5
The Sub-Committee received report ES/2181 of the Licensing Officer, which related to an application for a variation to the premises licence at The Mayfair, 18 Broad Street, Bungay NR35 1EE.
The Chair invited the Senior Licensing Officer to summarise the report. The Senior Licensing Officer told the Sub-Committee that the Mayfair had submitted an application to extend the licensed hours at the end of the day on Monday to Sunday from 18:00 to 21:00 in the licensed café area. The current licensed hours in the licensed café area were Monday to Sunday from 10:00 to 18:00.
The hearing had been held as four representations against the application had been received, three of these were from other persons and one was from the responsible authority, Environmental Protection. There had been eighteen representations received that were in support of the variation.
The Sub-Committee was advised that the applicant had been advised of the representations made, however no successful mediation had occurred, therefore the hearing was still required. The Sub-Committee was informed that when taking its decision, it was required to consider the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council's current Statement of Licensing Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998, giving full reasons should it have reason to depart from these points. The Sub-Committee was asked to determine the application by either:
- Granting the application subject to any mandatory conditions and to those consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application.
- Granting the application subject to the same conditions but modified to such extent as the Sub-Committee considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
- Rejecting the application.
The Sub-Committee was asked to state its reasons when announcing its decision. The Chair invited questions to the Senior Licensing Officer.
There were no questions for the Senior Licensing Officer from the Sub-Committee, applicant or legal advisor.
The Chair invited the Applicant and their representative to make their representation.
The Applicant told the Sub-Committee that they had been trying to establish their business in The Mayfair for the past year, having first opened in Christmas 2023 under a TEN. Recognising that there were issues at that time, the business was shut and didn’t open again until May 2024, this gave them time to get the correct procedures in place. Following the Licensing Hearing in April 2024, they opened from 10am to 6pm in response to the noise issues. Since opening in May 2024, they had found that their business model changed, and they no longer wished to open until 11pm at night. It was not in their interest to do so, having a family and busy life. The Mayfair has proven very popular and has turned into more of a family venue, it does serve cocktails and there are also children’s events for Christmas and Halloween being hosted. He noted that the business opening for the hours it did currently only covered the costs and did not make any profit. By increasing the closing hours in the café area to 9pm, the business viability would be improved. The applicant confirmed that they didn’t want to be open late at night and were proposing a 9pm closure which wasn’t an unreasonable time for the type of business they ran.
They had submitted a management plan alongside their application and proposed to have sound proofing installed so as not to cause a disturbance to their neighbours. They had only received Listed Building Consent for the sound proofing the day prior to the hearing, this had been applied for in April 2024. It was their intention to install this as soon as possible.
Referring to the objection from Environmental Protection and that it was not possible to see whether the sound proofing would be effective until it was tried and tested, the applicant confirmed they had tried to have a test but had not been able to gain consent from the neighbour to enter their property. The whole process had been stalled and the applicant concurred it would be beneficial for everyone once the soundproofing was installed.
The applicant told the Sub-Committee that The Mayfair was issued a community award for enhancing the services of the town of Bungay. He felt this endorsed the business model, the new times proposed would ensure that it could continue to operate. He added previous use of the building had been an off-licence and many classes of building could open in that building without this process and without the mitigation of soundproofing. He concluded that he was asking the Sub-Committee to grant the new opening hours and support a harmonious agreement between the premises and its’ community.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the Applicant’s representative, an Acoustic Engineer. He reinforced that there was a lot riding on the granting of the revised hours and the success of the business. He acknowledged that the applicant was looking to balance the community use of the premises and the needs of the residents living next door to The Mayfair.
He told the Sub-Committee that The Mayfair was operating as a licensed café, with family-based activities, more than a third of the facility users were children. The Mayfair was a different and unique facility, not a pub but more of a community space. The Mayfair is a historic building which was empty before its current ownership. The Mayfair is predominantly a seated venue with the sales of hot drinks (tea and coffee) equating to 50% of its wet sales. He noted that the concerns raised regarding Christmas 2023, were not reflective of the typical behaviour taking lace since operating under its current licensing conditions of April 2024.
