The following is from the Planning Departments response to The Rainbow’s application to have live music ‘til 6am. (The appalling solecisms and spelling are verbatim, the emphatic bold fonts are mine)
Quote:
CONSULTEES
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – POLLUTION CONTROL TEAM
Detailed comments:
A listening test was carried out at the nearest noise sensitive receptors Abacus flats, Warwick St, Avoca flats, Cheapside, and rear yard of 181 High St. Music was played as loud as the applicant would have it and could not be heard at complaints properties when played just from the garden of the warehouse (the Pub and the warehouse have 3 other venues). However this department is still receiving noise complaints about the Rainbow PH/ Warehouse. It is felt because the test was carried out when the premises was empty we were unable to show the exact conditions on nights when the premise is full.
The main problem is management of the sound equipment ensuring that when the site is full that the volume and base is not raised. The License Mr Kent will be hiring a noise consultant to deal with this issue under this departments advise.
It is felt that a years temporary permission to allow outdoor music and music to 6am should be allowed to ensure that adequate management of music equipment and DJ's at the site will be implemented.
The garden of the warehouse is only one part of a much bigger music venue, it is likely it is not the cause of the noise complaints but until this is confirmed by working with a noise consultant at the site, only a 1 year temporary permission should be allowed.
Conditions required:
External music/ 6am opening within the Warehouse garden/ beach area shall only be allowed for 1 year, to assess, whether the amenity of local residents are affected.
Worrying points:
- Because the case didn’t go to the Planning Committee, the above is not posted on the BCC website. Neither was it sent to The Rainbow.
- EPU did not detect noise nuisance with their tests even though the music was at full blast (believe me!) but still made conditions as if they had detected problems. Note that they say, “…could not be heard…”. Thus, one presumes, the noise was well short of “noise nuisance” levels
- EPU are overstepping their authority. Where is the legislation that allows them to impose conditions where they are not observing an offence? “Prevention, in case…” doesn’t wash.
- Having failed to demonstrate a problem with sophisticated sound equipment, does anyone think that the next complaint will be investigated with anything other than their “expert ears”?
- Their comments that the test didn’t work because the place was empty is spurious – it’s well known that a crowd tends to dampen sound.
- Kent’s independent noise consultant didn’t detect a noise nuisance problem when he conducted tests at the complainant’s apartment.
- Will the EPU withdraw their condition?
I have my own theory as to why the EPU tests didn’t produce the results that all eight, yes, eight, of them so dearly wanted. If the level of literacy above, demonstrated by the reporting officer (JG) and authorising officer (JF), is typical, they must have been unable to understand the instructions!
I hope their ears don’t have written instructions!
Login
FAQ
Search
