Annette Bryan and Rachel Hall, from Licensing and Pollution Control, will deliver a presentation to the meeting.
Minutes:
Annette Bryan, (Environmental Health Team Manager with Leicester City Council), and Rachel Hall, (Licensing Team Manager with Leicester City Council), introduced themselves to the meeting.
They then made a presentation on their work, a copy of which is attached at the end of these minutes for information. During the presentation, particular attention was drawn to the following points:-
· Another type of noise dealt with was dogs barking, (slide 4). This was done in conjunction with the Dog Warden. When dealing with commercial noise, the Noise Team officers also worked with other services, such as licensing and planning officers;
· The main experience of noise was at weekends, or after 6.00 pm. As the noise team worked Tuesday – Friday during office hours, plus evenings and Saturday nights, people already having noise monitored had to be prioritised;
· There was one Noise Team officer on duty during the day, but at night there was a lead officer and an assistant. The office also was staffed during office hours. On average, there were approximately 12 – 15 calls over a night, but there could be as many as 20 – 30 in the summer;
· Under current legislation, noise had to be heard from within premises. Digital audio tape recording equipment was available for use by people experiencing noise problems outside of office hours or for a very short duration. However, there was a waiting list of about 4 – 5 weeks for this;
· When taking action over noise nuisance, officers first sent an informal letter and asked those accused of making the noise to come to an interview. If the noise continued, formal action could be taken in the form of legal notices, seizure of noise equipment or for pubs and clubs, a premises’ licence could be reviewed;
· Council officers always contacted the police when advised of disturbance by noise from alarms. These reports were monitored by police control and officers could visit the premises if there were signs of a break in. The police also passed relevant noise complaints to the Council;
· Under the Licensing Act, the Licensing Team could license premises for the sale and supply of alcohol. Taxi vehicles and drivers also were licensed, (slide 13);
· There was no set time for when alcohol could be served in the morning, so if there were no objections premises licences were for the times requested;
· If a licence was reviewed, any of the outcomes of the review were subject to appeal. If a premises licence was revoked and an appeal was made, those premises could stay open until the appeal period had expired; and
· The correct e-mail address for the Noise Team was noiseteam@leicester.gov.uk (not as shown in the attached presentation).
Concern was expressed that granting licences to premises to serve alcohol in the morning could be a problem if it was abused by groups such as street drinkers. The Chair reminded the meeting that the Council had tried a scheme under which alcohol over 5% proof could not be sold in London Road or Granby Street in the morning. This had been quite successful.
Concern also was raised that putting recording equipment in a bedroom at night was intrusive. Annette Bryan advised that to be able to deal with noise problems properly, the noise had to be witnessed in the right room.
Councillor Senior left the room for the discussion on Dielectric night club, as a relative had a property near the club. (See minute 75, “Declarations of Interest”, above.)
The Chair confirmed that complaints had been received about the Dielectric night club, but the applicant had stated that the Noise Team had confirmed that noise levels were not excessive. Annette Bryan advised that the venue had been visited before the application for a licence had been made and the applicant had been told what conditions the Noise Team would want on the licence to ensure that its operation was in keeping with other premises in the area. For this reason, the Noise Team had made no representation when the licence was applied for, so had not been able to make any representation at the hearing to consider objections.
In reply to a question, the meeting noted that, if there were concerns outside of office hours about the way premises were operating, (for example, if it was believed that a club was trading beyond its permitted hours), the Police should be contacted. The Police had licensing officers who worked closely with the Council, but the way in which the Police dealt with an incident would depend on the nature of that incident.
Councillor Senior returned to the meeting.
It was noted that, even when licensed premises were operating correctly, large groups of people smoking could gather outside and they could generate a lot of noise. This situation had arisen because the legislation regarding smoking had been introduced after the licensing legislation.
Conditions on licences had to cover things that were in the control of licence holders, such as directing smokers to a certain area or part of the premises, but this could not happen at every location, (for example, if a pub had no outside area).
There were no specific restrictions on opening hours for premises in residential areas. If no objections were made to the licence applied for, it would be granted on the terms set out in the application. If objections were received, the Council would hold a hearing to determine if the licence should be granted.
A Notice that an application had been made for a licence had to be put in a local newspaper and posted somewhere people were able to reasonably read it at the premises. It also was posted on the Council’s website. Letters were not sent to people living in the vicinity.
Residents were invited to contact the Ward Members if problems were being experienced with a venue. If needed, the Ward Members could initiate a review of that premises licence on residents’ behalf.
It was noted that it was an offence for someone working in a pub to serve a person who was already intoxicated. Enforcement officers visited premises to check that this was not happening. If they were advised of concerns about particular premises then visits could be made to these.
AGREED:
1) That the points raised above be noted; and
2) That the Team Manger (Noise) be asked to confirm that it is a legal requirement to record noise from bedrooms at night, or whether the recording can be taken from less intrusive locations.