Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
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
Report author: Chris Devine
Publication date: 22/01/2025
Date of decision: 21/01/2025
Decided at meeting: 21/01/2025 - Licensing Sub-Committee C
Accompanying Documents: