Agenda item

To receive, pursuant to Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) a report from the Principal Licensing Officer regarding an application for a Temporary Event Notice.

 

Licensing Sub Committee is asked to consider dealing with this application as an urgent item as the hearing must be commenced between 15^th – 23^rd December 2011.  In accordance with Schedule 1 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, however, the period within which the Police could give the objection notice to this particular matter was 13th-14th December 2011, which meant it was not possible to list the item on the agenda for this meeting.

RECEIVED a report from the principal licensing officer regarding an application for a Temporary Event Notice. 

 

NOTED

 

1.         The introduction by Mark Galvayne, Principal Licensing Officer, including:

 

a.                  This was an application for a temporary event notice from Mr Phidias Kouttis, for an event between 11pm on Monday 26 December 2011 and 3am on Tuesday 27 December 2011.  The event would include the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late night refreshment for 400 persons.

 

b.                  The Police have objected to the application on the grounds that it would undermine the crime prevention objective. 

 

c.                  Members were able to either grant or refuse the temporary event notice.   They cannot make any amendments themselves but they could rule on an amended application if the applicant wished to make any changes. 

 

2.         The objections from Police Constable Fisher including: 

 

a.                  Concern that granting the temporary event notice would result in noise nuisance. 

 

b.                  Mr Kouttis had said that this would be a low key event, a Christmas party with live jazz for a maximum of 400 people.  There would be no disco or DJ.  Despite this, PC Fisher felt that allowing the temporary event notice would result in noise nuisance for the people living near the Willow. 

 

c.                  Eleven previous temporary event notices had been given without objection.

 

3.         Responses to questions raised including:

 

a.                  The Police had been advised that the music would be of a background nature, but there had been a history of excessive noise breakout at previous events.

 

b.                  The Out of Hours’ Team had no confidence that the noise would be kept at an appropriate level.

 

c.                  Mr Simis Kouttis, the applicant’s son, who was at the hearing, said that only 100 people were expected to attend the event and that the police had no evidence that granting the notice would result in crime and disorder. 

 

d.                  Crime and disorder had occurred recently on two previous occasions and a noise abatement notice issued.  Simis Kouttis said that these were subject to appeal and were being contested.

 

e.                  Following the breach, a noise calibrating expert had been employed to check the noise levels and to recalibrate the equipment, which would limit the noise in future. 

 

f.                    Breaching a Noise Abatement Notice was a crime. 

 

4.                  SimisKouttis, attending the hearing on behalf of the applicant spoke in support of the application:

 

a.                  He expressed his confidence that the noise would be controlled on this occasion.  The proposed event was private, would take place downstairs and was being organised by a specific group of people.

 

b.                  There was no suggestion that holding the event would result in any other type of criminal activity.

 

c.                  A sound management plan had been produced as a condition of the lease and sound proofing installed.

 

5.                  Responses to questions raised

 

a.                  Despite the information contained in the letter on page 25 of the report, Simis Kouttis, maintained that the sound limiter had not been disconnected.

 

b.                  Despite previous breaches, the applicant had been given the benefit of the doubt on other occasions, but had been strongly urged to use the noise limiter in a conciliatory letter from Sue McDaid, Head of Regulatory Services.  The applicant had not taken up her offer to discuss the noise issues. 

 

c.                  SimisKouttis said that, with hindsight, he should have taken up the offer and was very willing to work with the local authority to resolve noise issues. 

 

d.                  A second offence had been committed, less than ten days after a previous noise offence.

 

e.                  Audibility was judged by qualified officers who take a considered opinion as to whether or not the noise heard was sufficient to prevent sleep. 

 

f.                    The applicant had employed a sound acoustic expert and carried out a great deal of work to limit the noise break out.  In hindsight he admitted that should have been more vigilant and made more effort to ensure that future breaches did not occur, but he had relied on the technical equipment to limit the sound. 

 

g.                  The applicant offered to use an Ipod instead of the regulated entertainment, to scale back the time of the event to 1am and to reduce the numbers attending to 200. 

 

6.                  The closing statement of the Principal Licensing Officer including:

 

a.                  The application was amended to a temporary event notice for 200 people, up until 1am on 27 December 2011.

 

b.                  Members were asked to decide whether or not it was necessary to issue a counter notice. 

 

RESOLVED that

 

(1)       In accordance with the principles of Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Section 12A to the Act.

           

            The Panel retired, with the legal representative and administrator, to consider the application further and then the meeting reconvened in public.

 

(2)       The Chairman made the following statement:

 

The Licensing Sub Committee has listened to the verbal submission from Mr Simis Kouttis on behalf of his father Mr Phidias Kouttis in respect of an application for a Temporary Event Notice for 26 to 27 December 2011. 

 

After careful consideration of the objections raised by the Metropolitan Police Service and the cross questions from the sub committee to Mr Simis Kouttis in particular respect of historic and recent noise breakout and nuisance, the committee had deemed it necessary for the promotion of the crime prevention licensing objective to issue Mr Phidias Kouttis with a counter notice.

 

We were particularly concerned by the fact that another statutory noise nuisance had been witnessed in the early hours of the 10 December 2011, this being just two weeks after a statutory noise nuisance was also witnessed under the Temporary Event Notice applicable on 26/27 November 2011.

 

That nuisance had occasioned a Noise Abatement Notice (issued 1 December 2011) therefore the second and most recent occurrence on 10 December was compromised, denoting a contravention of the Noise Abatement Notice, a criminal offence under Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

 

Given the long history of noise related issues, the conciliatory tone of the letter from Ms Sue McDaid (Head of Regulatory Services) also on 1 December 2011, and the various advices given to the premises license holder, we take such a breach of the Noise Abatement Notice extremely seriously, and so cannot be satisfied that the situation would not recur if this Temporary Event Notice was granted. 

 

(3)       The Licensing Sub Committee agreed that it is necessary for the promotion of the crime prevention licensing objective, to give Mr Kouttis a counter notice.