Minutes:
The Chairman of the meeting – Councillor Nuttall – began by explaining the procedure which would be followed in the determination of an application by Ms R Twiggs for a Premises Licence for Woodlands, Risden Lane, Hawkhurst.
The Licensing Sub-Committee proceeded to hear the case following the adopted procedure rules. The application was summarised by the Licensing Officer, Mr Packham and as detailed in the report.
Mr Douglas, representing the applicant Miss Twigg, made an opening statement and highlighted the following points:
· The application did not allow for the cultural intent of the applicant, as a business to promote the event in a professional and courteous manner, giving consideration to local residents who may be affected by the activities applied for.
· The measures put together in the application to mitigate the four licensing objectives were clear and comprehensive. Further amendments to the application had made by the application in response to objections made – a number of the objections fell outside the scope of the licensing act.
· The main licensing objective highlighted within the objections was ‘nuisance’ and the applicant had a number of suggestions in support of the original application to address this. In particular, clarification of the days the activities would take place and how those activities that could cause nuisance would be curtailed.
· One of the conditions discussed with Kent Police was to define different category levels and to be able to clearly describe the types of event and what time of the day or month those events would be running. Three categories had been defined within the application and subsequent amendments to meet this requirement.
· The applicant wished to provide further clarification, to be included as conditions on the licence, of the months in which events would take place, the category of the event and the numbers attending:
o There would be no licensable activities between January-March and November-December within the bounds of the premises
o Category 1 events would be 1000-2000 people, category 2 -500-1000 people and category 2 would be up to 200 people
o There would be one category 1, three day family event (in June), within a calendar year.
o There would be up to four category 3 events in April (the maximum number of category 3 events permitted in that month) and with a 24 hour break between each event, and a maximum of two category two events in the same month.
o There would be up to six category 3 and two category 2 events in May
o There would be three category 3, one category 2 and one category 1 events in June.
o There would be six category 3 and three category 2 events in July, August and September.
o There would be three Category 3 and one category 2 events in October.
· The statutory requirement for a 24 hour break between each event would be met and although the application was for the number of events listed above, other than the one category 1 event in June, no other events were currently scheduled.
There would be no amplified noise after 11pm as a result of showing a film and instead this would be done via silent cinema (using headphones). He added that there would be no live music after 11pm and there would be no amplified noise after this time.
There would be no licensable activities outside of the times stated although opening times of 24 hours a day had been requested to allow access.
Sound best practice measures had been sought form across the events and music industry that dealt with the licensing objectives - to provide sustainable and deliverable measures that produced a relatively harmonious relationship between the cultural needs of the business and people who lived in the area.
The following responses to questions were provided:
· The total number of events proposed (maximum) was 50 per annum.
· Only one of the two previous complaints in relationship to the site related to an event held by the applicant (the Woodlands festival run on a temporary events notice 9-11 June). The timings reported in the complaint, stating that there was amplified noise, were outside of the operational scope of the event and could not have been produced by the organisation. Therefore the complaint was unsubstantiated.
· A robust noise management plan with support from a noise management consultant had been put together – addressing the concerns of Environmental Health around noise levels from category 1 and 2 events. There was a manned call-line that allowed noise levels to be adjusted according to the nature of the complaint. The music provided would be middle-of-the-road and would not include a heavy baseline.
· The category 1 event would include camping and a noise curfew around the camping area – mitigating the potential noise levels from large numbers leaving the site between 1am-2am. The lower category events would involve fewer numbers and those people would be trickling into Risden Lane and then leaving the area. The noise management plan included a duty on the organiser that event goers be reminded of the need for respect for those residents living near the site and this duty would be enforced.
· After 11pm there would be a silent product. To ensure minimum disturbance at other times of the day, decibel levels at or around nearby residences would be monitored to ensure that those levels agreed within the conditions of the licence are not exceeded.
· The licensing process did not encourage a consultative (with residents) approach and having taken advice the applicant went through the recommended formal process.
