|
702
|
application for a premises licence variation under the licensing act 2003
The Chairman introduced the report, which set out an application for a Premises Licence Variation for Jittermugs Coffee Shop, Preston Street, Faversham.
Mr Green, the Applicant, presented his case and provided an overview of the application. He explained that he was granted planning permission in February 2014 to extend the opening hours, and he was therefore requesting a licence variation to bring the hours allowed for the supply of alcohol in-line with the extended opening hours. He considered that he had undertaken comprehensive sound-proofing measures, and they had also installed sound matting, which was additional to the original requirements. He referred Members to a tabled letter from Mr and Mrs Boorman regarding a 16th Birthday party held at Jittermugs on 22 March 2014. He raised concern that Mr Leahy had undertaken covert sound recordings of the event and considered that no weight should be given to the recordings. He explained that the planning permission had been granted for one-year to enable the Environmental Protection Team to monitor noise levels and that, to-date, no monitoring had been undertaken.
Mr Cullen, the Applicant's builder, spoke in support of the application. He explained that he had undertaken the sound-proofing work and advised that the materials used were of very good quality. The staircase could not be insulated as it would reduce the head height and become unusable. He advised that the Environmental Protection Team Manager had visited the premises and seen the work being undertaken. He also advised that they had to work within the constraints of the age of the building and the requirements set by the Conservation Officer. An accredited engineer had been employed by Mr Green to take sound recordings prior to any work being undertaken and the sound-proofing had been based on his report.
Mr Ledger, Environmental Protection Team Manager, spoke in objection to the application. He advised that sound recording equipment had been set-up during the Valentine's Event on 14 and 15 February 2014, as granted by a Temporary Event Notice, but the noise nuisance had not been significant enough for Mr Leahy to switch the equipment on. He advised that he had not been made aware in advance of the event on 22 March 2014, so no official recordings had been made. He confirmed that Mr Leahy had contacted the out-of-hours service regarding the noise nuisance on 22 March 2014, but the event had finished before an officer arrived. He considered that Mr Leahy and his family were in a unique position as the residence was already occupied before the change of use was granted. He stressed that the premises was not suitable for evening business use and would cause the family considerable noise nuisance. He confirmed that the Environmental Protection Team would be submitting a noise report to the Planning Committee in 2015, and advised that even low-key daytime noise was audible within Mr Leahy's residence. He considered that further insulation work would be required. He referred to the sound recordings undertaken by Mr Leahy on 22 March 2014 and confirmed that Mr Leahy had been correct to switch off all other electrical equipment within the property during the recording. He considered that the recordings were evidence of the unacceptable level of noise generated from Jittermugs.
Mr Leahy, an objector, spoke against the application. He explained that he lived directly above Jittermugs with his family and granting the Licence Variation would result in public nuisance to their home life. He disputed that the Applicant had installed adequate sound-proofing; he considered that the quality of materials was inadequate and there was still transmission of sound through walls and non-insulated areas. He considered that if the application was granted the Council would have faulted under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. He explained that he had sought advice from the Planning Department before purchasing the property in 2004, and was advised that the downstairs premises would not be granted a change of use as it was contrary to Policy B3 of the Local Plan, and due to its timber construction and limited space. He explained that the noise was noticeably louder in the evening, and due to the location of the food preparation area under the non-insulated stairs, it resulted in continual background noise being transmitted into their property. He outlined the times and locations of the sound recordings taken on 22 March 2014. He urged Members to refuse the removal of condition two, until such time as the Applicant had adequately sound-proofed the premises.
Members asked questions which the Applicant and Environmental Protection Team Manager answered.
Members sought clarification regarding sound recordings. The Environmental Protection Team Manager advised that sound recording equipment would be installed in Mr Leahy's property for a minimum of two-weeks, covering two weekends. The Applicant would not be advised when sound recordings were being taken, and Mr Leahy would determine when it was necessary to turn the equipment on.
The Chairman invited Mr Green and Mr Leahy to make closing statements.
Members of the Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision at 11:02 am. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Principal Lawyer and Senior Democratic Services Officer returned at 11:19 am, when the meeting re-convened.
RESOLVED:
(1) That in respect of the Premises Licence Variation at Jittermugs Coffee Shop, Preston Street, Faversham, the Sub-Committee's decision is attached as Appendix I.
Appendix |