He told the Sub-Committee that when applying for the variation, the applicant was looking at how to create a sustainable business model whilst fitting in with needs of the property, it being an old building. There are 48 seats in the venue and Santa’s grotto had 300 children visit last Christmas. By applying for the variation, the applicant can continue with daytime trade from late breakfast, through to post work period, closing at the watershed of 9pm. It is a divided property with retail and residential. He asked the Sub-Committee to consider the context and number of people using the building when reviewing the noise nuisance. He stated that the period between 6pm and 9pm is a different acoustic when considering how people are using their homes. He stated that The Mayfair had found a niche in serving the community and had a different business demographic.
The Mayfair would be looking at less than 60 people in attendance, due to how the building operates currently and fire regulations.
The consultant then moved to the governance of noise nuisance and noted this could be either by predictions or by carrying out actual sound testing. The acoustic test between the residential and commercial side of the building has stalled for various reasons, and the applicant is only able to conduct the test on their own side of the property. The consultant confirmed that theoretically, this would provide the correct mitigation, but this cannot be fully tested without access to the neighbouring property.
The consultant noted that the only other way would be to reduce the noise at source. Control measures would be in place - the music played at the venue would be described as incidental and by reducing the noise and reducing the way the people use the venue, layout of seating etc Only music played at venue would be described as incidental. He compared this to the previous use of the off licence, where customer numbers of 200 per day would be needed for viability. The consultant confirmed that without the licensing variation being granted, the building would be inoperable as commercial premises and confirmed that the venue was prepared to install internal sound proofing.
To summarise the Consultant told the Sub-Committee that The Mayfair was a unique venue, that met local plan agendas and was compliant with licensing policy for the area. It was a venue that had been recognised for a business award and was committed to the venue with a vision for the future. Granting the licensing variation would ensure that the business continues to thrive in Bungay and serve the community. The applicant was trying to do all it could to reach mitigation with its nearest neighbour.
The Chair invited questions to the applicant and his representative.
The Chair asked about the revised management plan submitted and the changes to outdoor seating. The applicant confirmed that he was not about to apply for a pavement licence but didn’t want to find himself in a position to have to reapply for licence variation, due to restrictions. At the moment, he had no plans for outdoor seating but may in the future want to consider it.
The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that the Pavement Licence was a separate application with public consultation, that would have to be considered as and when he made an application.
The applicant’s consultant referred to the British Innkeepers Guidance and Acoustics Guidance which stated that closing at 9pm should be considered with a pavement licence.
The Chair invited Environmental Protection to comment. They confirmed that due to the design and construction and layout of the building they had concern about the sound transmission between the residential and commercial parts of the property. They take on board the applicant’s comments but noted that the only way to be confident and sure as to how the sound would transmit would be to do an assessment on both sides (commercial and residential). Without that test being carried out, they could not determine the real-world impact of the sound, hence their objection.
The Senior Licensing Officer asked questions of the applicant.
She asked the applicant if the intention was to not open beyond 9pm, noting they were licensed for the supply of alcohol and opening hours of rear cellar bar until 11pm. The applicant confirmed they had no desire to run over 9pm, however the occasional event may happen. The applicant’s consultant commented it was not unusual for venues to be licences to 11pm but close sooner due to commercial viability. Ability to go above usual operating schedule is not unusual for community venues/pubs. He noted that the later hours were restricted to the back cellar bar areas which were subject to planning works taking place, and therefore not possible or practical without the change of planning.
The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that there can be flexibility within the parameters of the licensed hours. The applicant confirmed that the 11pm closing was not as important to them, and the decisive business factor was the ability to close the café at 9pm.
The Senior Licensing Officer noted that in Management plan number 3 there were no plans to offer amplified music. She confirmed with on-sales it was permitted to have live or recorded music and asked that their intentions were. The applicant replied it was not a performance venue, they would have background music. They do have a piano in the venue and didn’t want to rule out someone performing acoustically.
The legal advisor asked the applicant about soundproofing, in particular if they couldn’t get access to the residential property to carry out the test, what could be done to assure the Licensing Sub-Committee that it would work.