· 198 tickets had been sold (individual tickets). The maximum number allowed the previous year had been 499 (including staff) but this number had not been reached. The numbers for the category 1 event in June depended on the outcome of the hearing and should the application be refused there was an appeal process. The purpose of the business plan was to grow the event.
· £300 each in donations had been provided to Alzheimer’s and Macmillan’s the previous year and donations would be made again in the current year. The category 1 event did not make a profit and was subsidised. The intention was for a boutique style event to be held that attracted local families.
· The organiser had a noise management plan and a sound production company would provide the noise consultancy. The control measures would be sound level meters, monitoring and direct access to the sound desk to alter frequency levels. The monitoring levels would be compiled regardless of whether or not a noise complaint was generated. The sound production company would use directional speakers and the noise management plan would include a phone number (available as a flyer and on social media) that would be available continuously for the duration of events. Calls would be responded to immediately by staff that had the authority to manage the noise levels.
· The acoustic consultants would be in attendance at any category 1 event and if conditioned at any category 2 events also. Once the acceptable noise levels were established the noise meters could be operated by the event staff and the consultants would not necessarily be needed to operate the meters.
· Subject to the granting of the application the organisers would work with the Council to establish background noise levels.
· The notifications of the application were advertised and displayed according to the requirements of the Licensing Act.
· The organiser had attended a safety advisory group meeting along with Highways representatives and a traffic management plan had been produced to accommodate the needs of the varying traffic levels at the site. A temporary traffic order would be applied for if necessary and speed limits when people left events would be managed. The number of vehicles anticipated would be based on ticket sales and a ratio of three people per vehicle (an event industry standard). Trained event staff would be used to manage the vehicles in to the site should access be needed to recovery and emergency service vehicles.
· The organisation would be insured and have public liability cover for the duration of the events it intends to run. The cover would be adequate to cover the stipulated insurance requirements and would be held on site.
· It was confirmed that, for the cinema, headphones would be provided at the beginning and the films would be silent for their entire duration, and not just from 11pm.
* It was agreed that this condition be amended to stipulate that all films were broadcast without amplified noise.
· In real terms, there would be four or five events in the next twelve months (including the one category 1 event).
· It was acknowledged that although the condition restricting the use of the land to the exclusive use of the applicant was unenforceable, the applicant had a contractually binding agreement with the land owner for this type of use. This would not, prevent other applications being made.
· The noise management plan allowed for the provision of ear defenders for children under one of the licensing objectives (childe safety). Ultimately their use would be down to parental choice. The Purple Guide provided the minimum ratio between the numbers of attendees and the relevant medical cover and toilet facilities.
· There would be ambient lighting for safety at events and minimal stage lighting but there would not be any light displays.
· The aim of the organiser was to provide a cultural venue for local people to attend where local music and local food could be provided. It would provide access to a charitable event in a safe and comfortable environment.
The following highlighted their objections to the application:
John McCullough, Environmental Health Officer, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council:
· There was an initial lack of information provided in the application and although some further information had been provided including a suggested reduction in numbers, concern remained regarding the high numbers for each category of event, in particular category 2 events.
· The POP code of practice set out the criteria for noise levels based on the number of events and the numbers attending events. The suggestion was that the number of category 2 events needed to be reduced 12 days – possibly a more practical number. The noise management plan needed predictions and a noise propagation test to determine the noise level at the mixing desk and at noise sensitive properties nearby.
· The preference was for festivals to be managed by the organisers and for Environmental Health to become involved if necessary. It was likely that Environmental Health would initially be able to attend the larger events to monitor noise levels but the resources were not available for this to be an ongoing process. A noise report would need to be submitted 28 days after an event to ensure that noise levels were those previously agreed.
· The Council had an out of hours service to respond to complaints but it was used for one off instances such as building alarms or one-off events. All complaints were registered by the Council and for similar events by other organisers, email groups had been set up by the Environmental Health team, to provide responses and updates to those affected. The control over planned events would be through ensuring the appropriate conditions were in place. However, if complaints are received, the Council would investigate further through measuring noise levels at the source (mixing desk) and at affected premises. Improvements would be suggested through a noise management plan.
