Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
The Senior Technical
Officer
presented the report and outlined the application to consider a
variation of the premises licence to supply alcohol on the premises from 11:00
to 22:00 on Monday – Thursday, from 11:00 – 23:00 on Friday and Saturday and 12:00
– 22:00 on Sunday. The premises currently had a licence that permits the supply
of alcohol from 17:00 to 22:00 on Monday – Thursday, from 11:00-23:00 on Friday
and Saturday and from 11:00 – 22:00 on Sunday which was granted in 2017.
Member Questions
The Senior Technical
Officer
made the following statements in response to Members’ questions:
i.
There had been no noise complaints
from previous events so officers assumed residents had no concerns.
ii.
Licensed premises were routinely
inspected to ensure they complied with conditions.
iii.
The Museum of Technology had not yet
been inspected, so Officers would check licence conditions had been met when
they visited. Officers would assume conditions were complied with (before
inspection) unless they received evidence to the contrary.
iv.
Premises were inspected based on a
program of risk. The Museum of Technology was seen as low risk.
v.
Noted Member’s reference to noise
issues in Appendix C of the Officer’s report, but re-iterated there had been no
noise complaints for previous events. Retrospective complaints had been
received in response to the current application.
Other Persons
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident.
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Noise concerns.
a.
The museum was unique as it had a
licence for amplified music although located next to a residential street.
Expressed concern that extending the licence would extend amplified sound
usage.
b.
The current licence holder was
more considerate than the previous one so events were less intrusive.
c.
Expressed concern there appeared
to be no limit on the amount of noise that could be produced on site.
ii.
Communication with the Museum.
a.
There was no number to call in
case of problems with museum events.
b.
People had difficulty contacting
the local authority, so may have been deterred from logging noise concern calls
with the council.
c.
Expressed concern that Temporary
Event Notices (TENs) may allow third parties to have their own events that
would not affect the museum (as the main licence holder) if there were any
repercussions. IE the museum would not be penalised.
Member Questions
In response to Members’ questions the member of the public was unable to
confirm how many neighbours had contacted environmental health services about
museum noise issues.
The Chair asked the resident to ask neighbours to register any noise
concerns with environmental health services or their ward councillors so they
could be logged. The Chair said the application today was to consider the
museum licence extension. General issues should be logged with environmental
health services.
Environmental Health & Licensing Support Officer
The Environmental Health
& Licensing Support Officer made the following points:
i.
No complaints had been received to
date.
ii.
Issues in representations appeared
to be linked to third party operator events.
a.
The party concerned was no longer
operating.
b.
Historic complaints had not been
logged with Environmental Health, so could not be followed up.
iii.
Extra conditions had been
recommended in the report to mitigate issues from future third party events.
iv.
Third parties could not be stopped
from applying for TENs, but these were considered on an individual basis.
v.
The museum had been in contact
with the resident association and their reactions had been positive.
vi.
The local authority was limited in
actions it could take. Future occurance of historic
issues had been mitigated through conditions in the Officer’s report. Any
reported issues could be followed up in future.
The Environmental Health
& Licensing Support Officer read out a statement on behalf of Katy Bailey
(Applicant’s Representative) that had been sent to local residents setting out
plans for the site.
i.
The
application was for a change in hours.
ii.
New
events would be an extension of museum activities, there would be fewer third
party events.
iii.
Noise
from the new music system could be capped, and the projection direction
restricted.
iv.
Staff
would monitor how contractors parked (to address concerns from historic
issues).
v.
The
Museum would continue to liaise with the Riverside Resident Association.
Summing Up
The Senior
Technical Officer made the following points:
i.
The Museum were responsible for
the conduct of third party TENs operators.
ii.
Issues would be monitored for
background information about future events.
iii.
A licence review would occur in response
to officer concerns or a complaint from a member of the public.
iv.
No licence permission was required
for live/recorded music between 08.00 and 23.00. Conditions could only control
music played outside these times.
v.
Reiterated members of the public
should log noise issues with Environmental Health Officers.
The
member of the public said the statement from Museum Directors to residents came
as a result of residents contacting the museum, not the other way round.
Members withdrew
at 11:15 am and returned at 12:20 pm. Whilst retired,
and having made their decision, Members received legal advice on the wording of
the decision.
Decision
The Sub Committee
resolved to grant the Premises Licence Variation,
including conditions listed in Appendix E of the Officer’s report.
Reasons for
reaching the decision were as follows:
·
The
variation meets the four licensing objectives.
Publication date: 02/08/2019
Date of decision: 13/05/2019
Decided at meeting: 13/05/2019 - Licensing Sub Committee
Accompanying Documents: