Agenda item

The Licensing Officer advised that the purpose of the hearing was to consider an application to vary the existing premises licence for Bar 21 at Minehead as representations had been received in relation to the application.

 

The application was for the variation of an existing premises licence held by Cafe Bar 21 in Minehead. The existing licence allowed the sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm every day. The variation application included the addition of a function room adjacent to the main bar area, which had been used for functions under temporary event notices. The applicant also requested the addition of other activities requiring a licence, such as plays, indoor sporting events, wrestling and boxing entertainments, live and recorded music, performances of dance, and late-night refreshment. The applicant sought to extend the licensable hours for all activities until 3:00 am every day. However, following an agreed position with the police, the terminal hours were amended to 1:00 am from Sunday to Thursday and 3:00 am on Friday and Saturday.

 

The application had been out for consultation with responsible authorities and members of the public. Objections and representations were received during the consultation period.

 

The sub committee had three potential outcomes to consider:

 

• Accept the application with the amendments and conditions agreed upon by the police.
• Reject the application.
• Grant the application with the amendments and conditions agreed upon by the police, along with any additional changes deemed relevant and proportionate by the subcommittee.

 

The Licensing Officer clarified the activities requested in the application were intended to take place indoors. The police requested the terminal hour be amended to 1:00 am from Sunday to Thursday and 3:00 am on Friday and Saturday, with allowances for non-standard timings such as Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, and any Sunday preceding a bank holiday. The police also agreed to allow the applicant 12 occasions per year to extend their opening hours until 3:00 am, with 14 days' notice submitted to the licensing authority and police. 

 

The applicant, William Wynn, and his partner Lorraine Pegler, presented their case for the variation of the existing premises licence for Cafe Bar 21. They emphasised that the primary purpose of the variation was to accommodate events such as weddings, funerals, and parties, which required extended hours. They clarified that the initial request for a 3:00 am licence seven days a week had been adjusted to 1:00 am on weekdays and 3:00 am on weekends after consultation with the police.

 

The applicant highlighted their efforts to address noise concerns, including employing an acoustic expert from Blue Acoustics, to assess and recommend soundproofing measures. They mentioned specific measures such as installing double glazing, extra panelling, double swinging doors, and ensuring fire doors were not propped open to prevent sound leakage. The applicant also discussed the implementation of a noise management plan, which included managing customer noise outside the premises and using CCTV to monitor the area.

 

The applicant confirmed that the capacity of the premises was around 450 people. They have security measures in place, including CCTV and licensed security personnel. They mentioned that they use plastic glasses during busy times, such as Butlins adult weekend breaks, to prevent broken glass around the premises.

 

The applicant expressed their commitment to working with the community and addressing any concerns the community had. They mentioned holding a coffee morning to discuss the application with residents, although not all attended. They emphasised their involvement in local initiatives, such as being the chair of Pub Watch and Shop Watch, to ensure the safety and well-being of the community.

 

The applicant explained that the function room was intended for events like weddings, occasional dance evenings, and bands, not for running a nightclub. They assured that the function room was in the middle of the building, surrounded by thick walls to minimise noise disturbance. They mentioned that they have used temporary event notices (TENs) for events in the function room and have not received any complaints or caused any disturbances. 

 

The applicant reiterated their commitment to addressing noise concerns and working with the responsible authorities to ensure compliance with licensing conditions. They expressed their willingness to implement the recommendations from the acoustic expert and the Environmental Health Officer.

 

Edward Vandyck, the Environmental Health Officer, expressed concerns about the current state of the premises, stating is the building was not capable of containing sound from amplified entertainment without causing a noise problem. He emphasised that significant physical work would be needed to address this issue. He mentioned that the function room extension required soundproofing, and the rest of the premises, which included a fair amount of outside space, also needed attention to ensure sound containment. Highlighting the importance of both physical soundproofing measures and effective management practices to address noise concerns. 

 

Mr Vandyck pointed out that customer noise outside the premises would become an increasing problem after midnight. He noted the current configuration required customers to go outside to access the toilet block, which would contribute to noise issues. He emphasised the need for a comprehensive noise management plan that included measures to manage customer noise and ensure compliance with licensing conditions.

 

Mr Vandyck had conducted a rough sound test, playing music inside the premises and assessing how the sound leaked out. He found that the premises were very leaky in their current state, indicating a significant need for soundproofing. He also assessed the noise levels in the flats above the premises and found that the sound was clearly coming through, which would constitute a statutory nuisance if it occurred during an event.

 

Mr Vandyck provided a set of potential conditions to address noise concerns, including the requirement for a noise management plan and specific soundproofing measures. He mentioned that the implementation of these measures may require planning permission, which could extend the timeline for completing the necessary work. Emphasising the need for ongoing collaboration with the applicant to ensure that the premises meet the required standards for noise containment and management.

 

The police had reached an agreed position with the applicant, which included several amendments and conditions to address potential issues related to crime and disorder. 

 

The police requested that the terminal hour for licensable activities be reduced to 1:00 am from Sunday to Thursday, while allowing the original request of 3:00 am on Friday and Saturday. They also agreed to allow the premises to operate until 3:00 am on non-standard timings such as Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, and any Sunday that precedes a bank holiday. Additionally, the police permitted the applicant to extend their opening hours until 3:00 am on 12 occasions per year, provided that notification is submitted to the licensing authority and the police 14 days before the planned extension.

 

The police agreed on conditions to be added to the licence to address potential issues of crime and disorder. These conditions included:

 

• The requirement for one security staff for each hundred people, with a minimum of two security staff. 