The consultant confirmed that the proposed plan would make it inaudible, the materials used meant that noise wouldn’t transfer through, there would be nothing touching without an isolation method being used. In the current design there was no soundproofing, and floorboards and plaster, they were aware it was unsuitable currently and were here to find a solution. If they were able to have access they could test, but they were using all of the British Standard materials that should provide mitigation. The agent said that the proposed materials to be used were used to mitigate night club level of volume, adding if it only performed at 50% of the soundproofing level it would stop human voice and people talking.
The consultant added that the change of use to the current use was only in 2019 so this was not a new problem. The current Class E building and the way high streets are changing meant it could easily be opened as a different premises without the licensing restrictions.
The applicant added they were also doing vertical wall protection as well as ceiling protection and there were the control measures in place. Should there be an ongoing noise complaint then it could come back to a licensing review, testing would give the required results.
It was confirmed to the legal advisor that the specifications for the proposed sound proofing were sent to Environmental Protection and Planning as part of the Listed Building Consent application.
The applicant referred to the revision of the management plan which said that they would not open after 6pm until the soundproofing work had been completed. He noted that the conditions in the current licence were working, the restriction of the venue had occurred due to the noise and had planning permission been granted earlier they would not be here applying for a variation.
Environmental Protection made their representation. They were concerned about the layout and design of the premises in light of it having both residential and licenced activity.
Environmental Protection’s concern had always been that it was trial and error approach, and whilst they appreciate that it is a high specification proposal, without the sound proofing assessment being carried out it would be difficult to prove its effectiveness.
They took on board the history of the house and the premises but noted that they were now moving from a commercial aspect to a venue with activity until 9pm with 11pm on the premises licence for part of the property. Therefore, the concern remained about sound transmission, and they were seeking to avoid any statutory nuisance complaint.
The applicant expressed frustration at having provided the high specification proposal they couldn’t do the assessment as they couldn’t gain access therefore this was the best they could do. It was impacting their ability to operate.
The applicant’s consultant reiterated that they had demonstrated that it could be managed since April 2024 and the business worked well. They felt it was an overly imposed restriction, the sound insulation would unarguably improve it for the resident and there was no difference from 6pm to 9pm and therefore no new noise.
The Environmental Protection Officer confirmed that he had not seen the up-to-date plan prior to the Sub-Committee but noted that it was to a high specification.
The Licensing Officer clarified that although Environmental Protection were saying it was a high specification, until they had evidence of it working, they couldn’t see the impact. Environmental Protection agreed they were concerned it was theoretical.
The applicant confirmed that following the approval of the Listed Building Consent the sound proofing work would commence the following Monday.
The applicant’s consultant confirmed he worked as an Acoustic Consultant, and it was common for most things to be academic to start with, in line with performance standards and was planned to achieve. He didn’t understand why Environmental Protection were making a representation if they hadn’t seen the proposed sound-proofing specification, adding if Planning Permission had been granted earlier this wouldn’t be an issue. The deadline for Planning Permission was supposed to be end of April 2024. Referring to carrying out the required acoustic test, they weren’t able to get access, although it would be a common interest to carry out the assessment. He understood that issues could be with installation where a small gap could cause noise to come through, but noted they were controlling the noise at source and not dealing with music.
The objector referred to a previous conversation with one of the Environmental Protection Officers. He had asked specifically how Environmental Protection would view the adequacy of the proposed mitigation scheme if a floating ceiling was put under flying freehold and was told that Environmental Protection would be sceptical unless the activity was isolated from the flying freehold.
The Environmental Protection Officer confirmed that he wasn’t privy to that conversation and was dealing with the acoustic measures that had been presented to him today.
The Legal Advisor asked the Environmental Protection Officer what methods they could use to test the effectiveness if they were unable to gain access. The Environmental Protection Officer confirmed that there wasn’t any substitute for a test, whilst there are predictions based on materials, this varies from building to building and the elements of the property. He added this was a unique situation with residential above a commercial premises.
In response to the Legal Advisor, Environmental Protection said that if everything went ahead and we were dealing with it as a noise complaint, they could then attend. A consultant could provide a post application validation.
