Meeting documents

+ Present

- Apologies for absence presented

In attendance

Cllr Miss Gibson

In attendance for hearing of Windlesham Club and Theatre Application

Applicant and Representatives

Objectors

Mr K Stewart (Chief Environmental Health Officer) accompanied by:

Mrs J Ball (Environmental Health Officer) - Case Officer

Mrs L Dolan (Legal Services)

Mr T Pashen (Principal Environmental Health Officer) - Witness

Mr P Savill (Counsel for Chief Environmental Health Officer)

In attendance for hearing of Pantiles Application

Applicant and Representatives

Mr R A Archer (Applicant)

Mr M Highton (Manager)

Ms N Courage (Assistant Manager)

Objectors

None present

In attendance

Mr K Stewart (Chief Environmental Health Officer)

Mrs J Ball (Environmental Health Officer)

RESOLVED, That Councillor Mrs Pearce be elected Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the municipal year 2001/02.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22nd May 2000 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

PART A

(for decision)

no items

PART B

(for information)

An application by Mr Mark Daniel Tizzard for public music and dancing cinematograph and stage play licences was submitted to the Sub-Committee for consideration.  Objections to the application had been received from the Chief Environmental Health Officer and residents living in the vicinity of the premises.  The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider whether proper notice of the hearing had been given to the applicants and when the meeting resumed the Chairman confirmed that members of the Sub-Committee were satisfied that procedures had been following in accordance with the requirements of the Council.

Mr Peter Savill gave details of the Windlesham Club and Theatre including the constitution of the members’ club, details of the interior of the premises and the number of occasional licences which had been granted in respect of the premises.  No difficulties had arisen in connection with the occasional cinematograph and stage play licences which had been issued, and in principle there was no objection to the grant of these licences subject to the applicant holder meeting statutory provisions and Council requirements in relation to licence holders.  Mr Savill referred to a series of events which had been held at Windlesham Club and Theatre since July 1997, a number of which had been the subject of occasional music and dance licences and others which were private functions which did not require licences.  Complaints had been received in respect of a number of these events regarding noise and unruly behaviour by people attending these events.  Officers of the Environmental Health Division had visited the premises on a number of occasions when these complaints had been received and had confirmed that the noise complaints had been justified.  There was also evidence to suggest that unruly behaviour had occurred on a number of occasions.  The applicant had not been present at all these events but, as entertainments secretary, he had overall responsibility for ensuring that these events were conducted in a proper manner.  Correspondence had taken place between the Council and Windlesham Club regarding noise problems and the disturbances which had been caused and this had culminated in an Environmental Protection Act Notice being served on members of the Committee of the Club shortly before the hearing.

Mr Savill also drew attention to an event which had been held at the Club on 29th September, 2001 for members only involving music and dancing to which members of the Environmental Health Division had gained admission without being signed in and without being members of the Club.

Mr Savill produced a witness statement made by Mr John Coles, an Environmental Health Technician in the Environmental Health Division, which indicated that Mr Coles had visited the premises on 25th August 2001 in connection with a noise complaint and that he had spoken to Mr Tizzard regarding this matter.  The noise had not abated following his conversation with Mr Tizzard.

Mr Tim Pashen, Principal Environmental Health Officer, was called to give evidence with regard to the building.  Mr Pashen stated that the building had a number of noise limiting weaknesses which included glazing on the façade facing residential properties and the lack of substance to the doors both of which did little to attenuate the volume of the noise.  The level of sound within the Club was not controlled and there was no mechanical ventilation to obviate the need to open doors and windows in hot weather.  For the purposes of a licence it would be necessary to upgrade the doors, and install mechanical ventilation and noise limiting devices to attenuate the volume of music and, in particular, to reduce problems caused by low frequency.

Further evidence regarding the noise disturbance and the disturbance arising at the Club as the result of the use of the premises for music and dancing were given by Mr Rodrigues, Mrs Croker and Mrs Corry.

Mr Tizzard advised the Sub-Committee that the Club had in the region of 500 members and he had only recently taken on the role of Honorary Secretary.  There had been a number of problems which he had had to address and the correspondence which had been received from the Chief Environmental Health Officer had been reported to the management committee.  He confirmed that he was not able to attend all events but felt that the same situation would apply in respect of licence holders for other similar club.

Mr Cordell emphasised that without the assistance of Mr Tizzard as Honorary Secretary the Club might have ceased to exist.  Although Mr Tizzard would not be able to attend all events it was the intention of the Club that four committee members should be present when such events were held.

