Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
Bryanston & Dorset	Montcalm Hotel 2 Wallenberg Pl London W1H 7TN	Review	20/00177/LIREVP
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

This will be a virtual meeting. Members of the Public can view the live broadcast using the media links on the Council’s website.

 

                                                                                

 

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 2
THURSDAY 3 JUNE 2021

APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW OF PREMISES LICENCE 20/00177/LIREVP

Membership:           Councillor Tim Mitchell (Chairman); and Councillor Jacquie Wilkinson

Officer Support:      Legal Advisor:                           Horatio Chance

                                  Policy Officer:                                Kerry Simpkin

                                  Committee Officer:                        Cameron MacLean

                                  Presenting Officer:                         Michelle Steward

Present:                   Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Project (on behalf of the Applicant); Benjamin Rode (on behalf of the Applicants); Stephen Thomas, Solicitor Advocate (on behalf of the Respondent); Ankur Bakshi, Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) & Brikena Limani, Events Manager (on behalf of the Respondent, Montcalm Hotel (London) Ltd); Richard Vivian, Noise Consultant; and Peter Thomas, Head of Legal, Precis Advisory Limited (on behalf of the Respondent).

FULL DECISION

Premises

Montcalm Hotel, 2 Wallenberg Place, London W1H 7TN

Applicant

Mr Benjamin Rhode

Premises Licence Holder

Ankur Bakshi, Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) & Brikena Limani, Events Manager (on behalf of the Respondent, Montcalm Hotel (London) Ltd)

[Represented by Stephen Thomas, Solicitor Advocate, Stephen Thomas Law]

Cumulative Impact Area (CIA)/Special Considerations Zone (SCZ)

CIA:   N/A

SCZ:  N/A

Ward

Bryanston and Dorset Square

The Activities and Hours on the Premises Licence are as follows: -

 

Regulated Entertainment:

Performance of Dance

 

Monday to Sunday: 12:00 to 02:30 (for hotel guests)

Monday to Saturday: 12:00 to 00:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

Sunday: 12:00 to 23:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

 

Exhibition of a Film

 

Monday to Sunday: 00:00 to 00:00 (hotel bedrooms only)

 

Performance of Live Music

 

Monday to Sunday: 12:00 to 02:30 (for hotel guests)

Monday to Saturday: 12:00 to 00:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

Sunday: 12:00 to 23:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

 

Playing of Recorded Music

 

Monday to Sunday: 12:00 to 02:30 (for hotel guests)

Monday to Saturday: 12:00 to 00:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

Sunday: 12:00 to 23:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

 

Anything of a similar description to Live Music, Recorded Music or Performance of Dance

 

Monday to Sunday: 12:00 to 02:30 (for hotel guests)

Monday to Saturday: 12:00 to 00:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

Sunday: 12:00 to 23:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

 

Performance of a Play

 

Monday to Sunday: 12:00 to 02:30 (for hotel guests)

Monday to Saturday: 12:00 to 00:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

Sunday: 12:00 to 23:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

 

Late Night Refreshment

 

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 00:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

Sunday: 23:00 to 23:30 (for those not staying at the hotel)

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol

 

Monday to Sunday: 00:00 to 00:00

(for residents and their bona fide guests)

Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 00:30

(Banqueting Suite - for those not staying at the hotel)

Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 00:00

(Other hotel areas - for those not staying at the hotel)

Sunday: 08:00 to 23:00

(Other hotel areas - for those not staying at the hotel)

Sunday: 08:00 to 23:30

(Banqueting Suite - for those not staying at the hotel)

 

 

 

 

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timing

 

The Supply of Alcohol to members of the public shall be permitted from the end of permitted hours on New Year's Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year's Day.

 

The provision of Late-Night Refreshment shall be permitted from 23:00 hours on New Year's Eve until 05:00 hours on New Year's Day

Representations Received

Representations in support of the Review application were received from –

1.     The Environmental Health Service (EHS)

2.     The Licensing Authority

Representations supporting the Premises Licence Holder had been received from a Member of the Public.

Summary of Objections

·       The ongoing noise problems with the Montcalm Ballroom has caused considerable disturbance to our lives.

·       Almost every time there is an event at the Grand Ballroom Montcalm Hotel (experience loud music and shouting) that goes beyond reasonable i.e. on many occasions the noise contained well past 10pm. Sometimes even after Midnight. I contacted the noise team at the local Council to report this on a couple of occasions.