The Licensing Officer asked the Objector in the neighbouring property if he would allow access for the acoustic assessment. He confirmed that he would be happy to allow the environmental assessment and acoustic assessment provided he was clear on the scope of the work that was being carried out.
Following questions from the Legal Advisor, the Objector read out the email which detailed the conditions on which they would allow access to their property. In summary, they confirmed they would permit a visit to their property from a statutory person, providing they were clear on the purpose.
The Chair invited the Objector in the neighbouring property to make his representation. The Legal Advisor clarified that the purpose of the Sub-Committee hearing was to discuss the 4 licensing objectives and not any personal disputes between the parties.
The Objector denied that they didn’t want the business to exist. He added that the prospect of having a community asset next door is very appealing to them, and they found the entrepreneurial spirit of the business encouraging. However, he noted that wasn’t what they were here to discuss. The purpose was whether the business could promote the statutory licensing objectives with the extended licensed hours directly under bedrooms without having had a test of the sound-proofing conditions.
The Objector noted that they experienced noise disruption previously, described by Environmental Protection as unreasonable during the opening in December last year. He summarised the conditions in which this noise disruption occurred and the impact they had on his plans. He felt that the claims by the applicant that music would not occur were irrelevant as there was permission for this to occur as part of the licence.
He gave a detailed summary of the representation he had made in writing in objection to the variation of the premises, highlighting:
- The soundproofing is theoretical and doesn’t include fire protection.
- The specification provided relates to the product in isolation.
- The applicants think they can install the soundproofing themselves and this would not have the same impact. This work commenced the evening prior to the Sub-Committee meeting, and he had submitted a noise complaint due to drilling below the bedroom between 10.30 pm and 11.00 pm.
- The original acoustic report for the café area said a floating ceiling, the proposed ceiling means the sound will penetrate through the existing ceiling areas.
- Environmental Protection have serious concerns about Mayfair operating into the evening.
- The applicants are constrained by the nature of the business they chose to rent, which means inebriated and smokers will congregate outside the building near their home.
- It is difficult to manage the effects of the business on their home today and this will only increase on the future, expansion of the business would lead to disruption to other rooms such as office space, nursery etc.
- The objectors dispute the claims that the business is a class E operation and consider it to be sui generis use.
- The applicants have chosen to create a commercial business in a residential area.
In summary, the bar is directly below the objectors’ bedroom, therefore they feel it is only right that the applicants commit to their suggested mitigation. He advised that to approve the variation of the licensing conditions would be a gross dismissal of the licensing objectives and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of the home.
The Chair asked the Objector to explain what the antisocial behaviour entailed that was described in his objection. The Objector said they had multiple experiences of someone smoking drugs under their windows, people outside front of bar with pints of beer, they had people being sick when they first opened. He added it had been difficult to get this on the radar of licensing as the day-to-day monitoring had been deferred to them as neighbours. He added the customers didn’t like them and had been fed a false narrative about them.
The Objector added that the customers know which area the CCTV doesn’t cover.
The applicant referred to the vomit, stating he alerted the neighbour to the vomit, it happened at 2am in the morning, he cleaned it up, even though it wasn’t related to their premises as they had closed at 6pm and the incident happened at 2am.
The applicant’s agent sought clarification whether the noise was occurring during the normal period of the day or during the busier period. The Objector confirmed he had sent recordings to Environmental Protection to demonstrate the noise. They were particularly affecting the bedroom. The applicant’s agent suggested that the timings recorded were when that room would be getting less use, therefore minimal impact.
In response to the applicant’s agent regarding consenting to equipment being left for acoustic reporting, the applicant confirmed he had already answered as to why he would allow someone access and he didn’t feel it was fair to commit to something in a meeting room.
There were no questions from Environmental Protection for the Objector.
The second Objector made his representation. He told the Sub-Committee that he wished to speak from another angle, he objected to other problems in Lower Goat Street, where there were antisocial behaviour, noise and associated problems. He stated that Brandy Lane was not a non-residential area, and patrons of The Mayfair were exiting there to smoke and vape. He said there was an element of fear from some members of the public, who found groups of people in a small space intimidating, problems were exacerbated by alcohol consumption.