· Noise levels measured under the POP code of practice were set externally. At 55db outside the noise from the festival would still be heard indoors. Conditions had been asked for that restricted excessive base noise. The overall intention would be that, although noise would be audible, the levels would be kept to a nationally agreed standard.
A number of objectors raised the following issues.
· Prevention of nuisance was the main area of concern – both light and noise pollution. The noise and affect on members of the public living nearby would be considerable and articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights act stated that individuals were entitled to peace and enjoyment of their possessions and a right for the respect of private and family life. Both these entitlements would be blighted should the application be allowed.
· There had been an event the previous year and although there had only been two official complaints the objections filed for the application being considered all referred to the same issue, which was the level of disturbance experienced the previous year.
· There had been no contact by the applicant the previous year when the event was held and there was no assurance that this would be improved on within the current application, or that conditions would be maintained or enforced.
· The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Noise Act 1996 allowed residents protection from noise. 55 people had objected to the application and a further 87 had attended a meeting the previous week. A number of people locally had not been aware of the application and had they been, there would have been more objections. It was not felt that there was support locally for the application.
· The number of events proposed was unrealistic and although it was recognised that the applicant did not intend to operate on the number of days proposed, as a commercial business, it was incumbent on the applicant to build up to that number and if the business was successful going forward, and a variation to the licence would be the appropriate means of doing this.
· Although the advertisement for the application was displayed in line with statutory requirements, it was felt that more could have been done by the applicant to make people aware of it
· There was a perception that established urban music events were diminishing in number as people were moving next door to the venues, in new developments, and their complaints regarding noise were being acted on and the events shut down.
· It was not felt that there were any restrictions in place that would mitigate the noise of vehicles and people leaving the venue. The application would potentially result in an event every weekend for three months alongside other existing events that produced noise.
· The staging of events every week in a two month period would impact on a bed and breakfast business near to the site and disturb the customers at the B&B, as it had done the previous year.
· There was concern over the narrowness of the roads to the site and it was felt there would be problems with
· The depth of concern which the application had produced was significant with a large volume of objections. The issue that gave most concern to residents was the combination of noise, traffic and frequency. The proposals by Environmental Health to mitigate the impact of the events were elaborate and expensive. Although there no comments from the relevant authorities on the roads and access, the provision of 500 parking spaces indicated the level of traffic that was expected on a single lane. The unlimited scope of the application was of great concern to residents.
· 55 of 57 objections referred to had cited noise as the main concern. It was disputable as to whether 11pm was the right time for the noise levels to be reduced. As the site was in dip, in an open field, the noise carried and in particular in the direction of Sandhurst. A copy of the noise management plan and the traffic control plan had not been made available. The offer by the applicant, to reduce the number of days events could be held on, demonstrated that the applicant was aware of the impact the noise would have on local residents.
· There appeared to have been no reference, within the application, of the times and days that deliveries of equipment and supplies for the event would take place. Neither had there been any detail regarding the collection of litter. Risden Lane was a narrow lane and there was no capacity for passing, other than passing spaces that had been created by damaging hedgerows. Delivery vehicles would increase congestion.
· There were concerns over the facility provided for complaints and that it would not provide a timely response.
· An event at the site previously had generated a large amount of noise and disturbed a large number of people. At the time, residents were not aware of who they could address their complaints to. Given the obvious public impact and the experience in the sector of the applicant and the applicant’s representative, the lack of prior consultation was a serious concern.
Mr Douglas highlighted a number of points within the application that addressed several of the concerns raised by objectors.
Closing statements were made and the following points were highlighted:
Mr McCullough said the noise from an event the previous year and the ability for complaints to be made had been referred to a number of times. He hoped that the complaints process proposed for further events addressed this issue. He also reiterated that the noise management plan would be the appropriate control method for events and advised that he was happy to circulate it publicly. He confirmed that any future controls needed data and any licence granted would have conditions attached.
RESOLVED – That the application be granted, subject to the conditions previously offered and the further conditions offered at the hearing today.
NB – The full decision notice is appended to these minutes.
Supporting documents: