Agenda item

This was a late item added to the agenda as Item 7.

The report of the Chief Officer (Elections and Regulatory) advised Members of

a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) which has been received by the Licensing Authority

in respect of an event at Premier Banqueting Suite, Stoney Rock Lane, Burmantofts, Leeds, LS9 7TZ.

The following were in attendance for this item:

·  Elizabeth Hebbert – Environmental Protection Team

·  TatineNaruhana – Proposed Premises User (PPU) for the TEN

The Legal Officer set out the procedure to be followed.

The Licensing Officer presented the application, highlighting the following points:

·  Members were advised that a Temporary Event Notice had been received and that Leeds City Council’s Environmental Protection Team had served an objection notice on the grounds of public nuisance.

·  The PPU was Tatine Naruhana and a copy of the temporary event notice was attached to the late item report pack at Appendix A.

·  The Temporary Event Notice was for the provision of regulated entertainment from 23:00 on the 12^th of August 2023 to 02:00 on the 13^th of August 2023. The maximum number of people including staff on the premises during the event had been specified as 280.

·  Members were advised that there was no premises licence in force for the suite.

The Environmental Health Officer in attendance outlined the following information to the Sub-Committee:

·  The objection notice had been served due to public nuisance associated with people leaving the premises, slamming taxi doors and noise from music, with residential housing bordering the carpark.

·  The premises had a history of 10 years of complaints, mostly comprised of disturbance from noise, sometimes until 3:00am.

·  An event had been held at the premises on the 8^th of April 2023 which had gone on past midnight and the disturbance to local residents had been noted.

·  Complaints had been re-occurring over the last year regarding car doors slamming, glass bins being emptied and guests leaving at late hours. Noise monitoring had been used from the 22^nd to the 24^th of July 2022 and the equipment had detected noise and disturbance until 3:00am.

·  The evidence gathered had been sufficient for a material complaint and serving the objection notice.

·  The Premises Events Manager had been contacted to notify them of the complaints received and requested improved measures for noise control however, the complaints continued. They had been advised not to hold events past 23:00 to limit the impact on residents and responded stating the Environmental Protection Team should object when necessary.

·  A planning application from September 2022 had approved the hours of operation for the premises as 9:00 until 23:00 Monday to Friday and 9:00 until 22:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. This TEN was proposed outside these hours.

·  There was great potential for disturbance from the event if allowed as it was for up to 280 people, late into the night and within a residential area.

The PPU outlined the following information the Sub-Committee:

·  The premises had been booked for the event in June 2022 with the Events Manager stating the PPU was able to easily apply for a TEN to licence the event.

·  They were unaware of the issues raised in the Environmental Protection Team’s objection and likely would have not submitted the TEN if it was going to receive objection.

·  Part of the planned event would consist of a ritual which would need to take place after midnight, hence the late hours applied for. The PPU would require the venue until around 12:30am and then the event could conclude.

·  Awareness for the sensitivity of noise in a residential area was outlined, with the PPU residing on a busy, often loud street.

In response to questions from Sub-Committee Members, the following was

confirmed:

·  The Events Manager had stated it is customers that apply for TENs and the Environmental Protection Team should object in their capacity as a relevant person. The process for the premises taking bookings and advising customers was unclear with the premises not holding a licence.

·  The Events Manager had stated the Environmental Protection Team should object as a means of controlling and monitoring events after 23:00.

·  The event held on the 8^th of April 2023 had been a wedding and the TEN had been submitted by a different user to the PPU.

·  An abatement notice had been served on the premises in July 2022 following a series of complaints, further noise complaints had been received after this.

·  Complaints against the premises had been sporadic and difficult to track; the sufficient evidence to submit the abatement notice had been via noise monitoring data.

·  The public complaints were mainly regarding out of hours disturbance on Friday and Saturday nights with events being held later than expected.

·  The Environmental Protection Team will continue to object to TENs at this premises due to the proximity to residents, the history of complaints and no proposed measures in response to advice to control noise.

·  Guidance to the PPU had not been clear from the Events Manager regarding notices or objections against the premises, the advice had just been to submit a TEN for the event.

·  The PPU would be content with a condition to hold the event until 12:30am, however, the Sub-Committee were unable to add conditions to the TEN and it had to be determined against the times proposed. The event had been proposed until 2:00am to allow time to celebrate after the ceremony.

·  If the PPU were to submit a new TEN with an amended earlier finishing time, the Environmental Protection Team would likely be permissive of this, but it would still be in breach of the planning approved hours of operation.

·  It was outlined that the Premises Owners and Event Manager should communicate to customers that they are without a licence and events beyond 23:00 were against Planning Approval. A breach of planning control would be against the owner and a TEN would not supersede this.

Sub-Committee Members were sympathetic to the PPU following the lack of advice from the Premises Owner and Events Manager and would have found it useful for them to be present at the meeting.

RESOLVED – To issue a counter notice against the event to prevent the event from taking place.