·       The noise prevents me from quiet enjoyment of my home in the evenings. It makes it difficult for me to relax/sleep.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

 

This is an application for a Review of a Premise Licence known as Montcalm Hotel 2 Wallenberg Place Grand Ballroom London W1H 7TN (“The Premises”) under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). The Premises operate as a Hotel and Grand Ballroom and are within the Bryanston And Dorset Square Ward but not located in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone. It is the Grand Ballroom (“The Ballroom”) area of the Premises giving rise to these Review proceedings. The Premises has had the benefit of a Premise Licence since 2011.The Premises operates under licence reference number 17/05077/LIPDPS. The Designated Premises Supervisor is Ankur Bakshi.

 

The Review application has been made by a local resident, Mr Benjamin Rhode.

Mr Rhode’s sole aim in undertaking this licence review was to resolve the issue of noise in his flat caused by loud music from the Ballroom. The Premises has a history of noise complaints stemming back as far as 2016 mainly relating to the playing of loud music and bass frequency levels. Mr Rhode’s involvement in this matter is from 2019.

 

The Applicant agreed a set of proposed conditions with the respective parties in order to mitigate the concerns raised. The Applicant nor the Responsible Authorities are seeking to invite the Sub-Committee to suspend or revoke the Premises Licence and this was duly noted by the Committee.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that all the parties had worked constructively in the run up to the hearing to reach a solution, particularly in the last few days with regard to the agreement of conditions. 

 

The Sub-Committee in its determination of the matter considered the Agenda Pack and the Additional Information pack which contained a written submission by Mr Richard Brown from Westminster Citizens Advice Licensing Project on behalf of the Applicant together with further representations and updated witness statements and amended conditions from Mr Stephen Thomas, Solicitor acting on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder.  

 

SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS

 

Ms Michelle Steward, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the report of the Director of Public Protection and Licensing that was before the Sub-Committee and outlined the nature of the Review.

Mr Richard Brown appearing on behalf of the Applicant referred to his submission set out on Pages 31-34 of the Additional Information Pack. He stated that a satisfactory resolution to the matter had been reached between the Applicants and the Respondent’s solicitor, subject to finalising the wording of some of the proposed conditions.

Mr Brown then summarised the history of the application, including visits that had been made to the Premises by officers from the Council’s EHS, and the steps that had been taken to ameliorate the noise nuisance, including the installation of noise limiters, that had led to the Applicant seeking a Review of the Premises Licence.

Given the resolution arrived at with the PLH, Mr Brown stated that the Applicant was now seeking to have that Resolution codified by way of conditions attached to the Premises Licence. Mr Brown then went through the proposed conditions set out on page 34 of his submission and in the correspondence from Mr Stephen Thomas, Solicitor Advocate, on behalf of the PLH , set out on Pages 23-30 of the Additional Information Pack.

Mr Rhode the Applicant stated that the complained-about noise nuisance had been the cause of much distress to him and his wife and to their neighbours and that it had been made worse by delays caused by the coronavirus pandemic in resolving the issues. However, he was glad that the Respondent was in agreement with the conditions that had been proposed and asked that the Sub-Committee agree to the proposed conditions which would allow enforcement action to be taken to address any re-occurrence of the problems, should they arise.

In response to questions by the Chairman regarding the Bullet Points on Pages 33 & 34 of his submission, in particular the last bullet point referring to monitor speakers, Mr Brown stated that he believed that identifying the source of the potential noise nuisance in the condition had been suggested by Mr Watson of the Environmental Health Service to add greater specificity to the noise conditions

Mr Watson appearing on behalf of EHS stated he had visited the Premises many times since 2012 when the Montcalm Hotel acquired the adjacent King David Suite below the Western Marble Arch Synagogue and converted it into the Hotel’s Grand Ballroom. At the time the Premises Licence was granted, conditions had been attached to the Premises Licence which were intended to prevent any noise nuisance affecting residents at the rear of the property. Consequently, he was somewhat surprised at the number of noise complaints that had been received and which were set out in the Review application.

