home - committee - volume - faq's - help -search - meeting - previous - next

V28-315 : WHERRY HOTEL, LOWESTOFT, VARIATION OF HOURS

The report of the Chief Executive detailed a new application from the above premises for a variation of their present Public Entertainment Licence for increased hours of operation on Friday and Saturday nights from 1.00am to 2.00am. The report reminded members that at the meeting of the Panel held on 15 February 2000, a similar request, including an extension to 12 midnight on Sundays, had been refused on the grounds that it was likely to lead to further late night noise complaints and adversely affect the amenities of the residents in and around a predominately residential area.

The owner, Mr. Braithwaite, had asked for permission to address the Panel, and in order for the Wherry Hotel to receive a fair hearing, members agreed to suspend Standing Orders to allow him to put their case before the Panel.

RESOLVED

1. That Standing Orders be suspended for the management of the Wherry Hotel to put their case in requesting a variation to the hours of their Public Entertainment Licence.

Mr. Braithwaite thanked the Panel for the opportunity to put his case. He asked if the Chairman should also declare an interest as a resident of the nearby area and commented on lack of knowledge shown by her previous suggestion that his door stewards should assist in policing people away from the area, which was clearly beyond their jurisdiction.

Mr. Braithwaite reminded members that for over five years he had campaigned for 2.00am closing in Lowestoft, a factor which Gt. Yarmouth, Ipswich and Norwich already possessed, and which as a result saw income of up to £2 million per annum lost to those other towns. Now that two premises in Lowestoft had been granted a 2.00am licence, he felt he was now competing not only with the other towns, but with nightclubs in the same town, on an unfair, footing. Comparisons to previous years showed a drop in the Wherry's income of £35k since April 2000, a figure projected to £180k over a full year. He felt in an area which had just been granted Assisted Area status, further obstacles were not needed in business.

No full complaints had been received since the Wherry's receipt of their 1.00am Licence, just one verbal warning. There had been no letter of complaint during 1999 or in 2000 up until the time of the Local Elections. He had not understood the content of the letter from the Police with their observations, and could only interpret that they agreed with the Council's views. Mention was made in the appeal by the Broadland Hotel's Barts Bar of 14 letters of complaint, which he felt had been wrongly obtained during canvassing for May 2000's Local Elections, when a flyer printed on Waveney District Council headed paper had been circulated against the 2.00am applications. He wondered if this was improper use of election materials, and informed members that 14 replies out of Oulton Broad ward's electorate of 5,296 amounted to just 0.26% of the people. Presumably it was not an issue for the remaining 99%.

Mr. Braithwaite challenged the Police's concern of being able to police the two `nightclub areas' of Lowestoft at the same time. He felt they had successfully done so since the previous 1.00am closing time had been granted. Mr. Braithwaite quoted the Wherry Hotel's present Local Taxation NNDR figures, which was more in total than the two premises granted the 2.00am Licence added together; he felt therefore he was now almost subsidising their good fortune.

Mr. Braithwiate added that he would readily accept the Director of Housing and Environmental Services' suggestion of a temporary Licence, and had been committed to do all he could to assist in noise attenuation measures. Any further suggested changes would also be put into effect. Already he had installed an electronic sound eliminator, which addressed the problem 63 and 125 hertz bass drum beats and acoustic panels had been fitted to the outside doors to turn the sound back in.

In conclusion, Mr. Braithwaite drew the Panel's attention to two articles in the Lowestoft Journal, one of which had congratulated Lowestoft and Oulton Broad on receiving the 2.00am closing, and the second which dealt with attracting families and younger people, again to Lowestoft and Oulton Broad. He asked the Panel to seriously take into account that most people visiting Lowestoft in the 18-25 age group would in fact be those on boating holidays, mooring at Oulton Broad.

Councillor Robertson asked how the loss to the community figure of up to £2 million had been calculated and could it be verified. Mr. Braithwaite replied that the figures were from a 1994 survey which he had previously passed to the Council's Legal Section. Other financial details quoted could be passed to the Legal Section if required. Additionally, the Wherry Hotel had been dependent on its nightclub activities over its hotel income since the 1980's. Councillor Robertson then asked to see a copy of the `flyer' on Waveney headed paper, a fax of which Mr. Braithwaite passed around the Panel.

Councillor Graham reminded Mr. Braithwaite that varying closing hours were operated by most authorities, and that the Lowestoft Journal had stated that hours of closure would be individual to each premise. Gt. Yarmouth's policy was identical and quoted in the Chief Executive's report.

