Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Payter-Harris was duly appointed as Chair for the meeting.  He welcomed everyone and explained how the meeting would work and the procedure that would be followed.  Introductions were made by those present.

There were no apologies

Councillor Payter-Harris declared an interest in relation to a support letter that had been received.  He had previously lived next door to them but had not known them or ever spoken to them.

Purpose

For the Committee to consider an objection notice given by a relevant person, namely the Head of Regulatory Services and in respect of a Temporary Event Notice (“TEN”) received by the licensing authority under our reference (22/02374/LATENS).

The following documents were circulated prior to the meeting:

• Decking area of the pier covered noise abatement notice reference 11.
• Decking area of the pier covered noise abatement reference 12
• Email correspondence between Regulatory Services and Big Sky Acoustics.
• Email from Colin Garner
• Example of comments from complainants
• NAN Decking at South Parade Pier
• NAN South Parade Pier Ltd Decking at South Parade Pier
• Plan South Parade Pier complaints
• Regulatory Services contact log.

The Principal Licensing Officer introduced the report which was submitted on behalf of the Head of Regulatory Services. The report was prepared by the Licensing Manager who was unable to attend.  The TEN application was attached as appendix A to the report.

Only the Police or Environmental Health officers can intervene to prevent a proposed TEN event from taking place on any of the four licensing objectives if, within 3 working days of receiving the TEN they are satisfied that allowing the premises to be used in accordance with the notice would undermine a licensing objective.

Members' questions

In response to Members' questions the officer clarified:

·         Regulatory Services were objecting to the event on 31 July 2022.

·         They had not had any communication with the applicant on any previous TEN applications.

There were no further questions.

Applicant's Case

Jon Wallsgrove presented the applicant's case.  He firstly offered an apology on behalf of his client for any nuisance caused to local residents on 2 July.  

Mr Wallsgrove drew attention to the history of South Parade Pier and the considerable amount of money Messrs Ware had invested into the redevelopment of the Pier and the ongoing cost of maintaining the pier to the high standards that are in place now.  Such maintenance entailed looking at commercial opportunities to assist with costs and to ensure it maintained its iconic status.  The event on 2 July was an example of such a commercial enterprise.

A live event was held in September 2021, via a Temporary Event Notice (TEN), and as far as the applicants were aware, no noise complaints were raised by any local residents in relation to this event.  Following the success of this event, plans were made to hold four further weekend events over the course of the summer.  These events were planned to be held at reasonable hours and not late into the evening.

Mr Wallsgrove observed it was for Environmental Health to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there would be an adverse impact on the prevention of public nuisance if the event on 31 July were allowed to continue.  Mr Wallsgrove asserted that lessons had been learnt from the event on 2 July and that sufficient measures had been put in place to ensure no public nuisance re-occurred.

The applicant had engaged the services of Richard Vivien of Big-Sky Acoustics, to compile a noise management plan which included a complete change of personnel and equipment for the next event.  Andy Thomas had been engaged as the primary point of contact on the sound system. Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.