Mr Watson then described visits he had made to the Premises and inspections he had carried out on the Premises’ windows, smoke vents and noise limiters. He stated that several issues had been identified as possible sources of noise breakout in the Premises, and limitations on the effectiveness of the noise limiters, including DJs and others using their own equipment which was not compatible with the existing noise limiters, rendering the noise limiters ineffective.

At the PLH’s request, Mr Watson had provided the Respondent with a list of acoustic companies and the Respondent had subsequently engaged the services of Mr Richard Vivien of Big Sky Acoustics to advise them. Mr Watson had liaised with Mr Vivien in identifying the sources of noise nuisance. Mr Watson then detailed the measures that had been put in place to address these issues, including refurbishment of the smoke vent windows and the installation of a new sound system and noise limiters.

Regarding conditions to be attached to the Premises Licence, Mr Watson proposed that there should be conditions relating to the opening of the smoke vent windows and the use of monitor speakers by DJs and he explained why, in his opinion, and based on his experience, these conditions were necessary. Therefore, it was his recommendation that Model Condition (MC) 11 governing the use of noise limiters, and MC12, relating to noise generated on the Premises should be included in the conditions attached to the Premises Licence.

In response to questions by Members of the Sub-Committee, Mr Watson provided the following information.

(a)    To ensure that the smoke vent windows were not opened except in accordance with the terms of the proposed condition, the Premises staff should keep control of the key for opening the windows, and contracts for the hire of the ballroom would have to stipulate that, because the ballroom was air-conditioned, the smoke vent windows would not be opened.

(b)    Regarding complaints about vibration, the level of sophistication of the sound limiters that had been installed would allow control over the base frequencies, as well as volume, which were responsible for vibration and airborne noise.

(c)    Regarding the fabric of the building and issues of noise transmission, Mr Watson noted that the ballroom was in the basement of the Premises and that the new sound system and noise limiters that had been installed along with the remedial work undertaken to the smoke vent windows was sufficient to address this concern, as evidenced by the tests carried out by the EHS.

In conclusion, Mr Watson stated that he believed that the problems of noise nuisance had now been addressed.

Ms Jessica Donovan appearing on behalf of the Licensing Authority referred to her  representation set out at Annex 7 on Pages 126 & 127 of the report before the Sub-Committee.

Ms Donovan stated that the Licensing Authority was satisfied that the conditions agreed between the various parties were sufficient to address the concerns raised in the Review application. She stated that the Licensing Authority had maintained its representation so that the Sub-Committee could satisfy itself that the concerns raised by the Licensing Authority in its representation had been addressed.

Mr Thomas appearing on behalf of the PLH stated that, in his correspondence of 3 February 2020, it had been made clear that Mr Bakshi, the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), and his Management Team at the Montcalm Hotel, wished to find a permanent solution to the issues raised by residents. However, having received conflicting advice from consultants and the Council’s Environmental Health officers, the PLH  then asked if Mr Watson might provide him with the names of suitable acoustic consultants. Following receipt of the names of acoustic companies from Mr Watson, the PLH  appointed Mr Vivien Richard of Big Sky Acoustics.

Mr Thomas stated  that the Premises had been closed since March 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic. Consequently, it had not been possible to resolve the Residents’ concerns as it had not been possible to carry out noise tests while the Premises was closed.

Mr Thomas then referred to the Home Office Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, noting that any conditions that the Sub-Committee may be minded to attach to the Premises Licence had to be proportionate and fair and deal with the reasons that were the subject of the Review application i.e., disturbance caused by music on the Premises.

In his report, Mr Vivien had recommended an upgrade of the smoke vent windows and that a significant investment be made in upgrading the Premises’ sound system. It was Mr Vivien’s advice that, if these measures were taken, they would prevent Noise Nuisance. Mr Thomas then described the measures taken to upgrade the smoke vent windows, stating  that all measures he had described were made at considerable cost to the PLH at a time when the Premises had no income.

Mr Thomas then went through the proposed conditions that had been agreed in principle between the various parties. He then highlighted the wording of some of the proposed conditions which had not been agreed and the reasons why the Respondent wished to revise the wording of these conditions. Specifically, he proposed that, with regard to the condition on noise limiters, that the Council’s Model Condition (MC)11 be agreed.

