Agenda item

The Sub Committee at its meeting on the 26^th June 2018 resolved to defer the decision of the Temporary Event Notice to 31^st July 2018 and 26^th September 2018, in order to gather further evidence.

The Legal Services Manager briefed all present on the procedure for the meeting and advised the Sub Committee that an objection notice had been submitted by the Public Health Department of Carmarthenshire County Council in relation to a Temporary Event Notice which had been submitted by Mrs Maria Dallavalle of La Scala, 15 Bryn Mawr Avenue, Ammanford, SA18 2DA.

The Temporary Event Notices related to the sale by retail of alcohol, the provision of Regulated Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment, on the premises on the following day and hours:-

Saturday 3^rd November 2018 - Great Hall, Derwydd Mansion.

·         Supply of Alcohol, Regulated Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment 12:00-00:30.

The Legal Services Manager informed the Committee that the Public Health Department had objected to the Temporary Event Notice on the grounds of noise nuisance arising from previous events held at the premises.

The Licensing Officers circulated additional information from the applicant and the Environmental Health Services department.  The Sub Committee considered the documents submitted including the additional information, and all relevant written representations received before the hearing from the parties.

The Sub Committee received an oral representation from the Environmental Health Practitioner:-

• The Environmental Health Practitioner expressed his disappointment to be here again today as it was hoped that this would have been resolved amicably.
  
  
• The Sub Committee was informed that the focus of evidence today would relate to indoor weddings. However, since the last meeting, the Environmental Health Practitioner highlighted to the Sub Committee that an Abatement Notice in respect of Noise Nuisance had been issued to Derwydd Mansion Events Limited on 21^st September 2018.
  
  
• With reference to the Noise Management Plan (NMP) provided in the additional information, the Environmental Health Practitioner highlighted the key elements of the mitigation measures to the Sub Committee and that it was not clear if the plan was actually being implemented by the applicant.
  
  
• Following the last event held on 1^st September 2018, Mrs Dallavalle had been requested to clarify what elements of the NMP had been done, Mrs Dallavalle, at the request of the Environmental Health Practitioner, provided clear Yes/No answers in respect of each specific point.  The Environmental Health Practitioner highlighted that he had personally witnessed incidents in breach of the plan, contrary to responses provided by Mrs Dallavalle. 
  
  
• Reference was made to a map provided in the additional information, which showed a plan of Derwydd Mansion and its surrounding area.  The map displayed two different paths marked ‘Path A’ which was located on the West side of the property and travelled from the Car Park to the Marquee and ‘Path B’ from the Mansion to the Marquee which travelled on the East side of the property closest to the neighbouring properties.  In order to minimise noise and disruption to the neighbours, the preferred route would be to utilise Path A.  It was reported that following the monitoring carried out at the event on 1^st September 2018 people were heard utilising Path B.
  
  
• At this point the Sub Committee was afforded the opportunity to listen to 5 audio recordings captured by Environmental Health Officers during the monitoring of noise levels at the event on 25^th August 2018 between 13:57hrs and 00:01hrs.  The audio recordings were taken from inside the bedroom of the neighbouring property and verified that engine noise could be heard from cars running idle, people singing, screaming and shouting, and vehicles travelling over loose chippings.
  
  The Environmental Health Practitioner stated that had the measures within the NMP been adhered to the noise would not have affected the neighbouring properties.

All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the Environment Health Officer on his representation and the evidence presented.

In response to a number of queries, the Environmental Health Practitioner stated that

• windows would often be open in the hot weather and a person was within their rights to have a window open during the monitoring period.
  
  
• the Abatement notice served, referred specifically to amplified music.
  
  
• had the measures within the NMP been implemented in full, the noise levels would have been within the required levels.

The Sub-Committee thereupon received evidence from neighbours of the property who supported the Environmental Health Services objections to due to the following:-

• The witnesses had moved to the neighbouring cottage for peace and quiet;

• the wedding events emitted loud music/people shouting which made it difficult to sleep;
  
  
• The events were an invasion on their lives and was having a detrimental effect on their health.

All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the witness on his representation.

• In response to a query, the witness stated that the problem was not related to one specific noise, it was the overall affect which included vehicles, people noise, music which was emanating from the area of the mansion from the start of the event to the early hours of the morning the next day.

