Application for the Grant of a Premises Licence under the Licensing

Appendix 7
Wymondley lodge
39 Station Road
Honley
Holmfirth
HD9 6LL
25th September 2012
Catherine Walker
Licensing Manager
Kirklees Council Licensing Department
Riverbank Court
Wakefield Road
Aspley
Huddersfield
HD5 9AA
Re: Licensing Appeal Application – Mr and Mrs Abdelfatah, Northgate Mount, Honley, HD9
6LN – Reference JGC/32719/1/PMC
As a local resident on the periphery of Northgate Mount, and circa 170m from proposed Marquee
location, I wish to express my objections to this appeal application. At the hearing in January, I
along with fellow residents on the periphery or in the vicinity of Northgate Mount signed a petition
expressing our utter dismay that a residential home can be licensed for the sale of alcohol; provide
regulated entertainment and late night refreshment on a permanent basis. At the hearing we outlined
our objections on the following issues: Prevention of public nuisance; prevention of crime and
disorder; public safety; and protection of children from harm. This was a document among
several discussed at the Hearing and is the subject of public record.
In the debate at that Hearing the applicant failed to give any substance that would change our
views or indeed the panel across all issues. I delivered a statement and showed my concern at the
time on the Pollution and Noise issue (Appendix E of the hearing documentation), this was
delivered verbally to which the applicant at the time made no response. I followed this up by putting
these views on record for the hearing on the 25th May as no formal document was issued at the time
and I was not sure how detailed the matter would have been recorded in the minutes of the January
10th meeting. I also fully supported those issues highlighted above and commented on in detail by
other objectors. The previous literature has shown quite clearly that the applicant had been given
much assistance from Kirklees officers for his preparation and yet again seems to have no substance
just statements that he will conform to requested issues. He had more to prepare his case at the first
Hearing than any of the objectors who had expressed dismay at the time in the method used to make
the general public aware of this application.
157
Since reading this new appeal my objections are stronger than ever since this is now an
application for a licence for increasing the sale of alcohol and providing musical entertainment. I
will limit my response to this area under “pollution and noise” but fully support the other
objectors on all other issues.
The information in the Appendix to this report illustrates my concern since it is impossible to
achieve a satisfactory condition suitable for local residents using a light weight construction such as
a marquee. Mr Abdelfatah has specified over a period of time that he would only be requiring for
perhaps 10/year changed then informs the press saying circa 50/year. When offered at the hearing
would he consider weekends only for very serious objections raised concerning the school he put
forward perhaps two days of the week plus week-end over the full year. Now he has come back
with full week usage with none of the concerns of the objectors addressed.
The subsequent delays have meant that a number of our objectors are away from their homes at
present (due to holidays etc) and therefore cannot respond until they return but would wish me to
state that their objections remain as strong as ever... From my statements in the Appendix attached
it is clear that we are of the opinion that a marquee is unsuitable for permanent music entertainment.
At the previous Hearing in January Dr Wright (former professor specialising in Acoustics) gave
his opinion and his views have been expressed as an addendum to Emeritus Professor Bullingham’s
response. Also Professor Bullingham at the Hearing related that a previous use of a marquee in the
Marsden area, known to the Environmental officer present was troublesome for years and the final
so-called acceptance was rather based on the objectors having to accept a very painful compromise
which still wrangles. Also the LC1 check does not take into account noise below 1KHz which
contain many of the troublesome frequencies (see appendix).
The new appeal application only specifies that they will conform to inaudibility issues outside
licensing hours and a further statement on other issues that they will conform to a responsible
authority. This application needs urgently to be referred to acoustic specialists on the type of
building to be used. It should be covered by a building application with a specification placed for
inaudibility throughout the licensing hours periods approaching zero tolerance.
Note If Dr Wright opinions are correct, and my searches indicate they are. Then the dBA noise level
contribution postulated by him would increase the average ambient noise levels in the area
considerably. Current figures generally quoted state circa 18 dBA for remote rural areas; 30 to 35
dBA for quiet suburban areas; and 50 to 60dBA for busy urban areas. Dr Wright figures postulate
a least a 20dBA increase on these values due to use of a marquee type construction thus turning our
environment into a typical busy urban area.
Summarising the details in the attached Appendix:
An ideal building to be used for loud music should when considering the walls and roof
be made of high mass materials determined by the attenuation factor for the materials
under review and with due consideration for the frequency range expected. Bass and sub
bass frequencies to be prime considerations. Loud music usually limited indoors to circa
85dB.
158
In addition damping and/or absorption techniques under the guidance of a specialist
acoustic engineer needs to be tailored to the frequency range to be covered. Once again
bass and sub bass frequencies are a major consideration.
Damping is designed to reduce the resonance in the room, by absorption or redirection
(or reflection and diffusion). Absorption will reduce the overall sound level, whereas
redirection makes unwanted noise harmless or even beneficial .by reducing coherence.
The choice of the absorbing material will be determined by the frequency distribution of
noise to be absorbed and the acoustic absorption profile required (specialist advice)
The light weight structure offered (marquee) is an impractical starting point and should
be rejected and limits the use of further damping and absorption applications.
Outdoor music is a non-starter and all outside noise should be eliminated or minimised
within practical limits (see appendix concerning chillers/ventilation plant;
deliveries/collections; arrival/departure customer noise, fireworks etc)
The consequences of a successful appeal without meeting our concerns will be to the detriment
of the community and could cause great stress. Our objection issues concern: prevention of public
nuisance; prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; and protection of children from
harm remain as previously documented, and outlined again in the written response expressed by
Professor Bullingham.
