Agenda item

The Sub-Committee is asked to consider the objection notice given by Environmental Health in respect of a temporary event notice given by Caroline Jones for proposed licensable activities on 13 and 14 December 2024 at Whispers Bar, 5 High Street, Purley, Croydon, CR8 2AF.

The Chair outlined the procedures for the Licensing Hearing in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s protocol.

The objector, Stanley Mushawatu, who had submitted representations was also present.

The Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Licensing introduced the application to the Sub Committee.

The Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Licensing explained that the Council’s pollution team had issued an objection notice that was issued following receipt of a temporary event notice from Caroline Jones in respect of proposed licensable activities at Whispers Bar 5, High Street, Purley, and those activities were proposed to take place on the 13th and 14th of December 2024.

The Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Licensing informed the Sub Committee that the premises at 5 High Street, Purley already had a premises licence in place, however, the premises licence did not permit licensing activities for the hours requested on the dates specified, which was why it was necessary for the applicant to submit a temporary event notice.

The Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Licensing explained that Members had been provided with further documentation which had been supplied by both parties.

The objecting party was given the opportunity to speak. Stanley Mushawatu advised:

• The Council’s pollution team started to receive complaints from the 15^th December 2023.
• Officers had visited the site several times to speak to the owners to address the issues affecting the residents.
• The whispers bar was located on the High Street, opposite a block of flats.
• There were eight complainants who had raised issues regarding loud music, particularly the use of a microphone and the bass from the speaker’s playing music.
• After receiving several complaints, there was joint visit with the pollution team, licensing team, the police and the anti social licensing team on the 25 August. During the visit they found that the music was quite loud around 10pm.
• Officers went to the complainants flat to see how impactful the noise levels were with the windows open and closed and they could clearly hear the base and the DJ shouting on the microphone.
• Officers then went to the bar and spoke with the manager, who asked the DJ to lower the volume however the DJ ignored the request initially, before agreeing to lower the volume after a second time of asking.
• There was an upstairs lounge where people went to relax and have drinks, during the visit officers observed several open windows.
• The bar had issues with their entrance system, most venues had a two-door system which would help stop music to escape into neighbouring properties. However, Whispers bar only had one set of doors so whenever the doorman opened the door to allow two or three people to enter the noise would escape into the neighbouring residential properties.
• Officers explained to staff at the Whispers Bar that this issue would need to be addressed as the one set of doors used for the entrance was not a long term control measure.
• A staff members pointed out that it would cost quite a lot of money to implement such measures to control the noise.
• The staff member tried to shift the blame for the noise complaints onto other premises, however, when officers visited the site this was not the case as they witnessed that the music was coming from the Whispers Bar.
• The reason officers decided to object to the temporary event notice was because they had no confidence that the management staff would adhere to best practices and no confidence that the management would come up with long term measures to address the residents’ concerns.
• The pollution team had also received several calls on a weekly basis from residents in other apartment blocks, to complain that they were being affected. There was also an allegation that the premises was not complying with the proposed closing times, this was currently being investigated by the licensing team.
• Officers had logged the times that they had received the emails from the complainants but that did not necessarily mean that was the time when the residents had been affected by the noise, so there could have been a misconception.
• The pollution team were not able to constantly guide the premises owners, they needed to be independent to be able to manage site and comply with the licensing objectives.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the objector advised that there had not been any direct communication between those who have complained about the noise from the premises and the applicant.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the objector explained that officers did not always use decibel levels as a measure of noise disturbance, sometimes officers would go into the complainant's property to assess their experience with the noise. The noise levels that was observed on the night of the site visit was intrusive enough to affect any normal person in their property.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the objector explained that he did not see any speakers in the upstairs lounge of the premises, however, the music being played downstairs was loud enough to entertain people who were in the upstairs lounge. The flats that were being disturbed by the loud music were facing the upstairs lounge, so when the windows were open the noise would escape directly into these flats.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the objector explained that when he visited a residents’ flat, he could clearly hear the DJ singing and shouting on the microphone, which added to the noise disturbance.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the objector stated that there were nine complainants for noise disturbances from the premises. Residents from several surrounding roads had complained about being disturbed by the loud music played at the Whispers Bar. The problem with whispers bar was that when the management staff were presented with the complaints from residents, they had often tried to shift the blame to another venue.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the objector stated there was another premises behind the Whispers Bar, however officers made sure to also observe that premises noise levels during their site visit.  The owner of the other premises had also been spoken by officers about their noise levels and the situation had improved enough for residents to stop complaining about them.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the objector explained that there was no smoking area in the back of the venue, so customers tended to use the front of the premises to hang out and smoke. Neighbours had pointed out that when people hung out in front of the site it did not help because they would often laugh, chant and sing along to music which disturbed them further.