He noted that the CCTV was only partially in place which was at odds with the current management plan and recent revised management plan, this was not complying with the initial licence.
He raised concerns under protecting children from harm, asking how they would separate family events with alcohol.
He stated there was a presence of odours from cigarette/vape and patrons, staff and owners all stand outside to smoke
Referring to the third paragraph of the management plan stating no issues – he said this was untrue as he was aware that since reopening there had been breaching of licence limitations. There had been people entering and remaining after 6pm, patrons outside drinking and patrons congregating outside. There are always cigarette butts in Brandy Lane, in and around the bin and they themselves have cleaned the alleyway as it is unacceptable.
He felt it was not appropriate for the management to stand outside with customers smoking and at this time the management plan is too vague and not robust enough to be enforceable should any action need to be taken.
The Chair invited questions to the second Objector.
The applicant confirmed that the CCTV requirement was appropriate and as per the management plan, as it covered the areas of the business from which they were currently operating. The Police were satisfied that the coverage is acceptable for the use that they have.
There was a discussion regarding the definition of Brandy Lane, and it was agreed that it was within a residential area.
The Chair invited the supporter to make their representation. They told the Sub-Committee that they used the Mayfair, it was a quieter venue than some of the local pubs with a small, cosy intimate environment. They use both Broad Road and Brandy Lane regularly and haven’t witnessed antisocial behaviour and they have never felt threatened. They found The Mayfair to be a welcome addition to the town and would use it more if it was open more.
In response to questions the second Objector confirmed that they lived on Nethergate, not directly near to the Mayfair and use Brandy Lane to get to it. They confirmed they hadn’t received the old and new management plans prior to submitting their letter of support.
The Chair invited all parties to sum up.
The Senior Licensing Officer said this was one of the more difficult applications. It was unusual that the management plan had been provided as part of the application, as this as not always the case. As such the management plan was now very much part of the licensing process and consideration.
The Environmental Protection Officer concluded without the acoustic assessment they were concerned that the measures proposed would have the desired effect and dealing with it after there was a noise complaint would be counter intuitive.
The first objector stated the management plan as written had inconsistencies, the impact was unknown, and it needed to balance the peaceful enjoyment of the business with the peaceful enjoyment of his home.
The applicant told the Sub-Committee the Mayfair exists as it was inspired by the building and its history. They take their responsibilities seriously and were surprised that Environmental Protection had made objections without seeing the detail of the soundproofing, especially as they have been trying to apply to get the soundproofing approved for the past 6 months. The specification they had arrived at came with the input from 3 consultants. If the Off-Licence was still open, they would have noise complaints but later. He felt they had been unfairly portrayed but understood everyone’s point of view.
He added, this wasn’t a new application, it isn’t under review and there had been no problems. There is no difference between acceptable noise levels between 6pm and 9pm, this changes at 11pm. Good practice shows 9pm was a reasonable threshold. The business has evolved to meet the customers’ needs and it is a community inspired building. He concluded there wasn’t anything that could not be achieved there, the only material difference was for the change of closing hours. The applicant told the Sub-Committee that should they grant subject to a condition, they would still be reliant on cooperation from the neighbour, and they were relying on the December trade.
Should they grant subject to a condition reliance on cooperation from James. Rely on Christmas trade. December trade so important for us.
The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider their decision.
DECISION NOTICE
The Mayfair Bungay Ltd (the applicant) has applied for a variation to the existing Premises Licence at The Mayfair, 18 Broad Street, Bungay NR35 1EE. The current opening hours are from Monday to Sunday from 10:00 to 18:00. This application seeks to extend the hours to Monday to Sunday from 18:00 to 21:00.
The Sub-Committee heard from the Licensing Officer, who summarised the report and confirmed that the hearing had been held as three representations against the application had been received from other persons. A representation against the application was received from a responsibly authority, Environmental Protection. The Licensing Officer indicated that there were eighteen representations in support.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the applicant and his representative who said that the Mayfair had been operating for a year and during that time they had found that the business model had changed, and they were now proposing a 21:00 closure. They were running family friendly events such as Halloween and Christmas events and had recently been the recipients of a Community Award for enhancing the services of the town of Bungay. They had applied for Listed Building Consent for Soundproofing in April 2024 and this had only been granted the day prior to the hearing. They were now progressing with this work in order to install this Soundproofing. This Soundproofing was of a high quality and was designed to mitigate the risk of sound to the neighbouring property. The applicant was concerned that if he was not able to open for the extended hours until after Christmas, this would have a detrimental effect on his business.
