the extended hours every
Friday and Saturday.
Questions to the Applicant
Ms Thackray sought assurances from Mr. McCarroll as to what assurances he could provide that he
would not use the extended hours, if granted.
She added that subsequent to the last variation granted, Mr. McCarroll had not adhered to the conditions placed on the
premises licence and that this had impacted on her home life due to noise
nuisance.
Mr. McCarroll
advised that the Environmental Health Officer would be leaving some noise
monitoring equipment at the premises so that an appropriate volume level could
be set. He added that he had not been
aware that the noise levels in Ms Thackray’s home
were as loud as they were and would be willing to accept a condition requiring
that the door must remain closed. He
further added that he would keep music volume levels to a minimum until the
levels were set.
In relation to the noise from customers
outside the premises, Mr. McCarroll stated that it
was his understanding that he could not stop them from going outside to smoke a
cigarette, adding that he did not allow them to take alcohol. He stated that this was monitored and stopped
if a customer attempted to take their drink with them. He also stated that customers were asked to
keep the level of noise down if they did go outside for a cigarette but at
present there were no notices to that effect but that he would be willing to
post them if required to do so.
In noting that Mr. McCarroll
had agreed to a condition to keep the door closed, the Environmental Health
Officer noted that there was also a door at the rear of the premises. He queried whether it was possible to limit
the number of customer congregating outside the premises with appropriate
signage being posted to that effect. In
response to how he could limit the numbers, the Legal Advisor informed Mr. McCarroll that the immediate vicinity and customers outside
his premises was his responsibility. Mr.
McCarroll stated that it was his wish that customers
used the rear of the premises to smoke but that Ms Thackray was against that
due to potential further noise nuisance.
He acknowledged that the rear of the premises would only accommodate 4-5
persons and that its use would be monitored.
Mr. McCarroll
advised that generally there were only a few people outside the premises at any
one time but on occasion there had been as many as 9. He added that his clientele were generally
older and not rowdy.
The Licensing Officer advised that the
current licence only covered Mr. McCarroll for onsales and therefore any taking of alcohol outside was a
breach of his licence. She queried whether
Mr. McCarroll would consider agreeing to limit the
number of time he used his extended hours, if granted. Mr. McCarroll
stated that he was not willing to do that at present.
A Member of the Panel queried whether, when
the premise was being operated as a barbers, children were present when alcohol
was served. Mr. McCarrol
advised he was licensed to serve alcohol during the day but that none of his
customers bought it.
The Chairman of the Panel noted that should
Mr. McCarroll advertise the extension of the licensed
hours his customers would be aware and possibly bring pressure to bear for him
to frequently remain open. Mr. McCarroll reiterated that he was not willing to limit usage
of the extended hours but that it was not his intention to frequently use them.
The Panel’s Legal Advisor queried as to what
Mr. McCarroll would base his decision on as to
whether to remain open for longer hours or not.
Mr. McCarroll advised that he would not
advertise the hours and that the decision would be made on the night by himself
and his wife who worked at the premises with him.
In response to whether he would consider
employing staff to operate the bar, Mr. McCarroll
advised that the work was only undertaken by himself and his wife.
In relation to whether the bar served regular
customers or passing trade, Mr. McCarroll stated that
customers were mostly regulars but that it was unpredictable as to what time
they would arrive.
Presentation by Representors
Councillor Mrs Rainbow
Councillor Mrs Rainbow was in attendance and
addressed the Panel. She explained that she had continued to receive complaints
since the last variation had been granted in relation to noise and nuisance
from the premises with the overriding complaint being of noise nuisance from
loud music. Other complaints involved
the congregation of customers outside the premises whilst smoking.
Councillor Rainbow acknowledged that whilst
people had chosen to live in a town centre area it was of mixed used between
commercial and residential and that there must be a mutual respect of each
other. She noted that a noise abatement
notice had been served on the premises by Environmental Health and requested
that, if granted, that usage of the extension to the hours be deferred until
noise abatement works had been carried out.
Rachel Thackray
Ms Thackray stated that since the premises
had opened her home was no longer a quiet haven. She endured persistent noise from music with
bass levels being of particular concern and that Mr. McCarroll
had found this difficult to accept. The
EHO had advised that the levels of noise were due to the street topography of
the area and led to a reverberation of sound with weekends being particularly
unpleasant.
