4
Members of the
Sub-Committee and Officers were asked to introduce themselves. The Chairman
explained that Councillor Wiles was present as a Substitute in case anything
happened to a Sub-Committee Member before the Hearing commenced, or during it,
as the Substitute could then take their place. He stated that Councillor Wiles
would remain for the duration of the Hearing and, for training purposes, would
retire with the Sub-Committee when it was considering its decision. All parties
were asked if there were any objections to the Substitute retiring with the
Sub-Committee and no objections were made.
The
Chairman asked the applicant and interested parties to introduce themselves.
The
Chairman asked if all parties had received the papers for the Sub-Committee,
including the applicant's statement amending his application to include three
new conditions which had been submitted following his recent site visit with
interested parties. All parties confirmed that they had received all of
the paperwork. In response to the Chairman's further query, all
parties to the Hearing confirmed that they did not wish to withdraw their
application or representation.
The
Sub-Committee received report ES/0029 from the Cabinet Member with
responsibility for Community Health which detailed an application for a
variation to an existing premises licence at Southwold Pier by Curious Pier
Limited. The Licensing Officer reported that the application sought
to add films indoors and outdoors Thursday to Sunday, live music outdoors
Monday to Sunday and anything similar to live and recorded music outdoors Monday
to Sunday. The application for a variation to a premises licence was subject to
a 28 day consultation period which in this case expired on 9 May 2019. As
a result, 11 representations were received from other persons and they were
deemed to be relevant under the terms of the Licensing Act 2003. These
representations were included at Appendix C of the report and, as of last
night, one objector had withdrawn their objection. It was confirmed that no
objections had been received from Responsible Authorities.
Since
publication of the Sub-Committee report, a meeting between the applicant and
some of the objectors had taken place at Southwold Pier. As a result, the
applicant confirmed to the Licensing Team that he wished to amend his
application and submitted a statement including three new conditions that he
would like the Sub-Committee to consider. The Statement was then
forwarded to the Sub-Committee and all parties yesterday.
The
Licensing Officer referred to the main points for consideration as identified
within the report, including having regard to guidance issued under
Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of
Licensing Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998. Members were
asked to give full reasons for departing from these if it chose to do
so. The Sub-Committee was asked to determine this application by:
- Granting
the application subject to any mandatory conditions and to those
consistent with the application.
- Granting
the application subject to the same conditions but modified to such an
extent as the Sub-Committee considers appropriate for the promotion of the
licensing objectives.
- Or by
rejecting the application.
Depending
on the decision of the Sub-Committee, both the applicant and the other parties
that had made representations had rights of appeal to the Magistrates'
Court. When announcing its decision, the Sub-Committee was asked to
state its reasons.
The
Chairman invited questions from the Sub-Committee to the Licensing
Officer.
Clarification
was sought on whether there was a Licence for the Pier to sell alcohol.
The Licensing Officer referred to Appendix A which showed the current
conditions of the Licence for the Pier which included the sale of alcohol and
recorded music etc. but it was clarified that this was all indoors.
There
being no further questions to the Licensing Officers, the Chairman invited
the applicant to expand on his application for a variation of the Premises
Licence.
The
applicant stated that the aim of the application was to drive up footfall to
the Pier as it had been declining and he gave details as follows:
(a) Film Nights - These would take
place on a Thursday up to 11pm with a maximum of 70 people held at the very end
of the Pier, which had been agreed with the Fire Officer, because that was
where the least amount of footfall was. He hoped it would also induce those
people to use the other facilities on the Pier such as having a meal and/or
drink. Film nights would be promoted on social media which would also promote
the Pier generally. The applicant
pointed out that increased footfall on the Pier increased employment
opportunities which helped locals given it was such a seasonal town. He
also acknowledged that stating Thursday to Sunday on the application form had
been too vague and after speaking to residents at the meeting, he wanted to
confirm that the intention was that there would only be a maximum of eight
films between 18 July to 5 September. He referred to sound testing which
had taken place on Saturday morning and stated that this had shown the sound
had not travelled further than the first shop on the Pier because the speakers
had been facing the sea. He acknowledged the concerns raised about noise
but stressed that he wanted to keep these small and unique to fit in with
the slightly quirky feel of this quintessentially British Pier.
(b) Live Music - The applicant explained
that the intention was that they would run between 10am-6pm from May to
September at the end of the Pier. He clarified that, whilst the original
application had stated 7 days per week, this had now changed to 1 day per week
and that might not even be every week. The type of music would not be
rock but would be live music e.g. from a harpist or string quartet which would
be suitable for being on the Pier and he confirmed that a music set would not
last longer than 3 hours. He added that he was happy for any conditions
to be imposed.