In conclusion, Mr Thomas referred to the letter of support from the Western Marble Arch Synagogue on Page 128 of the main Agenda Pack stating that the Montcalm Hotel had always been respectful and cooperative neighbours and that the synagogue was delighted to have a close working relationship with the Hotel.

Mr Richard Vivian, Big Sky Acoustics stated that, following installation of the new sound system, he had tested the system from the synagogue’s offices on the first floor of the Premises which were very near to the smoke vent windows and, therefore, an ideal location from which to test the system. Having tested the system, it was “locked” (with a password retained by ESL, the company which installed the sound system).

The Sub-Committee was advised that when the system was tested in May 2021 with the Council’s technical officers, the same settings were used, and they proved to be satisfactory. Mr Vivian then described the “state-of-the-art” nature of the sound limiters that had been installed, noting that the Council’s MC11 in relation to noise limiters was an appropriate condition. He said that, to try and add to MC11 risked compromising the clarity and enforceability of the Model Condition.

Peter Thomas, Solicitor, Head of Legal, Precis Advisory on behalf of the Respondent, Mr [Peter] Thomas stated that he was satisfied with the case presented by Mr [Stephen] Thomas and that he had nothing further to add.

On a point of clarification, Mr [Stephen] Thomas stated that the Premises did not operate as a DJ-led dance venue. Instead, it catered for weddings, conferences and bar mitzvahs, as set out in the statement of Ms Brikena Limani, Events Manager, on Page 116 of the Agenda Pack.

In response to a number of questions by Members of the Sub-Committee, Mr [Stephen] Thomas provided the following information.

(a)    The steps that would be taken to ensure that there were no future complaints regarding noise nuisance included redrafting the hire terms for the Premises to require anyone hiring the ballroom and requiring to use a sound system to use the Premises’ sound system and noise limiters and no other system.

(b)    It was understood by the Respondent that responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Premises Licence conditions was that of the Premises Licence Holder and Premises Management Team, and could not be delegated to anyone hiring the Premises. Therefore, measures would be put in place to protect the Premises Licence.

Regarding MC12, which appeared on the current Premises Licence as Condition 31, The  Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee, stated that this condition, which had been included in conditions attached to Premises Licences, was enforceable.

Regarding Section 177 of the Licensing Act 2003, The Legal Advisor stated that he had drafted a proposed form of wording for those conditions where section 177 may be relevant, which read as follows –

“Section 177 of the Licensing Act 2003 shall not apply for the purposes of live music and recorded music save for incidental background music which shall be permitted”.

Mr [Stephen] Thomas confirmed he had no objection to the proposed section 177 wording as set out by Mr Chance.

Mr Brown stated that the proposed  offered wording to “incidental background music”, which was not a licensable activity, did not add anything to the wording that had already been proposed viz.

“Section 177A of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to the performance of live music and any playing of recorded music shall not apply to this licence, and any condition which relates to the live music, recorded music or both, has effect”.

Mr Watson summed up by stating  that, by way of clarification, there had been numerous visits to the Premises by Environmental Health Officers as well as City Inspectors. He stated  that, on one of these inspections by a City Inspector, a statutory nuisance had been witnessed but no Section 180 notice had been issued. The reason being that the City Inspector was not qualified to make a determination on the matter.

Regarding the “Red Amber Green” (RAG) Officer Meetings that used to take place to consider Licenced Premises that had come to the attention of the Council, it was proposed to reinstate these meetings to prevent concerns about Licensed Premises from escalating to Review proceedings.

Mr Watson advised that smoke vent windows were “old technology”. However, if they were properly maintained and/or upgraded, as was the present case, they were effective and achieved their purpose.

Regarding conditions, Mr Watson stated he agreed with Mr Thomas and Mr Brown regarding the conditions relating to both plant and equipment. Concerning the conditions proposed by EHS[1], Mr Watson stated that these had been put forward based on experience, and that the proposed condition which stated –

“Where external sound generating equipment is used within the grand ballroom such as a DJ deck, no monitor speakers shall be permitted to be used in conjunction with the additional equipment.”

was intended to be a “belt-and-braces” condition which he acknowledged was already encompassed within MC11. If the Sub-Committee was satisfied with the conditions agreed by Mr Brown and Mr Thomas, he would have no objection if this proposed condition was not added to the list of conditions attached to the Premises Licence.

Mr (Stephen) Thomas summed up by stating that the Respondent had spent a significant amount of money on resolving the issues raised by the review at a time when the Premises was receiving no income. Therefore, he asked that the Sub-Committee recognise the efforts that had been made by the Respondent.

He stated that it was regrettable that matters had been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic which had necessarily delayed inspections and carrying out tests.

Mr Thomas went on to say that he was pleased that Mr Watson confirmed that, in his opinion, MC11 already covered the concerns identified in his proposed additional condition about the use of monitor speakers

In conclusion, Mr Thomas stated that it was his client’s wish to work with local residents and to maintain good relations with residents, and that he was glad that it appeared that the various parties had managed to come to a resolution of the matter.

Mr Brown summed up by stating that Mr Rhode wished to thank Mr Watson for his assistance in helping to resolve the issues that were the reason for the Review application. Mr Brown summarised the main conditions that had been discussed and the slight variations in the wording of these conditions as proposed by the various parties. In so doing, he made particular reference to the following condition, as proposed by Mr Watson and set out in his submission on Page 34 of the Additional Information Pack “Where external sound generating equipment is used within the grand ballroom such as a DJ deck no monitor speakers shall be permitted to be used in conjunction with the additional equipment”.

He stated that this proposed condition went to the heart of the complaint and its inclusion would give the Applicants some comfort as it had been his experience that there had been DJ-led events at the Premises, as indicated in the “Noise Complaint History” set out in Annex 6 on Page 123 of the Agenda Pack. He stated that the level of specificity in the proposed condition provided the means to promote the necessary Licensing Objective.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took the following matters into consideration.

1.      Subject to finalising the precise wording, the Applicant and the Respondent had agreed on several proposed conditions, or the amendment of existing conditions, in relation to the Licensing Objective of the Prevention of Public Nuisance, such conditions and/or amendments to be added to the Premises Licence conditions.

2.      The Respondent had approached the Council’s Environmental Health Service (EHS) to ask for a list of recommended acoustic consultants who could carry out inspections of the Premises with a view to identifying the sources of, and solutions to, the complained about Noise Nuisance, and the Respondent’s subsequent engagement of Richard Vivien and Big Sky Acoustics.

3.      The Respondent had accepted the recommendations of Mr Vivien’s report and had expended considerable sums in upgrading the smoke vent windows and investing in a state-of-the-art sound system in the Grand Ballroom.

4.      The sound system had an electronic lock thereby preventing any authorised manipulation of the system, the operation of which could be properly regulated by MC11.

5.      The Respondent’s agreement to proposals that the Terms and Conditions for the Hire of the Grand Ballroom would include a provision that Hirers would not be allowed to open the smoke vent windows as the Premises were air-conditioned. In addition, the keys for opening the smoke vent windows would be subject to a keyholder policy.

The Licensing Authority was satisfied that the proposed Premises Licence conditions were sufficient to address any concerns that the Licensing Authority might have expressed.

Conclusion

The Sub-Committee noted that due to the current Covid-19 pandemic the Ballroom has not been used for events by the Premises Licence Holder since the beginning of the first lockdown in 2020. The Sub-Committee also noted that the Premises Licence Holder had lost vital revenue as a consequence of it being out of use. 

 

The Sub-Committee in its determination of the matter concluded that the Premises Licence Holder should receive a Warning regarding breaches of the licence and considered that the imposition of conditions on the Premises Licence was the right course of action to take as opposed to any suspension or revocation as that would be disproportionate given the full set of circumstances of the case and what the Home Office Guidance says about best practice at Paragraphs 11.1-11.29 on Pages 89-94 when licensing authorities are dealing with a review of premises.

 

The Sub-Committee welcomed that a great deal of dialogue had been entered into between the parties but wants to emphasise that a Review of a Premises Licence is a serious matter, and that the Applicant sought this remedy only as a last resort. The Committee recognised that going forward staff members should take a common sense and pragmatic approach went dealing with any future complaints regarding noise and that these are to be resolved amicably and in a timely manner rather than waiting for matters to escalate.

 

Whilst the Sub-Committee accepts that the issue of noise is not always easy to detect. It should not have taken an application for a Review to establish whether the Premises Licence Holder’s sound system was in fact fit for purpose as this clearly caused noise nuisance to nearby residents on a continuous basis which undermined the public nuisance licensing objective, particularly when numerous complaints had been lodged with very little remedial action taken to identify the source of the problem and the necessary actions required to address the substantive issues.

