(a)

considered the report from the Director for Public Health;

(b)

heard and considered the written and verbal representation from Environmental Health;

?

the representation set out that complaints of noise from live and recorded music had been received from local residents, in respect of the premises; the representation also detailed the warnings that had been given to the premises before any action had been taken; these warnings related Covid-19 guidance for pubs and also regarding levels of noise coming from the property in August 2020, once the lock down restrictions had been lifted;

?

the statement of Rachael Hind, the Council’s Licensing Manager detailed her visit to the premises on 8 August 2020; her view was that, whilst any music was to be played at a premises, the Covid-19 rules meant that it had to be outside, a balance needed to be struck and the music was being played too loudly; whilst she did not witness the noise levels inside any residential property, from what she did hear she formed an opinion that if an individual was in a nearby residential property the level of music would still have been able to be heard over a loud TV and residents would have been unlikely to be able to read a book without being disturbed by the music; this statement was taken into account by the committee when reaching its decision along with the statement of Marie Price;

?

ten complaints had been made to Environmental Health by local residents detailing that the music noise could be heard over the level of conversation taking place inside the residential property and that residents who had contacted the pub stated that they had been mocked publicly when asking for the music to be turned down and had been left feeling intimidated; these anonymised complaints were presented to committee and, whist they were hearsay, they were taken into account by the committee in reaching its decision, as these were official complaints made to the Council and submitted with a view to being considered to address the problems experienced; the committee noted the attitude of the PLH in dealing with the complaints, in that it appeared from the views expressed by some complainants that the landlord had not acknowledged his obligation under the Licensing Act;

?

one video was played which had been taken on 8 August 2020 by the Licensing Manager; the committee took this recording into account in reaching its decision, in that it gave a good indication of the level of music and the distance from the premises at which it could be heard;

?

that Mr Chambers had put forward conditions but the Environmental Health officer was of the opinion that they were not specific enough and would not address the issues complained of; those conditions were not put before the committee and so did not form part of its considerations;

(c)

heard and considered both written and verbal representations from local residents and ward councillor; as summarised below -

?

complaints of noise from live and recorded music being played in the beer garden of the premises; the complaints had appeared in the local media; residents reported that both live and recorded music could be heard inside their properties above the level of their TV; the music was audible in residential properties even with the windows closed and some residents reported that they could feel the vibration from the music in their properties; the music had occurred between 5.30pm and 9pm on the weekends of 1 August and 8 August 2020; noise from music was so loud that it was described as being akin to a major music festival; the music was very loud and intrusive and echoed all around the lake; residents had also felt that the landlord had not dealt with the issues properly and some residents had been met with abuse when they challenged the pub about it; since 8 August 2020 music issues seemed to have stopped;

?

residents also reported ongoing issues of noise from patrons leaving the pub shouting, swearing and arguing;

?

other residents however, made representations that they were happy that the pub had made a healthy comeback and did not find that the music played at weekends was a nuisance; some reported that there had not been any problems with the premises under its new owners; the music was reported as being only once a week and only when the weather permitted; the music could have been played up to 11pm but the landlord had opted for a more socially acceptable time and ensured the music finished earlier; live music had always been a feature at the Royal Oak with no complaints in the past; the music was just for two hours on a Saturday; the people who complained were said to be in the minority and it was said that some people enjoyed sitting in their gardens listening to the music coming from the premises;

(d)

heard from the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) as follows -

?

he had initially found the situation unreasonable, as in the past the Council had deemed it reasonable for the premises to have an outdoor music licence; however, he accepted that the music had offended some people and that had not been his intention; he had just wanted to provide live entertainment for their customers and regulars;

?

he accepted that the conditions put forward by Environmental Health were reasonable, if having music outside offended those properties close by and there was no point in having music outside if it could not be heard by people in the premises; he therefore confirmed that the premises no longer wanted to play music in the garden and as they did not want to cause any further upset and only wanted to play music inside at an audible level inside;

(e)

considered that the representations submitted by Environmental Health, other parties and PLH all detailed above, were relevant under the Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objective;

(f)

noted the following points as having been mentioned in the representations, however were not taken into account in reaching a decision as they were not relevant under any of the licensing objectives -

?

alleged breaching of and compliance with Covid-19 restrictions, this was enforced through other legislation;

?

parking issues;

?

that the premises was a well-run professional establishment which was a lovely family pub and complied with what the regulationss required; that it had provided a valuable service to those in isolation and the elderly during lockdown by doing takeaways;

(g)

in determining this matter noted that whilst not everyone was adversely affected by the music noise, a lot of people were and it was therefore satisfied that the Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objective was being undermined.

(1)

that it was appropriate and proportionate to impose the following conditions to ensure the promotion of the aforementioned licensing objective and the licence would therefore be modified as follows -

?

S.177A of the Licensing Act, 200 does not apply to the licence;

(2)

in accordance with S.177A(4) of the Licensing Act, 2003, the following conditions are added to the licence -

?

no regulated entertainment is permitted outside the premises; this includes any outdoor seating, beer garden, car park or temporary structure;

?

regulated entertainment is permitted inside the premises only.