(c) Live and Recorded Music - The
applicant confirmed that this had been removed from the application.
The
applicant reiterated that the application was now for the film nights and 1 day
per week May to Saturday for music, both to take place at the end of the
Pier. He stated that he had two letters of support from residents that
lived at Pier View Gardens who had not been able to hear any noise from the
test whilst sitting on their balcony. He pointed out that all the other
objectors lived further than 200m away and would not be able to hear
anything. He reiterated that, whilst there was nothing between the Pier
and the other objectors, the closest residents to the Pier had no objections.
The
Chairman asked the Sub-Committee if they had any questions for the applicant
and clarification was sought on whether amplification would be used. The
applicant responded that it depended on the day e.g. whether the waves were
crashing but if it was needed then it was likely to only be a single battery
amp similar to one that a busker would use. A query was raised as to
whether the applicant had considered asking attendees to wear earphones for the
film nights and he responded that he had but this would require wifi/bluetooth
and there was not enough wifi available at the back end of the Pier and it
would cost too much to get the wifi extended.
There
being no further questions from the Sub-Committee, the Chairman invited
Officers, the Parish Council representative and the Objector to ask
questions of the applicant.
The
objector asked the applicant to confirm that, since the original
submission to the Licensing Authority, he had now agreed to change the wording
to limit music sets to three hours. The applicant confirmed that he was
happy for the licence to be amended to this effect. The Parish Council
representative asked the applicant to be more specific regarding amplification
and the applicant responded that it would only be as loud as what had been
heard on Saturday which had been the maximum volume, however, he was happy to
submit amplification details. The Parish Council representative asked if
this could be a condition on the Licence and the Litigation Lawyer confirmed
that it could be a condition if the Sub-Committee decided that it wished to
impose it. The Parish Council representative stressed that the original
variation application had been unacceptable but since then the applicant and
Ward Councillor Beavan had been instrumental for taking this forward to allay
residents' fears.
There
being no further questions to the applicant, the Chairman invited the objector
to address the Sub-Committee. The objector stated that the test had
been audible at the end of the Pier but not at the shoreline so on that basis,
and given the assurances made by the applicant, he wished to withdraw his
objection.
There
being no questions to the objector, the Chairman asked the Parish Council
representative to address the Committee. The Parish Council
representative stated that they also wished to withdraw their objections.
She added that the Parish Council were now supportive of the applicant's
intentions since Councillor Beavan had arranged the site visit, therefore, if
the applicant could provide details of the amplifications she was sure that
would enable everyone's concerns to be addressed.
The
Chairman invited the Sub-Committee, applicant and Officers to ask any final
questions.
The
Litigation Lawyer referred to page 124 of the Guidance and asked the Licensing
Officers to clarify whether this meant that an application to provide music on the
Pier was actually necessary. The Licensing Officer responded that it
depended on the plan and she confirmed that, in this particular case, the whole
of the Pier area had been outlined in the plan so it was all covered for the
sale of alcohol. She explained that this meant that, since de-regulation,
the applicant could already have live music up until 11pm and the only part of
the current application the Sub-Committee could deal with was the film
nights. The Licensing Officer clarified that live music from 8am-11pm was
fine provided the premises was authorised to sell alcohol and the audience was
less than 500 people. In other words, the applicant did not require a
Licence to play live music as it was not a licensable activity which also meant
that the Sub-Committee could not impose any conditions relating to this.
The
Parish Council representative stated that the Pier was a lot of open space with
several buildings on it and she asked the Licensing Officer to clarify if she
meant that it was possible to sell alcohol on the whole Pier. The
applicant stated that he had a full Entertainment and Alcohol Licence for the
whole of the Pier. The Licensing Officer confirmed that it was the whole
Pier not just the retail outlets and because of the de-regulation of licensing,
this meant the applicant did not need a Licence to play live music. The
objector sought further clarification that this meant that music could be
played on the whole of the Pier and the applicant confirmed this but gave a
commitment that they would only do so at the end of the Pier.
There
being no further questions or requests to sum up, the Chairman stated that the
Sub-Committee would adjourn to consider its decision whether to grant a
variation on the Premises Licence for the film nights only.
The
Sub-Committee adjourned at 10.05am to make its decision, together with the
Litigation Lawyer and the Democratic Services Officer. The
Sub-Committee reconvened at 11.13am and the following Decision Notice was read
out by the Chairman:
"Curious Pier Ltd has applied to vary the
premises licence at Southwold Pier, North Parade, Southwold, IP18 6BN.
