Venue: Committee Room A, South Walks House, South Walks Road, Dorchester, DT1 1UZ (DT1 1EE for sat nav). View directions
Contact: Elaine Tibble 01305 224202 Email: elaine.tibble@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Election of Chairman and Statement for the Procedure of the Meeting PDF 75 KB To elect a Chairman for the meeting and the Chairman to
present and explain the procedure for the meeting. Minutes: Proposed by Cllr Wheller, seconded by Cllr Cocking. Decision: That Cllr Parker be appointed Chairman for the
duration of the meeting. |
|
Apologies To receive any apologies for
absence. Minutes: An apology for absence was received from Cllr Carole Jones. |
|
Declarations of Interest To disclose any
pecuniary, other registerable or personal interest as set out in the adopted
Code of Conduct. In making their disclosure councillors are asked to state the
agenda item, the nature of the interest and any action they propose to take as
part of their declaration. If required,
further advice should be sought from the Monitoring Officer in advance of the
meeting. Minutes: No declarations of interest were made at the meeting. |
|
Objection to a Temporary Event Notice PDF 100 KB To consider an Objection Notice to a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) served by John Morgan for the Garden and Car Park, Mustons Yard, Shaftesbury, SP7 8AD. Additional documents: Minutes: The Licencing Officer introduced the report for an objection
to a Temporary Event Notice (TEN). The TEN applied for was to permit the sale
of alcohol on the premises and the provision of regulated entertainment between
the hours of 14.00 and 23.00 on Monday, 21 June 2021. An objection notice had
been received from Environmental Health. The options available to the
Sub-Committee were to either issue a counter notice or not issue a counter
notice. There were no questions of the Licencing Officer. Mr Morgan, the applicant, explained that the TEN applied for
would be used for a musical celebration of young talent. The applicant felt
inspired by the date of 21 June because it was the Summer Solstice and the date
where social distancing measures were due to end. The Sub-Committee asked questions of the applicant. In
answers to questions, the applicant explained that: ·
He felt the proposed times for the event were
acceptable. ·
Clearing up could be done the following day to
avoid disturbance after the event. ·
The event would be ticketed to limit the amount
of people. ·
He felt complaints would be made because
residents do not like the type of music. ·
The PA System would face away from residential
buildings to help reduce noise. ·
Good hygiene would be maintained by limiting the
amount of people to 99, when there is space for more than that, and webinars on
good hygiene at events had been attended. The Senior Technical Officer, representing Environmental
Health, presented their case for objecting to the TEN. He explained that the
event had an early start and late finish time and that this was an ordinary
Monday with local residents going to school or work the next day. There were two
current complaints in the area which were related to private parties which
happened in the same place as the event would be held, therefore it was likely
that this event would cause complaints from local residents. The complaints
that could be made are not likely to be related to the type of music but rather
the level of noise. The proposed event lacked a noise management plan and the
PA system pointed away from the residential buildings would not reduce noise. In response to questions asked of the Senior Technical
Officer, it was confirmed that: a noise management plan was not specifically
asked for, but it would be expected for an event in a built up area; and that
complaints would still be likely if the event was shorter. The Sub-Committee was reminded that the proposed event could
not be changed after the hearing had started and that the options available
were to either issue a counter notice or not issue a counter notice. All parties were given the opportunity to sum up their case. The decision would be sent to all parties within 5 working
days and all parties had the right to appeal the decision to the magistrates’
court within 21 days. |
|
Urgent items To consider any items of
business which the Chairman has had prior notification and considers to be
urgent pursuant to section 100B (4) b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The
reason for the urgency shall be recorded in the minutes. Minutes: There were no urgent items. |
|
Exempt Business To move the exclusion of the press and the public
for the following item in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within
the meaning of paragraph x of schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972
(as amended). The public and the press will be asked to leave the
meeting whilst the item of business is considered. Minutes: Proposed by Cllr Parker, seconded by Cllr
Cocking. Decision: That the press and the public be
excluded for the following item(s) in view of the likely disclosure of exempt
information within the meaning of paragraph 3 of schedule 12 A to the Local
Government Act 1972 (as amended). The Sub-Committee retired to make their
decision. Decision: That a Counter Notice be issued. Reason for the Decision: The Sub-Committee carefully considered all of the
documents presented to it and the oral and written representations made by the
parties. They had regard to the four Licensing Objectives, the Home
Office Statutory Guidance and the Dorset Council Statement of Licensing Policy
2021-2026. The
Sub-Committee understood, and took into account, the
representations made by the Applicant. He explained that the event would take place
on ‘Freedom Day’ and the solstice and was intended to promote young musicians,
DJs and people providing technical support who had been unable to perform
during the Coronavirus pandemic. He said
that the performance area would be within a sunken location in the garden and
the PA would be pointed away from the adjoining residential properties. He further explained that the event would be
ticketed and clear up could be done the following day to avoid disturbance
after 23:00. The Sub-Committee also took into account the
Environmental Health Officer’s representations that the event would be held for
a long period, from 14:00 to 23:00 on a weekday when most local residents would
be working or going to school the following day. He said that the location meant that the
direction of the PA would make very little difference to noise and that no
noise management plan had been submitted; as a result there would be no control
over the level of music. However, the Sub-Committee considered that, having
regard to the Licensing Objectives, and in particular the prevention of public
nuisance a counter-notice should be issued.
This was due to the length of the event, its start and end times on a
week day which would be likely to cause unacceptable noise for people living
and working in the area and the lack of any noise plan which could have
mitigated the noise impact. |