Ms Thackray advised that the summer months
had been bad and had led to her not being able to go to bed when she wanted,
having a negative impact on his home life to the extent where she had
considered selling her home. She noted
that there were steps which could be put in place to mitigate the noise levels
and had reluctantly invited Mr. McCarroll into her
home to listen for himself with Mr. McCarroll
admitting that the noise from the music playing in his premises was
audible. Ms Thackray added that together
with the noise from customers drinking on the street it was intolerable.
Ms Thackray noted that there was no valid
planning permission for the premises to operate as a bar, yet it was and what
was there to stop other premises taking the same course of action.
In noting that a Noise Abatement Notice had
been served on Mr. McCarroll, Ms Thackray advised
that she would like to know more about the consequences of that notice.
Brian Beddows – Environment Health Officer
Mr. Beddows advised the Panel of his relevant
qualification in relation to noise nuisance and management thereof and those of
his colleague who had been dealing with complaints about the premises. He provided the Panel with a chronological
history of the complaints received and the actions taken therefrom and that
sound levels taken in September had determined that there had been a statutory
nuisance which resulted in a Notice being hand delivered to the premises on 7
October 2019.
Mr. Beddows advised that due to the nature of
the barbers business the shop had little in the way of materials that could
absorb sound or act as a buffer. He
reiterated Ms Thackray’s previous comments that the
noise reverberated from buildings opposite rather than travelling through the
fabric of the buildings and that Mr. McCarroll had
acknowledged that when Ms Thackray had invited him into her property and the
noise from the music being played was clearly audible. He noted that there were no set levels of
noise when the statutory nuisance had occurred and that it was possibly due to
the type of music being played as the human ear was more susceptible to certain
types of frequencies. If acceptable
levels were to be set this would have to be undertaken with the agreement of
both parties.
Questions to the Representors
A Member of the Panel queried whether Ms
Thackray had been aware of the Temporary Event Notices that Mr. McCarroll had applied for.
Ms Thackray stated that Mr. McCarroll had not
made her aware and that she had been advised to look on the Council’s website
by the Licensing Team.
Summaries
Councillor Mrs Rainbow again requested that,
if granted, that usage of the extension to the hours be deferred until noise
abatement works had been carried out.
Ms Thackray sought to emphasis the amount of
stress the current situation was causing and asked the Panel to take into
consideration the views of residents together with what, if any, conditions
could be put in place in an attempt to resolve the situation. She also queried whether it was possible to
restrict any further variations or the use of Temporary Events Notices. Ms Thackray’s
preferred outcome would be for the Panel to refuse the application to vary the
premises licence.
Mr. Beddows noted that the Council had served
a Noise Abatement Notice and emphasised the seriousness of that course of
action. He added that it should stop any
further nuisance but, if not, the consequences could lead to a prosecution with
a fine being levied and/or the seizure of equipment used in the premises. Any decision on those would be taken in court
proceedings. Mr. Beddows advised that
Mr. McCarroll had agreed to work with EHOs to set
agreed noise levels but that in the interim he was permitted to play motown music as there was no bass element to that. Mr. Beddows asked the Panel to consider the
imposition of conditions requiring doors and windows to remain closed and
whether a limit on the number of customers that could congregate outside could
be imposed and that no drinks would be allowed, with such signage being posted
to that effect.
Mr. McCarroll
stated that he had been operating the bar element of the premises for 12 months
and during that time he had never had caused to call the Police to his premises
adding that he wanted to work with Ms Thackray to resolve the issues. Mr. McCarroll
stated that he wanted to work with the EHOs to set an acceptable level of
sound, noting that dance music appeared to be problematic due to the bass
element.
Decision
Panel’s Decision:
Having considered all
of the above in detail and based on the findings set out below; the Panel’s
decision was that:
1.
The application be refused save for an amendment to
Appendix 2 to add the condition agreed between the Applicant and the
Police. This being:
“all scissors and other tools used in the cutting of hair to
be stored away in locked storage from 8pm”
2.
The Panel determined that based on the evidence
from the Objectors and the evidence from the Applicant, that varying the
licence as proposed by the Applicant would not promote the Licensing
Objectives.
The meeting closed at
3.51pm