Councillor Austin recognised that the problems as encountered took place after closing time, away from the premises. He asked what the Wherry Hotel could do to minimise this aspect. Mr Braithwaite replied that with all premises having a 2.00am closing, this would in fact assist the dispersal of customers, as they would not all be congregated on the sea front. With 2.00am closing, people would steadily drift away between 12.30 and 2.00, further assisting dispersal, as not everybody stayed until the end. Notices were displayed asking people to leave quietly in the residential area, but outside the Hotel his jurisdiction ended. He reiterated that no official complaints had been received since the introduction of 1.00am closing, until the 14 letters, and that the Wherry could not compete financially on unequal terms to its competitors.

The Chairman felt that although a resident of Oulton Broad ward, her dwelling place was far enough away from The Wherry as to not consider a declaration of interest of any kind.

The Director of Housing and Environmental Services reminded members that the concern of Environmental Health was with noise emanation, which unduly affected some local residents. There had been 18 objections to the last application, which it was Environmental Health's role to verify. Each objector had then been sent a letter advising of the complaints mechanism and updating them on the control measures since put into operation. Little response had been received after those letters had been distributed, although the issue was clearly contentious for those who had replied.

The appropriate control measures that Environmental Health had suggested for the Wherry Hotel were that all doors and windows should be kept closed, this would particularly reduce the bass drum beat of the 63 and 125 hertz band levels. The Hotel was asked to investigate the feasibility of a `lobby' by the doors facing the quay. To date response on the latter had not been received. Indications from local residents confirmed that recent noise had been lower, but on at least one occasion since the last refusal the doors had been left open in hot weather.

The recommendation of Environmental Health was based on technical evidence. Operation was a management issue for the Hotel to keep on top of, which the Panel could decide whether they had confidence in. Whether a 1.00am or 2.00am closing, these control measures presently continued to be flaunted occasionally. Two more letters of complaint were made available for circulation to the Panel.

Councillor Robertson asked if the lobby amounted to the noise attenuation panels Mr. Braithwaite had already mentioned. The Director replied the premises had not been visited since this installation. The Chief Executive reminded the Panel that any motion of approval could be made `subject to' such items.

Councillor Shepherd asked if the noise problem was simply when the door were open. The Director replied that the 63 hertz band was the main problem, which could easily be addressed by the sound system's graphic equaliser. Councillor Shepherd expressed concerns for the hearing of those in the nightclubs, which the Director reminded was a Health and Safety issue, not a Licensing matter.

The Chief Executive reminded the Panel that the application was for a Public Entertainment Licence, which did not affect the hiring for other functions such as weddings and other parties. The area was of mixed residential and commercial use, and there were other late night establishments in the Broadland Hotel's Barts Bar and the George Borrow Hotel who were also likely to seek a 2.00pm Licence should the Wherry's be approved. Additionally there were the nearby Late Night Food Houses, which would seek to stay open to cater for the later passing trade, and it was there that further disturbance may occur. The Police had added that 1.00am closing saw melees in the area until 2.00am, therefore 2.00am closing could see those extend to 3.00am. On the opposite side of the coin refusal, as Mr. Braithwaite had stated, would effect the viability of the Wherry Hotel.

The Chief Executive felt the Council's present policy was workable. The recent Government guidance in fact strengthened the policy, suggesting more localised timings. The seafront area was covered by CCTV, which assisted in the policing. Consultation with neighbouring authorities in Gt. Yarmouth, Ipswich and Norwich had shown similar policies, Yarmouth for instance similarly licensing their seafront establishments to 2.00am, whilst those nearer the town closed earlier. The Chief Executive recommended the same resolution as the previous application in February 2000.

Councillor Robertson asked if the outcome of the Broadland Hotel's Barts Bar appeal against the refusal of a 2.00am extension to their initial application was known. The Chief Executive confirmed that the appeal had been dismissed.

RESOLVED

2. That the application to vary the Annual Public Entertainment Licence for the Brown Boat Suite, Wherry Hotel, Lowestoft, on Friday and Saturday nights from 1.00am to 2.00am, be refused on the grounds that it is likely to lead to further late night noise complaints and adversely affect the amenities of the residents of a predominately residential area.

(Councillor Thomson declared a non pecuniary interest in the above item, but as the interest was not "clear and substantial" remained in the room, taking no part in the debate or voting).


Volume 28 Minute 315

powered by Oultwood Web Technology

© Waveney District Council