The Sub-Committee then heard from Environmental Protection who indicated that they could not be sure until the work was completed and tested that the sound proofing would be effective, therefore they were maintaining their objection. The Environmental Protection Officer was asked if there was any way of undertaking the tests without accessing the neighbouring property and they said there was not.
The objectors then put forward their case. The first objector, who lived in the adjoining property, amplified his objections, in particular about the noise, indicating that they couldn’t use their spare rooms due to the noise from the café. They were concerned that there was anti-social behaviour in Brandy Lane, in particular people being sick, drinking and smoking drugs. The applicant indicated that he had notified the objector of the vomit, whilst the applicant was cleaning it up, even though it happened many hours after the premises had closed. The first objector also complained about the use of outside seating and the possibility of a pavement licence being granted.
The second objector lived in a nearby road and had concerns about the anti-social behaviour in Brandy Lane, an alleyway in a residential area. The objector commented that there was no CCTV in place in Brandy Lane, the applicant confirmed that this would only be put in place if they were operating from an entrance on Brandy Lane.
The Sub-Committee heard from a supporter of the premises who indicated that the premises was quieter than a normal pub with a community atmosphere that was an asset to the town.
The decision of the Sub-Committee
The Sub-Committee, having considered the application, the Licensing Officer’s report and the representations received from the applicant and other objectors and supporters has decided to grant the application subject to the updated Management Plan dated 2 December 2024 being fully complied with and becoming part of the Licensing Conditions.
It is assumed that the word “below” in the first paragraph is a typographical error and it should read “above”, meaning that the first paragraph will read as follows:
Important Update – The Mayfair will not open beyond 6pm until the soundproofing above the café space has been installed. We are happy for this to become part of the licensed conditions of the hours granted from 6pm to 9pm.
Reasons for decision
In arriving at this decision, the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the representations of the applicant, objectors and supporters as well as the Licensing Officer’s report. The Sub-Committee also considered the Council’s own licensing guidance and statement of licensing policy, as well as the Statutory Section 182 guidance, and Human Rights Act 1998.
The Sub-Committee notes that paragraph 9.12 of the Section 182 statutory guidance states that the responsible authorities are experts in their respective fields and great weight should be placed on their representations or lack of.
In relation to the allegation of anti-social behaviour, we note that the police have not objected to the application, and we consider the police to be the experts in relation to any issues regarding anti-social behaviour.
In relation to Environmental Protection’s objection, whilst the Sub-Committee notes the paragraph 9.12 of the statutory guidance, the Sub-Committee is concerned that Environmental Protection cannot say either way whether the sound proofing would work until it has been tested. In this case, this leaves the applicant in a very difficult position as unless the objector allows him into the property, he will be unable to ever prove that the sound proofing will work.
We note that Environmental Protection cannot state that the sound proofing will not work, we were also assured by the consultant that the sound proofing to be undertaken is to a high specification and that the applicant has gone through the planning process in order to obtain the correct approvals to enable the work to take place.
On balance, taking into account Environmental Protection and the other objectors, the Sub-Committee is satisfied that with the installation of the sound proofing and with the other conditions of the licence the granting of the extended hours is compatible with promoting the licensing objectives.
In relation to any outside seating, this would need to be subject to a pavement licence application which would be considered in the appropriate way. This Sub-Committee is not pre-judging any application in relation to a pavement licence.
The Sub-Committee would like to reassure the objectors that this matter could be brought back for review if there was evidence that the premises when operating was in breach of its conditions or if the conditions prove insufficient to promote the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee is therefore satisfied that that licence can be amended as applied for subject to the conditions in the existing licence and the conditions proposed in the application including the amended management plan.
Anyone affected by this decision has the right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receiving notice of the decision.
Date: 6 December 2024