The Club had endeavoured to comply with all the requirements of the occasional licences and in this respect it was felt that further guidance was required.  Mr Cordell also drew attention to the fact that the Windlesham Club had been established for well over 100 years and that the premises provided an important community facility for Windlesham.  The building had been refurbished in accordance with Council requirements and had been the subject of lottery grants and contributions from the Council.  The construction of the building had been fully approved by the local authority and in his view approval had been given for the use of the premises for playing music.

Mr Cordell also pointed out that all members of the management committee were unpaid volunteers and that the work which they undertook was important to maintain the facilities provided by the Club.

When questioned by Mr Savill, Mr Tizzard confirmed that the constitution of the Club did not give him powers with regard to controlling other club members or the premises when functions were taking place.  He also confirmed that work commitments made it impossible for him to attend all events.

In conclusion Mr Cordell on behalf of Windlesham Club apologised for any disturbance which had been caused in the past and indicated that the Club would make every endeavour to meet Council requirements with regard to licensing the premises.  The Club had been in financial difficulties and the management committee was trying to address these financial problems.  As part of its commitment to the community it endeavoured to provide quality events.

The building had been extended with money provided from lottery grants and funds from the Council with the intention of the building being used for the sort of functions which were now being provided.

The Club was anxious to comply with all legal requirements and in this respect had identified a number of short comings.  In addition the Club was anxious to meet its commitments in relation to neighbours, club members and the Council.  In this respect the Club would welcome any further support, guidance and assistance from the Council.

After a short adjournment, during which Members retired to consider the applications, the Chairman read the following statement:

“Mr Tizzard has made an application to the Council as licensing authority for annual public music and dancing, cinematograph and stage play licences.  Objections to the grant of the music and dancing licence have been received from the Council's Chief Environmental Health Officer and residents living in the locality of the premises.

Under governing legislation the Council has a wide discretion when determining applications.  There is a difference between occasional licences and full annual licences and each application for a licence must be decided on its merits. The Council can take into account any relevant consideration such as the fitness of the applicant, warnings or cautions given to the applicant, the previous control of the premises and the suitability, condition or location of the premises. 

The Sub-Committee has considered in depth the detailed evidence from Mr Stewart, Mrs Ball and Mr Pashen together with statements from other officers in respect of the previous recent history of events held at the premises and the concerns with regard to noise nuisance emanating from the premises.

Consideration has also been given to letters that have been sent to the Club, notably the letter from Mrs Ball dated 14th August 2001 itemising the Council's serious concerns on a variety of pertinent matters.  Further, the Sub-Committee is concerned as to the event held at the Club on 29th September 2001.

Due regard has been given to the numerous complaints received from local residents, primarily on the grounds of noise nuisance, which have been endorsed by various council officers who have visited the location and witnessed the noise for themselves.

Having taken all relevant matters into account, it is the Sub-Committee's view that the premises in their current condition are unsuitable for an annual licence for public music and dancing purposes.  Mr Stewart has provided the Sub-Committee with details of technical deficiencies and these deficiencies have been noted.  Furthermore the location of the premises is not considered suitable for an annual public entertainment licence.  It is situated in a quiet location close to adjoining residential premises and if the application were to be granted the effects of the anti-social behaviour from some persons leaving the premises would be worsened by virtue of the frequency of events.  This is considered to be unreasonable.  Residents living close to the premises are entitled to reasonable quiet enjoyment of their homes and this is something that must be safeguarded.

In addition the Sub-Committee has to be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.   Evidence has been provided by Mr Stewart, Mr Tizzard and others, regarding this matter but the Sub-Committee is inclined to agree with Mr Stewart’s views.  There has previously been insufficient control of the premises by the Club.  In addition, it is the Sub-Committee’s view that Mr Tizzard will not be able to exercise the control over the premises that is required and it is not convinced that the situation would improve if the licence were to be granted.  The Sub-Committee believes that the Club as an entity is not able at present to maintain effective control to the required standard or that Mr Tizzard can comply with note (h) on the application form.  Accordingly the application for public music and dancing is refused.