My desire is to be able to live and enjoy my retirement years with my wife in our home that we
have worked for all our lives. Those simple pleasures of sitting out in your garden or conservatories
will be denied to the local residents. We have lived in this house and community for 34 years, and
now we are gradually becoming more house bound a successful appeal by the applicant will cause
us and others great stress. If passed in its present form it will affect thousands in the valley.
We fully expect Kirklees Council on our behalf to express our strong feelings on this matter and
reject this appeal or at least to start from the use of a proper acoustic engineered building and deal
strongly with all listed issues seeking views from the Highways, police on traffic/parking issues;
also the school authorities concerning children on noise issues and the protection of children from
harm. Personally I think it should be rejected outright as not being in the Communities interests.
From: Derek Ford,
Emeritus Professor
Dip E.E, MSc, PhD, C. Eng FIET
Previous experience as an expert witness as a specialist in vibration and control engineering.
159
Appendix
Quote by Torbay Council after investigation:”Marquees (many references on the web
site) afford very little sound attenuation and if sited close to noise sensitive premises noise
nuisance is likely. Careful consideration should therefore be given to the type of
entertainment that is held with such structures and the presumption is they will not be
suitable for high levels of music”
Noise: Amplified music and background (dancing and human voices) from a building will
always be noise to others in the vicinity because it will never arrive in its pure form even if
you enjoyed the type of music being played. The speed of sound varies through different
materials (proportional to the square root of the elastic modulus e.g. through steel 5960m/s
and air 348m/s). Sound propagation is then affected by a relationship between density and
pressure; motion of the medium itself (e.g. wind), and the viscosity of the medium (air or
water negligible). Other structures in its path will also reflect or absorb the sound which will
compromise any receptor living within a relatively light weight structure. Propagated sound
through a material can be reflected, refracted or attenuated by the medium (such as
building materials). The energy density of sound waves decreases as they spread out and
in a normal three dimensional setting from a point source to a point receptor, the intensity of
sound waves will be attenuated according to the inverse square of the distance.
Perception of sound: Generally limited to a certain range of frequencies between 20Hz
and 20 kHz although these limits are not definite. Music ranges for the human voice (Bass
80Hz to 330Hz to soprano 250Hz to 1000Hz); drums 68 to 250Hz; piano 26Hz to 3800Hz
with many instruments in the low bass range. Bass and sub bass frequencies has the
potential to compromise the integrity of structures; particularly light weight structures such
as school, old people’s homes and local resident buildings.
Music outdoors Music played at 90dB for an 8 hour day can cause health damage. The
highest safe level is 85dB. Continued exposure to loud music may result in hearing loss.
Many jurisdictions consider it unlawful if loud music can be heard. Most neighbouring
communities would consider outdoor music as noise and a crime against their civil rights
and bring undue stress with resulting health problems. It should therefore be out of the
question when permanent use is considered.
Indoor Music: A building design and layout for a permanent base has to be very carefully
considered and advice of an acoustic consultant sought to ensure that the neighbouring
environment is safe from pollution and noise. The walls and roof must be constructed of
materials that provide resistance to noise (c.20dBA attenuation cf with c. 5dBA attenuation
for a marquee). Even then the use of sound insulation is necessary and the application of
acoustic recommended practice be applied. All openings, doors and windows including
vents should either be non opening or acoustically protected by special seals and installed
secondary glazing. Acoustic lobbies to doors are necessary to provide good noise control.
Of course the doors will also need to easily open to cover health and safety issues.
Lightweight Structures: Conversely structures with large areas of glazing and light weight
roofs are very sensitive to noise transmission whether on the transmission side or the
reception side. Those should of course not be used to host amplified music or dancing
entertainment.
160
Chiller units and Ventilation Plant: With the obvious need for controlled doors, windows
and vents there will be a need for chiller units and ventilation plant and these can also be a
noise problem. Should be located to minimise airborne noise; use of silencers; and/or
acoustic screens or enclosures which have also been specifically designed for the job.
They should also be mounted on concrete plinths; and with the use of anti-vibration mounts
that need specific tuning.
Electronic noise limiting of the sound system: Two basic types: (a) Microphone
controlled. This monitors the music noise levels and either triggers a warning light or cuts
the power supply to the sound systems when exceeding a preset value. Advantage: It
works on any sound system brought onto the premises provided it is connected to the
electrical circuit. Care needs to be taken that the units are not circumvented.
Disadvantage: Live bands hate them because they cut out drumming contribution quickly
which affects performance so they will circumvent them if they can.
Or
(b) Electronic in-circuit devices. This incorporates the limiter into the electrical circuit by
monitoring the power output of the amplifiers. If a preset threshold is exceeded the device
automatically attenuates the amplifier output to below the limits. Advantage: Difficult to
circumvent but virtually impossible to detect when attenuation is applied. Drawback:
Permanent installation is necessary and the limits can increase if more sensitive speakers are
substituted. Careful monitoring needed since any changes to the system will need recalibration.
7. Other sound system noise limiting considerations include:
Reviewing the type of music to be played
Reduce the bass level music requirements
Review the location , direction and number of speakers
Inform performers of noise likely problems and monitor their compliance
Relocation and /or isolation of speakers which are adjacent to walls
Consider the effects of wall mounted extractors
Mount speakers on rubber or similar material to reduce transmission in the main
structure
8. Deliveries of goods; collections of waste; and bottle deliveries/collections are further
sources of unwanted noise
9. Arrival/ departure noise
Due to customer car engines, slamming of doors and human voices
161