Content

 
 In
reaching its decision, the Licensing Sub-Committee
(“LSC”) considered the Council’s Statement of
Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made
thereunder, and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under
S.182 of that Act. In discharging its functions, the LSC did so
with a view to promoting the licensing objectives of the prevention
of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public
nuisance, and the protection of children from harm.
 
Having considered all written
representations, evidence, and oral submissions, the LSC resolved
that the 2 applications be refused, and Counter Notices be
issued.
 
Basis
of Decision
 
The Premises License holder, Mr
Bankole Jones, attended the hearing with the co-director of the
business, Mrs Gloria Jones.
The License holder submitted
that he had run the business from the premises for one year without
complaint, and that all claims of breach and nuisance were
allegations with no evidence being provided. The License holder
stated that he had never received a complaint from any local residents regarding noise and had good
relationships with them.
 
The License holder denied the
noise nuisance and claimed the environmental health officers had
never spoken to him about the issue prior to serving the Abatement
Notice. The License holder alleged that the environmental health
officers had repeatedly turned off the music in the venue during
their visits. The License holder also emphasised that music was
allowed until 11pm as per the license conditions. Additionally, the
License holder claimed that the environmental
health officers were
intimidating and caused nuisance to the businesses’
customers, and that he has closed the business as a result of the
officers approach.
 
Mrs Gloria Jones submitted that
correspondence from the environmental health officers stated that
no music was being played when they visited the premises and
explained that on other occasions when music was being played this
was done so during the permitted hours in line with the license
conditions. Mrs Gloria Jones claimed that the environmental health
officers made herself and the License holder uncomfortable during
their visits, and subsequently caused a loss to their business. Mrs
Gloria Jones stated that the noise nuisance and breaches were
allegations made by the environmental health officers, but there
was no supporting evidence. Additionally, that herself and the
License holder had been working with the community and the
Licensing Authority to abide by the license conditions.
 
The LSC received submissions
from environmental health officers explaining attempts to engage
with the Licence holder regarding the noise and public nuisance
caused and associated with the licenced premises, including advice
offered as to how to mitigate the nuisances. Additionally, the
environmental health officers noted that the Abatement Notice had
been further been breached on 21st December 2024.
The LSC considered that the
Licence holder maintained there were no breaches of the premises
licence conditions or the noise abatement notice and was unable to
acknowledge the public nuisance associated with the premises. The
LSC heard evidence that environmental protection officers had
written to the License holder numerous times regarding details of
the nuisance, warnings, the Abatement notice, and detailed
circumstances of the breaches. The License holder-maintained denial
of all breaches of the license conditions and the Abatement Notice.
Further, the License holder denies that the officers have witnessed
any nuisance or breach at the premises. The LSC noted that the
licence holder did not appear to understand the licensing
objectives, and in particular the
prevention of public nuisance.
 
The LSC gave significant weight
to the written representations and oral evidence by environmental
health officers. The LSC were further concerned at the ongoing
extreme nature of the loud amplified music witnessed by officers
from residential premises. The statutory nuisance had been
witnessed by a number of officers and
the evidence by Environmental Health was given full weight by the
LSC.
 
The LSC were satisfied that,
on the basis of the evidence before
them, the conditions attached to the premises license as well as
the abatement notice were being breached; namely significant noise
and public nuisance caused from the premises and licensable
activities taking place outside of permitted hours. The LSC noted
that it would be detrimental to residents to allow the temporary
events, given that the License holder is failing to comply with the
current license conditions and Abatement Notice and causing
significant noise and public nuisance.
 
In reaching its decision the
LSC disregarded any commercial considerations relating to the
viability of the restaurant and bar.
 
The LSC resolved that Counter
Notices be served and the 2 TENs applications stand as
refused.
 
Any party aggrieved by this
decision may appeal to the magistrates’ court within 21
days.
 
But no appeal may be brought
later than five working days before the first day on which the
event period specified in the temporary event notice
begins