Agenda item - Skyfall, 42 Church Road, Hove - Application for a Variation of a Premises Licence

Report of the Director of Public Health (copy attached).

 

7.1     The Panel considered a report of the Acting Director of Public Heath in relation to an application for a variation of a premises licence under the licensing Act 2003 for Skyfall, 42, Church Road, Hove.  Present at the hearing were the applicants and Justin Wagner who was making a representation.   

 

          Introduction from the Licensing Officer

 

7.2     The Licensing Officer stated the following:

 

·             The application proposed the renovation of the first floor to become a private event space to include, live music, TV and Movie Showings, private dining space, function room and business meeting area, with a bar intended to sell alcohol as well as soft drinks. The variation was also made to add the regulated entertainment activity of films, every day from 12:00 to 00:00.

·             It was confirmed that as the live music would be up to 23:00 hours it would not be a regulated activity.

·             It was confirmed that the first floor already had a licence to sell alcohol. The variation was to change the layout and add the activities set out above.

·             Two representations had been received. They were from the Environmental Protection Team and a local resident. The representation from the Environmental Protection Team had since been withdrawn. 

 

          Representation from local resident     

 

7.3     Justin Wagner, a local resident objecting to the application, addressed the panel and made the following points:

 

·             Mr Wagner lived in the adjacent property on the 3^rd and 4^th floor.  On the occasions when music was played it was audible up to the 4^th floor of his property.  It was audible above the level of his TV on the 3^rd floor. Mr Wagner had a 10 year old son and was concerned that music and the soundtrack to films would cause a noise nuisance.  Noise was an issue for Mr Wagner’s neighbours.

·             Mr Wagner had met with the owner and general manager and had suggested that sound proofing should be installed. The stripped back wall had exaggerated sound and amplified sound. Sound was also coming through the rear windows.

·             Mr Wagner hoped that a compromise could be reached.  

·             Mr Wagner confirmed that if windows were left open and used as a smoking terrace there could be a problem of noise.

·             Mr Wagner was aware that Environmental Health had suggested that the windows be closed from 23:00 hours.  There could be a problem before 23:00 hours. He would like a condition stating that windows were closed at 20:00 hours as his son went to bed at 20:00 hours. 

·             Mr Wagner stated that he was getting an expert to look at the issue of soundproofing.

 

          Representation from the Applicants

 

7.4     The applicants addressed the Panel to set out their application, and made the following points:

 

·             The terraced area was part of the previous plan and was not used by customers.

·             The plans submitted had not increased the licensed area. 

·             The applicants wanted to show film and TV.  The volume would not be louder than at present. There would rarely be a live DJ.  TV and film was quieter than current activities.

·             The applicants had provided a good neighbour pledge to residents and there had been an open dialogue. Two complaints had been received in April and May.  The applicant had met with Mr Wagner on 8^th June 2016 and there was ongoing dialogue. 

·             The premises was a restaurant and not a nightclub.  It was in the interest of the applicants to be flexible. 

·             There was no reason why the applicants would wish to open the first floor windows as they had air conditioning. There was full front opening windows on the ground floor. These were closed at 23:00 hours. 

 

7.5     In response to questions from the Panel and Mr Wagner the following was confirmed:

 

·             The Licensing Officer confirmed that a current complaint had been made by Mr Wagner. Environmental Health had not found evidence as yet.  A condition for music could only be added via a review process.   

·             The applicant confirmed that customers would never go outside on the terrace. Windows would be closed by a certain time. Doors were used for access.  There was no noise from bottles at night.  Bins were placed at the back and emptied in the morning after 11:00 hours.  The back of the building was rear access only.

·             In answer to a suggestion that a condition be placed on the application relating to rear doors and windows, the applicant stated that if the door was open it would be a security risk.  He was happy for the doors to always be shut and the windows to be shut after a certain time.

·             With regard to soundproofing, the applicant had exposed the brickwork on less than half of the building.  He had installed padded seating and wooden cladding.  There were thick fabric seats half way up the wall.   

·             The premises had always been a venue, and the applicants had improved the way the business traded.  It was a better set up in terms of sound control. It would not be possible to sound proof from the Skyfall side, as it was not possible to soundproof exposed brickwork.  If there was a specific request, it would be investigated.

·             The applicants confirmed they were leaseholders. 

·             It was confirmed that vertical drinking could take place on the first floor.  There were no restrictions on it being a restaurant.

·             The applicant noted a suggestion was made that there could be a separate condition on the first floor door.  

·             The applicants stated that they had not received a complaint from Mr Wagner’s neighbours. 

 

Summaries

 

7.6     The Licensing Officer gave the following summary:

 

·             The application was for a variation of the existing public entertainment licence.

·             The Environmental Protection team had investigated a noise complaint but to date had not gathered any evidence.

·             If there was a noise nuisance, then any member of the public could call for a review of the licence or it could be dealt with through noise abatement notices.

·             Licensing guidance stated that the LA must give appropriate weight to:

Steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives

The representations (including supporting information) presented by all the parties;

Licensing Guidance;

The Local authorities’ own statement of licensing policy.

·             The Panel may grant the licence subject to conditions, which needed to be clear, precise and enforceable; or the licence may be refused on grounds it was not promoting the licensing objectives. 

 

7.7     Mr Wagner gave the following summary:

 

·             There was an issue about the door, and he would like to see a condition imposed stating that the door be closed by 20:00 hours.

·             Mr Wagner stated that he was trying to work co-operatively with the applicant. 

 

7.8     In summary, the applicants stated the following:

 

·             They wanted to show TV and movie content. 

·             They did not want to use the back of the building for customers.

·             They had open dialogue with neighbours.

·             The proposal would make their space more flexible to show commercial content.

 

7.9     RESOLVED – The Panel’s decision was as follows:

 

The Panel has read all the papers, and listened to the representations made at the hearing today.

 

This is an application for a limited variation to add exhibition of film and changes to the layout of the premises.

 

The panel notes the concerns of the neighbour and that there is an ongoing investigation by Environmental Health relating to noise nuisance.

 

However, the panel recognises that the first floor is already licensed and that the applicant is willing to work with neighbours and consider sound proofing to mitigate noise. The panel therefore grants this variation to the licence with the conditions agreed with Environmental Health, and an additional condition that the rear door on the first floor shall only be used in emergencies after 8pm. The panel considers that these conditions will promote the licensing objectives.