‘Noise nui­sance’ ho­tel is is muted after com­plaints

Herald Express - - News - BY ED OLD­FIELD

TOR­BAY Coun­cil has taken ac­tion against a Devon ho­tel after a sum­mer of com­plaints from vil­lage neigh­bours about noise from out­door film shows and live mu­sic.

Coun­cil­lors de­cided that events at Churston Manor, at Churston Fer­rers, near Brix­ham, were hav­ing a dam­ag­ing ef­fect on res­i­dents liv­ing nearby.

Tor­bay Coun­cil’s li­cens­ing sub-com­mit­tee de­cided to re­move the ho­tel’s ex­emp­tion un­der the Live Mu­sic Act 2012, which al­lowed am­pli­fied mu­sic be­tween 8am and 11pm as long as there were no more than 200 peo­ple in the au­di­ence.

Coun­cil­lors held a hear­ing to re­view the premises li­cence after an ap­pli­ca­tion from He­len Glaze­brook, who lives in the vil­lage, on the grounds the ho­tel was caus­ing a “pub­lic nui­sance”.

Her ap­pli­ca­tion said dur­ing the sum­mer there had been reg­u­lar per­for­mances of live and recorded mu­sic and film shows in the ho­tel’s grounds at high vol­ume.

A state­ment with the ap­pli­ca­tion, which was re­ceived by the coun­cil on Au­gust 30, said: “The stag­ing of these events are in the gar­den of an his­toric build­ing, with the stage and am­pli­fied mu­sic di­rected to­wards res­i­den­tial prop­er­ties.

“There has been no thought or con­sul­ta­tion with the lo­cal res­i­dents re­gard­ing the stag­ing of any of the out­door events which are caus­ing a huge amount of dis­tur­bance both to prop­er­ties in the im­me­di­ate lo­cal­ity, and even be­ing very loudly au­di­ble in more dis­tant prop­er­ties.”

It claimed lo­cal res­i­dents had asked ver­bally and in writ­ing for the ho­tel to re­duce the vol­ume, but the re­quests were dis­missed or ig­nored. The state­ment listed 11 events in July and Au-

Churston Manor ho­tel has had the term of its live mu­sic li­cence changed gust at the ho­tel with live mu­sic or film screen­ings out­doors.

The sub-com­mit­tee found the res­i­dents had told the ho­tel about the prob­lems, but no im­prove­ment mea­sures had been put in place be­fore stag­ing fur­ther events, which was “wholly irresponsible”.

The des­ig­nated premises li­cence holder had held more events de­spite the threat of a noise abatement no­tice “in com­plete dis­re­gard of its nearby res­i­dents”, and later ad­mit­ted “that they had got things wrong”.

The sub-com­mit­tee hear­ing on Oc­to­ber 25 was played sound clips said to have been taken from neigh­bours homes and gar­dens. Mem­bers de­cided they pro­vided “un­equiv­o­cal ev­i­dence that the premises’ ac­tiv­i­ties were un­der­min­ing ‘the pre­ven­tion of pub­lic nui­sance’ li­cens­ing ob­jec­tive and in turn, were pre­vent­ing res­i­dents’ rea­son­able and peace­ful en­joy­ment of their homes.”

And they also de­cided the li­cence holder’s de­nial that the sound clips were from events at the ho­tel showed “a com­plete dis­re­gard to the in­tegrity and suf­fer­ing of those res­i­dents who had com­plained”.

The ho­tel’s premises su­per­vi­sor Jonathan Smith, one of the di­rec­tors, told neigh­bours in a let­ter the ho­tel had been stag­ing live events to help raise in­come to se­cure the his­toric build­ing and 35 jobs. He apol­o­gised for any in­con­ve­nience caused to vil­lagers dur­ing the sum­mer and said they would be in­vited to a meet­ing to hear about mea­sures pro­posed by au­dio con­sul­tants to avoid fu­ture noise nui­sance.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.