Mr Nigel Williams, Derwydd Mansion’s resident DJ/Sound Control who was in attendance behalf of Mrs Dallavalle thereupon addressed the concerns and issues raised and advised that:-

• his role was to help Mrs Dallavalle get the weddings right which was an ongoing process.
• in accordance with the NMP, the following measures would be introduced at future events:-
  • The speakers to be turned away from the nearest noise sensitive properties;
  • The control of the lower frequencies (63-125hz) to the lowest practical levels;
  • People and traffic control measures had been introduced.

• the next 2 booked weddings have requested live bands which have been agreed by Mrs Dallavalle as the weddings were booked 2 years in advance. Mr Williams acknowledged that it was difficult to keep noise levels down when live bands are playing and that they did take some mitigation measures to try and limit the noise disturbance.

• in order to move forward, they would probably refuse live bands in future and Mr Williams would take control of noise monitoring/controls.

• there had been issues with the installation of a temporary noise barrier (which was to be formed of hay bales) between the speakers and the receptor locations to a height of approx. 3m.  The issues were that hay bales were expensive and not aesthetically pleasing at a wedding venue.  In additions there were health and safety concerns regarding the construction of a hay bale barrier at the height of 3m.

• whilst there were 3 x security staff on duty at the event, it was recognised that more work needed to be done in order to prevent people utilising Path B.  Mr Williams added that he would be suggesting to Mrs Dallavalle that it would be beneficial to close the access to Path B.

All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning Mr Williams on his representation.

• Mr Williams was asked what his role was during the event.  Mr Williams stated that he was the master of ceremonies in the day and that he helped out during the evening this included car park duties, security duties and the control of people.
  
  
• In response to a query, Mr Williams stated that Mrs Dallavalle was Applicant was at the venue for the last 2 events and was heavily involved in the running of them.  Mr Williams added that he was as not always at front at mansion and that personally he would have recommended shutting off the front of the mansion.

The Sub-Committee thereupon

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

Following the adjournment, the sub-committee also had regard to relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing policy and of Guidance issued by the DCMS and Home Office identified in the agenda item, and those to which it had been referred by the parties.

RESOLVED that, having considered all the evidence before it, the sub-committee finds that a Counter Notice should be issued.

REASONS

In coming to its decision, the sub-committee has made the following findings of fact;

1. Complaints by occupiers of a neighbouring property and noise monitoring exercises by Public Health services demonstrated that events at the premises had caused noise disturbance to the occupiers of that neighbouring property;
   
   
2. That the noise disturbance was caused both by music at the venue (particularly during outdoor events) and noise from patrons and their vehicles;
   
   
3. That this noise disturbance amount to a public nuisance in that it affects a section of the public;
   
   
4. That the applicant had engaged a noise consultant to develop a robust noise management plan which was subsequently agreed with public health services;
   
   
5. That the applicant failed to properly implement that plan at the last event at the premises;
   
   
6. That Environmental Health Department have issued an Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in respect of events at the premises.

The Sub Committee has attached weight to the views of Environmental Protection Department.

The Sub Committee recognised that its decision must be based upon real evidence, and that concerns and fears about what might happen if a counter notice were not issued, where unsupported by such evidence, are not matters which they can properly take into account.

There was clear evidence that events at the premises cause a noise disturbance to the occupiers of a neighbouring property. There was clear evidence that during the last event the applicant had failed to properly implement the control measures proposed by her own noise consultant. The Sub Committee therefore had little faith in the ability of the applicant to manage events at the premises in such a way as to minimise any disturbance to the neighbours.

The Sub Committee noted that an Abatement Notice had been served upon the applicant. However this only related to music noise.  As such the Sub Committee did not believe the Abatement Notice would provide an adequate safeguard in respect of this event.

The Sub Committee believed that the manner in which the applicant operated the premises undermined the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The applicant had been given several chances to demonstrate that she could operate the premises in a way which did not cause a nuisance and she had failed to do so.

As such the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to issue a counter notice in this case.

The Sub Committee would urge the applicant to fully implement the Noise Management Plan for any future events.  Failure to do so may be taken into account when considering future temporary event notices.

[At this point, the Chair adjourned the meeting for 5 minutes to allow for a comfort break]