• A 30-minute wind-down period after the last sale of alcohol to ensure a gradual dispersal of customers.
• No live boxing or wrestling events on the premises, restricting sporting events to TV shows only.
• The applicant’s personal phone number to be provided as a condition, allowing residents to directly contact the premises if they experience any disturbances.

 

The police acknowledged the applicant's commitment to working with the community and addressing any concerns. They emphasised that the applicant is willing to implement the agreed conditions and work closely with the responsible authorities to ensure compliance.

 

Several members of the public expressed concerns about noise and disturbance from the premises, particularly during late hours. They mentioned that noise from amplified music and customer activities could be heard in nearby residential areas, causing inconvenience and disturbance. Angela Martin raised concerns about the effectiveness of soundproofing measures, given the construction of the building and the potential difficulty in containing noise. Steven Martin questioned how the level of sound would be monitored and enforced, suggesting the need for an independent monitoring facility to measure and control noise levels.

 

Mr Martin highlighted that there have been numerous complaints about noise, but they often do not get logged properly. He mentioned that residents have reported disturbances to the police, but these complaints are not always recorded or addressed. He emphasised the need for a clear process for residents to report disturbances and ensure that complaints are recorded and addressed.

 

Concerns were raised about the management of customer noise, particularly in outdoor areas and during late hours. The need for effective security measures and management practices to minimise noise and disturbance was emphasised.

 

The Meeting adjourned at 11:28 am to review the Blue Acoustics report submitted by the applicant, the Meeting reconvened at 11:50 am.

The applicant had engaged an acoustic expert, Blue Acoustics, to assess and implement soundproofing measures for the function room. The measures included:

 

• Double glazing and additional panelling on the front of the building.
• Installing an intermediate door and double swinging doors to reduce sound leakage.
• Ensuring fire doors are not propped open to prevent sound leakage.
• Creating a sealed environment to contain noise, with considerations for ventilation to manage heat.

 

The applicant was working on a noise management plan in collaboration with the acoustic expert and the Environmental Health Officer. The plan includes:

 

• Specific measures to manage customer noise outside the premises, particularly after midnight.
• Ensuring that the function room and other areas of the premises are adequately soundproofed to prevent noise disturbance to nearby residents.
• Implementing management practices to control noise levels and ensure compliance with licensing conditions.

 

The applicant acknowledged the need for a timeline to implement the soundproofing measures and ensure compliance with the noise management plan. They expressed willingness to work with the responsible authorities to achieve the required standards.

 

Mr Martin questioned the effectiveness of the proposed soundproofing measures, given the construction of the building. He pointed out that similar buildings in the area have issues with sound containment, and he is sceptical about the ability to fully mitigate noise through soundproofing alone. 

 

Mr. Martin emphasised the need for independent monitoring of noise levels, arguing that residents should not be responsible for policing noise from Bar 21. Mr. Martin questioned the strategy for managing noise levels, seeking clarification on what actions would be taken if noise levels were exceeded. Mr. Martin highlighted the strong resistance from residents to the proposals, noting that many complaints have been made independently by concerned individuals.

 

Mr Martin identified Bar 21 as the primary source of noise complaints, although he acknowledged that other establishments also contribute to the noise. Mr Martin expressed concerns that the application would exacerbate noise levels and negatively impact the behaviour of patrons. Mr Martin described the disruptive behaviour of patrons, including loud noise, swearing, and antisocial activities, particularly during Butlins adult weekends.

 

Mr Vandyck recommended the implementation of noise limiters that cut off the sound system if noise levels exceed a certain threshold, ensuring effective noise control. Mr Vandyck suggested that any noise control measures should be verified for their effectiveness, particularly given the challenges of adapting an old building for new purposes.

 

Councillor Craig Palmer, speaking on behalf of Minehead Town Council, proposed that the closing times for Bar 21 should be more in line with other premises in the area, suggesting a closing time of 12:30 am from Sunday to Thursday and 3:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays. Town Councillor Palmer argued that the proposed number of events (12 per year) is excessive and suggested reducing it to six events per year. Councillor Palmer questioned the adequacy of the noise management plans, seeking confirmation that all music events have been held under temporary event notices and that noise control measures are in place.

 

Rosie Watts, speaking on behalf of William Wynn, detailed the applicant's commitment to complying with licensing objectives, including employing SIA-trained door staff and maintaining extensive CCTV coverage.  She highlighted the soundproofing measures in place to minimise noise impact on neighbours and the applicant's own family, who lived on the premises. emphasised that the variation was crucial for the financial viability of the business, as relying on temporary event notices is not sustainable. mentioned the applicant's efforts to engage with the community, including hosting a coffee morning to address concerns and providing contact information for direct communication.

 

Linda Baron Stanley raised concerns about the safety and security of the car park behind Bar 21, particularly for elderly residents and children. She questioned the adequacy of CCTV coverage and the potential impact on Blenheim Gardens.

 

The meeting adjourned at 12:25 pm for the Sub Committee to consider the decision, the meeting reconvened at 13:42 pm.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out by the Police and the Environmental Health Officer. Also subject to the following conditions:

 

• No regulated entertainment after 11:00 pm without a noise impact assessment and a noise management plan.
• providing a dedicated telephone number for local residents to report complaints.

 

All relevant parties to the decision of the Licensing Authority have the right of appeal to Magistrates Court, in connection with this matter.  This must be done within 21 days of being notified in writing of the relevant decision.