The club is recommended to address the above matters and seek further advice from the relevant council officers before submitting a fresh application.â€

RESOLVED, That

STAGE PLAY LICENCE

1.     The number of persons to be admitted shall not exceed 132

CINEMATOGRAPH LICENCE

The Sub-Committee considered an application submitted by Mr Robert Anthony Archer to vary the condition attaching to the public music and dancing licence issued in respect of the Pantiles, London Road, Bagshot to enable the premises to remain open until 3.00am on Saturday and Sunday mornings.  A number of objections had been received in respect of this variation from people living in the vicinity of the premises.  

Mr Ken Stewart, Chief Environmental Health Officer, gave details of the location of the premises and works which had been carried out by the licence holder to ensure that noise nuisance was minimised.  The residential properties occupied by the people who had objected were all situated to the rear of the premises and this estate had been built after Pantiles had been established as a nightclub.  As part of this development a substantial wall had been built between the estate and Pantiles to reduce any noise nuisance.  The buildings on the estate had also been provided with double glazing and air conditioning.

There had been no recent complaints regarding noise emanating from the property and the police had no objections to the proposal.

The letters of objection were submitted to the Sub-Committee and the main point of concern was the additional disturbance which would be caused as a result of the extended licensed hours.  The objectors felt that the Club already created an element of noise nuisance up to 2.00am and that any further disturbance after that time was completely unacceptable.  In addition, the objectors were also concerned about the noise created in the vicinity of the Club and in the car park by patrons leaving the premises after it had closed.

Mr Archer pointed out that, following changes in legislation in relation to liquor licensing, the differential between nightclub hours and those of other premises had been eroded and that in the circumstances he felt that an extension of the music and dancing licensing hours was required to maintain the differential.

Mr Archer was of the opinion that with proper control later opening hours would permit patrons to leave gradually which in itself could reduce disturbance in the car park and surrounding areas.  No complaints had been received direct by the Club from adjoining residents and every effort was made to address any noise problems which did arise.  If the extension was granted he would endeavour to operate in a sympathetic manner towards neighbours.

After a short adjournment during which Members retired to consider the application to vary the public entertainment licence, the Chairman read out the following statement:

“Mr R A Archer has held a licence to operate Pantiles as a nightclub for a number of years and the establishment has been allowed to remain open until 2.00am with very few complaints in recent years.

Mr Archer has now applied for the hours permitted by the music and dancing licence to be extended to permit the premises to remain open for music and dancing until 3.00am on the mornings following Friday and Saturday evening.  These opening hours do not comply with Council guidelines but this in itself does not debar the licence from being granted, as each application has to be considered on its merits.

The Chief Environmental Health Officer has not raised any objections to the proposal but has given very detailed information regarding the layout and location of the premises and the noise levels which are experienced in the vicinity of the premises both at times when music and dancing is not taking place and when the public is present and music is being played.  

Residents in the immediate vicinity of the premises have been informed of the proposals for extending the licence hours and numerous objections have been received.  Unfortunately none of the people objecting has been able to be present at the meeting but consideration has nevertheless been given to the points which have been raised.

Mr Archer has drawn attention to the way in which the nightclub has been operated successfully without creating undue disturbance to residents and the procedures which have been adopted to ensure that noise nuisance is minimised.  Careful consideration has also been given to the points raised by Mr Archer and the fact that he feels that he will be commercially disadvantaged if the licence hours are not extended. This latter point is not, however, a relevant consideration.

Mr Archer responded positively to a suggestion made by the Panel for a reduction in tempo and volume of music half an hour before the permitted time for closure.

The Sub-Committee has also had regard to the Council guidelines which have been formulated to ensure that the owners of premises licensed for public entertainment in the area are treated fairly and consistently and that where residents are likely to be involved any disruption, however limited, is restricted to the least unsociable hours.

With regard to Pantiles, the Sub-Committee accepts the premise put forward by many objectors that having moved to the area they have accepted an element of disturbance. However, it would appear that such disturbance is minimal. The points, which have been made by the objectors, have received careful consideration. However, it is felt that, due to the control exercised by the licence holder in relation to the premises and also the lack of formal complaints which have been received about disturbance, an exemption from the guidelines would be justified. Accordingly the annual public entertainment licence will be renewed with a variation to permit music and dancing to take place until 3am on Saturday and Sunday mornings.â€

RESOLVED, That the annual public entertainment licence for music and dancing in respect of Pantiles, 16 London Road, Bagshot, Surrey be varied to permit music and dancing to take place until 3.00am on Saturday and Sunday mornings subject to the following conditions being attached to the music and dancing licence:

CHAIRMAN