This hearing has been held as 11 representations
were received from members of the public against the application.
The variation was to add the following activities
to the licence:
1) Films – Thursday to Sunday (indoors and
outdoors) 18:00 to 23:00
2) Live Music – Monday to Sunday (outdoors) 10:00
to 18:00
3) Anything similar to live and recorded music –
Monday to Sunday (outdoors) 09:30 to 20:00
The objections were based on noise and the
disruption and intrusiveness that outdoor events would cause to local
residents.
Mr Piggott attended the hearing on behalf of the
applicant.
Mr Piggott explained to the Sub-Committee that he
had met with local residents in relation to the representations and as a result
of this meeting would be willing for the proposed variations to be amended as
follows:
1) Film nights to run on a Thursday evening through
the summer holidays till 11pm. A maximum of 8 screenings from 18th July
to the 5th September.
2) The option to run live music one day per week
between the hours of 10:00 and 18:00 from May to September at the end of the
pier furthest from the shore line. This is likely to be during holidays and
bank holidays, not once a day every week between this time, it is just a time
frame to cover spring/summer time and a music set is unlikely to be more than
three hours.
3) Anything similar to live and recorded music to
be removed for the application is too ambiguous.
It was confirmed that the current premises licence
authorises the sale of alcohol along the length of the pier.
Mr Piggott explained that the maximum capacity at
the end of the pier was 70 people, fire safety had confirmed this with him. He
said that the purpose of the events was to increase footfall to the pier during
times the pier is currently at its quietest.
Mr Piggott said that he had carried out a sound
test which confirmed that the sound did not travel any further than the first
shop on the pier as the sound faces out towards the sea.
Mr Piggott said that it was not his intention to
increase the noise of the pier, he wanted the pier to remain quiet as this
contributed to the uniqueness of the pier which was essential for his business.
Mr Piggott said that the pier did not have the
capacity to hold large concerts and that fire safety would not approve such
events. The type of music that would be played would be classical music. Mr
Piggott said that he would be happy for a further amendment to the conditions
in that no music set would be more than three hours.
Mr Piggott confirmed that all the activities would
occur at the end of the pier and that the closest resident to the pier had
confirmed the noise could not be heard from their premises during the sound
test.
Mr Piggott confirmed that depending on the
conditions it could be necessary for the music to be amplified through an amp.
The amp that would be used is a single battery amp similar to that which a
busker would use.
Mr Piggott was asked if he had considered using ear
phones for the film nights. Mr Piggott confirmed that he had considered this
though it required WiFi and there wasn’t a strong enough WiFi signal at the end
of the pier. To put in such WiFi would require tens of thousands of pounds
investment.
Mr Piggott was asked to confirm the type of
amplification that would be used and if this could be included in the licence.
Mr Piggott did not have these details though said he would be happy to provide
them.
Two of the persons that made representations
attended the hearing. One confirmed that the original application was not
acceptable though as a result of the meetings, the changes proposed by Mr
Piggott and the assurances as to how the activities were going to be run they
no longer had any issues with the application and would like to withdraw their
representation. This person also confirmed that they had attended the sound
test and sound could not be heard beyond the shoreline.
The other person making representation said that
they would like conditions which would specify the location of the activities
and the amplification to be used.
The Sub-Committee has noted the commitments that Mr
Piggott has made in relation to live music, however, it is mindful that no
licence is required for the performance of amplified live music between 08:00
and 23:00 on any day on premises authorised to sell alcohol for consumption on
those premises, provided that the audience does not exceed 500 people.
Therefore the performance of live music as proposed by the applicant is not a
licensable activity and the Sub-Committee cannot impose any conditions in this
regard.
As for the showing of films, the Sub-Committee was
satisfied that the sound from the films would not be heard beyond the
shoreline. The Sub-Committee was also mindful that there had been no
representations received from any responsible authorities in particular
environmental health.
The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied that the
way in which Mr Piggott has proposed to show the films would not undermine any
of the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee therefore determined to grant the
application subject to the following condition:
1) Films may be shown on a Thursday evening until
23:00 from 18 July to 5 September. Film showings will be limited to a maximum
of 8 screenings between 18 July and 5 September and the maximum audience
capacity is limited to 70 people.
For the avoidance of doubt the original application
for “Anything similar to live and recorded music – Monday to Sunday (outdoors)
09:30 to 20:00” is not to be included in the licence.
Anyone affected by this decision has the right to
appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receiving notice of the
decision.
Date: 5 June 2019"