 

The Sub-Committee was of the view that the Premises Licence Holder could have employed the services of a noise expert far earlier rather than seeking to rely upon a report that had been undertaken in 2012. This approach perhaps would have prevented the Applicant from submitting a Review of the Licence in the first place because the causes would have been known and acted upon sooner. This would have ensured that condition 31 on the Licence was not repeatedly breached every time the Ballroom was used for events which lead to the undermining of the licence objectives. Moreover, it would have taken a great deal of time and effort on the part of the Applicant to prepare and produce comprehensive documentation by way of evidence to support the review process which the Committee fully recognised and appreciated.

 

The Sub-Committee decided that it should impose conditions regarding the installation of a noise limiter, a contact number for the manager of the Premises so that residents can air and resolve any issues, the deregulation of section 177 (a) of the Licensing Act 2003 (save for incidental background music), the closing of doors and windows at specific times to prevent noise escape from the Ballroom.

 

The Sub-Committee did feel that on a positive note this was an opportunity for the licence to be updated with conditions that are considered robust, enforceable and will ultimately have the desired effect of promoting the licensing objectives.

 

The Sub-Committee decided that the Applicant and the Responsible Authorities had provided valid reasons as to why conditions should be imposed on the Licence as opposed to any other action the Committee could have taken.

 

The Sub-Committee properly considered the wording of Condition 31 and concluded that in order to future proof the licence and to prevent public nuisance occurring at some later stage it should be updated to reflect Model Condition 12 as specified below. 

 

The Environmental Health Service proposed condition 6 was considered not to be appropriate by the Committee because the noise limiter condition already covers this particular aspect by Model Condition 11 Sub Paragraph (e) and noted below as Condition 4. However, the Applicant gave a firm commitment that there would be strict compliance for any DJ equipment to be routed through the sound limiter device(s) in any event.  

 

Having carefully considered the committee papers and the submissions made by all of the parties, both orally and in writing, the Committee has decided, after taking into account all of the individual circumstances of this case and the promotion of the four licensing objectives: -

 

1.     That the Premises Licence Holder is to be Warned regarding its failure to manage the Premises in accordance with its licence conditions and the promotion of the licensing objectives so that the outbreak of noise does not adversely affect nearby residents and businesses.

 

2.     That the Licence is subject to the following additional conditions and Informative to include any amendments or replacement to existing conditions imposed by the Committee which are considered appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.

 

CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE AFTER A HEARING

 

3.     Section 177A of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to the performance of live music and any playing of recorded music shall not apply to this licence, and any condition which relates to live music, recorded music or both has effect.

 

4.     A noise limiter must be fitted to the musical amplification system and maintained in accordance with the following criteria:

 

(a)  the limiter must be set at a level determined by and to the satisfaction of an authorised Environmental Health Officer so as to ensure that no noise nuisance is caused to local residents or businesses,

(b)  The operational panel of the noise limiter shall then be secured by key or password to the satisfaction of the authorised Environmental Health Officer and access shall only be by persons authorised by the Premises Licence holder,

(c)  The limiter shall not be altered without prior written agreement from the Environmental Health Consultation Team,

(d)  No alteration or modification to any existing sound system(s) should be affected without prior knowledge of the Environmental Health Consultation Team, and

(e)  No additional sound generating equipment shall be used on the premises without being routed through the sound limiter device.

5.     A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open to the public. This telephone number is to be made available to residents in the vicinity of the premises. Smoke Vent Windows Condition this is accepted.

6.     The Premises Licence holder will ensure that the smoke vents windows to the Ground Ballroom shall be kept closed at all times except for when they are tested as part of the building's documented emergency safety procedures or open automatically on alarm in an emergency.

7.     No noise generated on the premises, or by its associated plant or equipment shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.’

INFORMATIVE:

8.     The licence holder is strongly encouraged to form and promote a live WhatsApp group with residents and businesses in order to facilitate regular meetings to discuss issues directly affecting them regarding the running and management of the Premises including any issues specifically connected to public nuisance.

If problems are experienced, then an application for a Review of the Premises licence can be made.

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith

 

Licensing Sub-Committee

3 June 2021