Agenda item

To consider the head of legal and democratic service’s report.  

Presenting the case for Abingdon on Thames Town Council were Nigel Warner, Town Clark and Karen Webb Guildhall Supervisor.

Councillor Tony de Vere, district ward councillor for Abbey and Barton, presented the case for the residents, who objected to some aspects of the application. He was accompanied by two residents: Patricia Atkins and John Atkinson. Councillor Julie Mayhew Archer, district ward councillor for Abingdon Abbey and Barton, was also in attendance.

The licensing officer presented her report. She confirmed that the applicant had accepted the conditions.

Nigel Warner presented the case for the applicants. He made the following points.

• The Guildhall is under used.
• The current hours are restrictive to the development of the Guildhall.
• The Town Council wishes that the Guildhall will move towards a more self-funded model and require less subsidy from council tax payers.
• The Town Council wish to retain the viability of the Guildhall as a community facility and for it to contribute to the economic vitality of the town centre.
• Abingdon on Thames Town Council is a responsible organisation and historically complaints have been very low. The Town Council tries to reduce noise disturbance by using a noise limiter and alarming doors to prevent them being left open.
• There are no concrete plans to develop wrestling and boxing at the Guildhall: these have been included in the application to provide flexibility.
• The Guildhall is responsible in refusing to serve people who have had too much to drink and the off sales licence is also to provide flexibility.
• The designated smoking area is at the bottom of the front steps.
• There is no intention of operating the bar as a stand alone facility outside of functions at the present time.

The interested parties case was presented by Councillor Tony de Vere. As part of his case he read statements from a group of residents from Abbey Close and Checker Walk; Mr Sayers, a local resident; Dr Halliday a local resident. (Dr Halliday is a district councillor but his representations were being made in a personal capacity.) Councillor de Vere and the residents made the following points:

• The local residents already suffer from noise pollution late night/early morning from the Guildhall and other establishments.
• A lot of noise is generated from staff throwing bottles in bottle banks at the end of events.
• Events at the Guildhall create base noise and vibration.
• Many of the local homes are listed buildings and cannot install double glazing to reduce the noise.
• Guests make noise when they leave the Guildhall.
• Doors are left open during events.

• Local residents have suffered nuisance, noise and petty vandalism for up to an hour after events finish.
• Some elderly residents are afraid after events at the Guildhall and other establishments as people come onto the curtilage of their properties causing a nuisance and knocking on doors.
• There have been few complaints registered with the district council as residents had dealt directly with the Guildhall.

Daniel Smith, the licensing lawyer advising the panel, advised that the matter before the panel for consideration was not general crime, disorder and nuisance, but only how the application might add to these. He also advised that there was no provision for granting a temporary licence but the licensing authority, police or other interested parties would be able to request a review in future if they wished.

Both parties summed up their cases.

In their summing up, the Guildhall agreed that they would do the following:

• Encourage guests towards the Market Place and request them to be mindful of local residents.
• Ask staff to put the empty bottles into the bottle bins the morning after an event.

They also confirmed that they have a noise limiter and that fire doors are alarmed.

The representatives of the Guildhall said that they had listened to residents’ concerns and that they would be content to amend the application in line with the suggestion made, in writing, by the largest group of residents, although this would be varied for the day before public and bank holidays (including Christmas Eve, but excluding Maundy Thursday) which would be treated in the same way as Fridays and Saturdays.

Full details of the decision are attached.