RECORD OF A HEARING
FOR A TEMPORARY EVENT NOTICE FOR MILL HEY BREW HOUSE, MILL HEY,
HAWORTH (DOCUMENT “R”)
Members of the
Licensing Panel:Councillors Slater (Chair), Godwin and Ellis
Parties to the
Events Manager - Witness
Mr Mitchum, Noise
Mitigation Consultant - Witness
Environmental Health Unit, Bradford Council
The licensing officer in attendance
summarised the background to the application and valid
representations received as set out in the report. Members were informed that the Council’s
Environmental Health Unit had submitted an objection to the event
on the grounds of prevention of public nuisance, as regular
complaints of noise had been received from local residents since
the premises had opened as the Mill Hey Brew House. The Licensee had been served with an Abatement
Notice and a review application had been considered on 11 September
2018, which had resulted in the dis-application of the Live Music
Act 2012. It was strongly suspected
that should the event take place further complaints would be
received and the Environmental Health Unit would have to initiate
prosecution proceedings. The licensing
officer reported that it was unclear whether the regulated
entertainment and sale of alcohol would be provided inside or
outside the premises.
The applicant addressed the Panel
stating that the event would be held on 25 and 26 May 2019 and had
successfully raised money for charity the previous
year. He confirmed that alcohol would
only be served inside the premises and the licensing objectives had
been complied with since the review.
The applicant’s Noise Mitigation Consultant reported that he
had 25 years experience of working with venues in relation to noise
mitigation and would ensure that the event went ahead without
causing a nuisance.
In response to questions from the
Panel, the applicant and his witnesses reported that:
The Noise Mitigation Consultant had been trained to effectively use
the equipment to ISO standards, which would keep the event within
The levels would be mutually agreed.
Music events were covered by legislation and a sensible limit could
The music would be measured over a 15 minute time frame and must
remain within the set threshold. The
noise would be constantly monitored and logs would be
A typical level for a small event would be 89-92 decibels.
If the noise levels could be agreed the event would be held
outside, but if not it would take place inside the premises and
sound limiters had now been fitted.
The entertainment would work to a schedule and cease at
10pm. Previous events had not exceeded
the timescales and last year it had finished at 10pm.
The entertainment would probably consist of two live bands and
between six to eight acts per day, however, this had not been
agreed as yet.
If agreed, the live music would take place outside and inside if
not, however, it would be weather permitting.
A copy of the Abatement Notice had been seen and it did not refer
The Noise Mitigation Consultant had recently been engaged and had
worked on similar size events.
An appeal against the Abatement Notice had not been made.
Complaints against functions inside the premises had led to the
Abatement Notice being served.
It was believed that the noise complaints were vexatious and none
had been received recently. Changes had
also been made to the premises since the review.
The Council’s Environmental
Health Unit representative stated that they did not want the event
to take place as they believed that it would cause
issues. He confirmed that an Abatement
Notice had been served that clearly stated the premises had to
‘abate nuisance’, however, the Licensee had failed to
acknowledge this and three contraventions had occurred. The Environmental Health Unit operated a noise
witness service and officers had observed noise in a
resident’s property. It was
appreciated that a sound advisor had been engaged, however, they
had no confidence in the event being run without noise
issues. Members were informed that if
the Temporary Event Notice was granted it could result in a breach
and another contravention notice being served. Noise was a statutory nuisance and had to be at a
reasonable level. It was acknowledged
that Abatement Notices were not served without due consideration
and the Environmental Health Unit always tried to engage with the
business or person involved. The
Council’s Environmental Health Unit representative explained
that the serving of an Abatement Notice and three subsequent
contraventions was a serious matter. He
respected the experience of the sound advisor, however, like for
like could not be compared. The
Environmental Protection Act 1990 did not specify decibels in
relation to statutory nuisance and the Environmental Health Unit
were not confident that the event would take place without causing
The Council’s Environmental
Health Unit representative then replied to Members’ queries
The premises could technically continue to operate following being
served an Abatement Notice.
The Environmental Health Unit did not want a further review of the
premises to be undertaken.
He believed that complaints were still being received but could not
confirm this point or how many had been submitted.
It was believed that issues would be caused based on the track
record of the premises and that the Abatement Notice was
extant. Three contraventions had been
served on the premises and a prosecution case was being
considered. If the event went ahead
contraventions of the Abatement Notice would probably occur.
Guidance was available for outside events that referred to decibel
Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 a statutory nuisance
could be served an Abatement Notice.
Decibel levels were not part of the legislation and it was based on
the subjective view of an officer.
The premises wanted to hold live music events and an Abatement
Notice had been served due to the noise from music events,
therefore, he believed that complaints would be highly
It was accepted that some complaints could be without merit.
It was a sensitive matter and he believed that the Environmental
Health Unit would be contacted.
If the music was not amplified or at a low level, he did not think
many complaints would be submitted, however, they would be if
amplifiers were used.
In summation the Council’s
Environmental Health Unit representative reiterated that the
premises had been served an Abatement Notice that had been
contravened three times and that they had no confidence that the
event would comply with the Notice. He
believed that complaints would be received and prosecution action
could be taken.
In conclusion the applicant stated
that lessons had been learnt and mitigation measures had been put
in place. He indicated that he did not
believe there had been any further complaints made and there had
only been one complainant previously.
Many noisy events took place in Haworth and he requested that the
application be granted. The
applicant’s Noise Mitigation Consultant stated that outside
music could be curtailed by barriers.
He noted that there was no factual evidence of the submitted
complaints and believed that prosecution action would have been
undertaken previously if there was proof. He reported that the applicant had taken steps to
mitigate the noise and there were many other businesses in the
vicinity that did not have noise limiters.