Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence received.

There were interests declared.

The Chairman introduced the parties and explained the procedure to be followed. The Hearing Regulations 2005 stated that the Authority must allow parties an equal period of time in which to present their evidence. It was agreed that the maximum time for each presentation be ten minutes.

The Environmental Protection Officer presented the report and highlighted background information and representations received.

In response to questions, the Environmental Protection Officer stated the following:

-The noise monitoring equipment was placed at the top of the landing in the complainant's property, behind a double glazed, unopenable window.

In his opinion, the readings were representative of what was experienced inside the property.

- There were no other windows on the level of the property where the noise monitoring equipment was placed.

- Various measurements had been taken which included single episodes of noise and measurements taken over a continuous 30 minute period.

- It was clear on listening to the recordings that the noises emanated from the beer garden of the premises and not from the street.

- The landlords were aware that monitoring equipment had been put in place, but were not aware of the date of installation.

Mr S Taylor presented the representation on behalf of Mr T Westby. He stated that only 1 window in Mr Westby's property was double glazed, the rest were single glazed. He explained that the building line of his property was 6 feet higher than that of the pub, which exacerbated the problem. He added that Mr Westby had enjoyed a good relationship with previous landlords for over 30 years, and had only experienced noise problems since the arrival of the current landlords. He stated that the beer garden of the pub shared a boundary with Mr Westby's property, and contained the only smoking area. He suggested that the beer garden could be located to the opposite side of the pub. He stated that no other neighbours suffered to the same degree as Mr Westby due to the unique geographical location of his property. He stated that Mr Taylor been barred from the pub and threatened with police action. He added that the landlords should come to a compromise.

In response to a question, the Environmental Protection Officer advised that the house was higher than the pub, and this would make a slight difference in terms of noise.

In response to questions, Mr Taylor and Mr Westby stated the following:

- Mr Westby had been barred from the pub after asking the landlord on 4 occasions to reduce the level of noise.

- He did not accept that the noise could be coming from any other source of noise in the street.

In response to a question from a member, the Premises Licence Holder's representative stated that the beer garden could not be moved to the area shown as a private yard, as this was a storage facility for the living quarters, the yard was inaccessible from the premises, the yard was not in a suitable condition to use as a beer garden, and as the yard was near the kitchen it would be unacceptable to use it for smoking. She added that the existing beer garden contained a petonk pitch which was regularly utilised.

Mr D Taylor MP presented the representation on behalf of a local resident. He expressed support for the pub, and stated that it would be damaging if the use of the beer garden was restricted.

Mr K James presented his representation. He stated that all the noise did not originate from the pub.

Dr S Key presented her representation. She stated that the landlords had removed noisy and destructive elements from the premises on past occasions, and were responsible landlords.

The Premises Licence Holder's representative addressed the meeting. She stated that the beer garden was a vital part of the business. She added that the landlords would not tolerate rowdy behaviour from customers, and complaints were always taken seriously. She outlined the measures that had been taken to reduce noise issues. She stated that the smoking ban had caused an increase in the use of the outside beer garden. She added that if the beer garden were moved to the private yard, this would shift the noise from 1 resident to another, as the proximity to the property on that side was similar. She asked the sub-committee to consider if the noise amounted to a public nuisance or a private nuisance. She stated that it would not be proportionate to restrict trading based on a single complaint when numerous representations had been made in support of the pub. She stated that there could be no certainty that the noise levels indicated on the monitoring equipment originated from the beer garden.

In response to a question from a member, the Environmental Protection Officer advised that the monitoring equipment used was some of the best available on the market and he was confident that the noise recorded did originate from the beer garden.

In response to questions, the Premises Licence Holder's representative stated the following:

- Undue restriction would be imposed upon the Premises Licence Holder in enforcing the suggested condition which had been circulated.

- It was unnecessary to impose further conditions upon the licence as noise was controlled sufficiently.

- Punch Taverns and the Premises Licence Holder were unwilling to move the beer garden to the private yard.

- The Premise Licence Holder felt that the noise from the beer garden did not constitute a public nuisance, and the readings from the monitoring equipment did not accurately reflect the noise emanating from the premises.

Members sought legal advice on holding a site visit.