Meeting documents

The meeting had been previously adjourned at 1.50pm on 28 September 2009 and had now been re-convened at 2.00pm on 8 October 2009.

The Chairman asked the Licensing Enforcement Officer to present his report once again. The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented his report and added that he had sent further information out to all parties on 30 September and 2 October. He also explained the total capacity of the premises for clarity.

Mr Tandy (Ashby Civic Society) asked for some clarification on the capacity numbers for the premises. The Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that the numbers within the additional papers replaced the numbers in the original report.

A Member asked if there was an adjoining door between the two premises. The Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that there was one adjoining door on the first floor of the premises.

All parties agreed for a revision of the amount of time to give presentations to twenty minutes.

Mr Grimsey then presented the application on behalf of the applicant. He referred Members to the premises plans as detailed within the agenda papers and then asked the applicant to explain the positioning of the buildings.

To make it clear where the two entrance points were, it was hand drawn onto the Chairman's papers, and this was then photocopied and circulated to all parties for clarity.

Mr Grimsey stated that the request for the supply of alcohol off the premises was not for the purpose of allowing people to take the alcohol home to consume but to allow customers to consume alcohol in the outside terraced area. Mr Grimsey then offered a number of conditions for the licence, these had been documented and were circulated to Members and all parties.

In response to a number of questions from Members, Mr Grimsey stated the following:

- The adjoining door linked the premises with the hotel and was used by hotel staff only.

- The ground floor function room has a partition door which could be left open to create one large room, or closed to create two smaller rooms. The doors were kept locked when closed and door staff were in the room to make sure they are not forced open.

- Each room has door staff and use a hand held clicker system to keep control of the numbers moving in and out. There is also a queue system in place. There was a total number of eight door staff whilst the premises were open.

Mr Cookson (Acoustic Consultant) presented his report to the Members. He stated that he used the common standard for the measurements in accordance with the Council's Environmental Protection officer.

In response to a question from a Member with regards to the newly installed noise limiter in the premises, Mr Cookson stated that all of the three rooms were linked to a main control unit which keeps all noise levels the same. The levels had been set by the Council's Environmental Protection Officer.

In response to questions from Mr Tandy, Mr Cookson stated the following:

- If the application was agreed, the noise intrusion for property number 77 should not be any higher than it was currently.

- The 5 dB correction was not applied in the assessment as it was his opinion that it was not necessary, as it did not match the criteria. The correction was generally used for industrial assessments. He explained that there were many variations to the assessment with no national agreed method. He had applied the standards that the District Council used.

- The assessment was not undertaken during the dispersal from the club as it would not be possible to determine which premises the patrons had come from. Plus, in his opinion, unless there was a massive increase in people there would be very little difference.

- The assessment was conducted whilst the premises was open at full capacity under a temporary event notice.

- All three rooms had music playing whilst the assessment was being undertaken with all doors open apart from the door to the terrace.

- He was unsure of the number of people in the outside area at the time of assessment but the premises were operating at full capacity, the estimation was under 100 people.

Mr Etchell then presented his objections. He stated that the proposed opening hours would make a big difference for the local residents especially as the additional people in the club would take longer to move from the streets after the premises had closed. He expressed concerns regarding public safety as he felt it would be difficult to monitor the amount of people moving around the premises in the different rooms. He stated that the acoustic assessment was flawed as it was undertaken on a Thursday night at 11.00pm, this was not realistic as it would be much busier at the weekend and the background noise would be a lot less in the early hours of the morning. Mr Etchells was concerned that the acoustic assessment was undertaken incorrectly as the 5 dB correction should have been applied, he gave an estimated calculation of what the measurements should have been. Mr Etchells' major concern was for the wellbeing of the children that were residents at the school in close proximity, they were vulnerable children as it was a special school and they should not be seeing rowdy behaviour in the streets at night. He asked Members to refuse the application as it contradicted all of the Licensing Objectives.

Mr Cookson asked what method Mr Etchells had used to calculate the noise from the club as he himself had used the appropriate standard. Mr Etchells responded that he had not used a specific method, he had used Mr Cookson's figures from his report and added on the 5 dB correction. The Legal Advisor asked both Mr Etchells and Mr Cookson to inform the Members what qualifications they had to undertake the assessments. Mr Cookson stated that he was a Doctor of Physics, held a diploma in acoustics and was a member of the Institute of Acoustics. Mr Etchells stated that he was not an expert.

A Member raised concerns regarding whether the 5 dB correction should be used in this assessment or not. Part of the Criteria for this method was repetitive 'thumps'. He asked if dance music was not classed as repetitive 'thumps'. Mr Cookson responded that the report was subjective and generally, the 'thumps' related to industrial noise, each Local Authority has their preferred standard. In his opinion the noise was from the existing nightclub a well as the new areas, therefore there was no real change in character. He stated that the Environmental Protection Officer was in agreement.

In response to a question from a member, the applicant stated that the outside area did not become over crowded as there were a number of table and chairs which stopped customers from congregating outside.

Mr Tandy then presented his objections. He expressed his concerns regarding the dispersal of people and the maximum capacity numbers as it was a fire or emergency risk. He suggested that the fire authority assess the premises. He stated his concerns regarding the local residents and how the additional noise would affect them. Mr Tandy stated that he believed the 5 dB correction should have been applied to the measurements as many other acoustic assessments of clubs included, as discovered in a variety of cases found on the internet. Mr Tandy asked Members to refuse the application.

Mr Cookson asked Mr Tandy if the assessment cases he had found on the internet included extensions to existing clubs or specifically new premises. Mr Tandy stated that he had found evidence of both instances.

The Chairman proposed that the meeting be adjourned so that a visit to the premises could be arranged. Members agreed.

A visit to the premises was arranged so that the Members could look at the location and the access to the premises.