4 days Ago
Plans to split Hastings Pier’s premises licence into three parts have been given the go ahead by councillors. On Wednesday (April 23), a Hastings Borough Council licensing panel considered a pair of applications from pier owner Sheikh Abid Gulzar, which sought to create new premises licences covering the landmark’s “middle building” — also known as the Rum Shed — and events space. Officers said the existing licence, which currently covers the whole structure, is also expected to be varied so that it covers the food outlets at the front of the pier.
This application for variation has not yet been submitted. Before making their decisions, councillors heard how the new licences would allow for each individual part of the pier to have its own conditions, hours of operation and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). The applications had both seen objections from a group of five residents living in White Rock Gardens.
These residents focused their concerns on large events — those where more than 1,500 tickets would be available for purchase. Concerns around these events — specifically the provision of medical cover — had been at the heart of a review hearing held in September last year. This hearing, which had been the subject of an unresolved appeal, resulted in the council seeking both to impose new conditions on the existing licence and to remove the pier’s then DPS.
Ellie Baker, one of the White Rock Gardens residents who put in an objection, argued these stronger conditions (which were broadly replicated in the new applications) needed to include further controls on how the pier operates. She said: “We are appealing on the likelihood of creating public nuisance, which is one of the licensing objectives that we don’t feel was fully addressed in September. “Creating a public nuisance does not have a definition, but we consider that the frequency, duration and the antisocial hours of events mean they create public nuisance, in addition to the large number of residents affected by these events.
” Ms Baker raised particular concerns around noise levels, highlighting how conditions on the proposed licences would have allowed music from the pier to reach up to 70 decibels (dB) at nearby homes. She said this level of noise would be comparable to a vacuum cleaner. She said: “Can you imagine being at home and someone turning on the hoover beside you and leaving it on for 11 hours? You can’t turn it off or have any control over it.
The only way to escape the noise is to leave your home. That is what we experience when a long event is running on the pier.” Ms Baker and the other objectors asked councillors to impose a lower dB limit as part of the conditions.
Officers highlighted how the conditions in question were worded to address frequency — in terms of sound waves, rather than how often noise is emanated — as well as volume. The condition specifically covers ‘sound pressure level in either of the 63 Hertz (Hz) or 125Hz octave frequency’, which officers described as a “low bass” or “thumping” noise. In other words, the condition was intended to limit the volume of the bass noise specifically.
Officers also said 70dB was considered to be the “agreed” level at which to set such restrictions and a change of two dBs was equivalent to a doubling/halving of volume. In granting the licences, councillors amended the condition limiting the maximum level of this bass noise to 65dB. Other conditions cover noise in further detail.
These include a requirement for a noise management plan to be in place during the large events. Objectors had also raised concerns about how often events would be held at the pier and how long they would go on for. The objectors described how events had been held on consecutive days over consecutive weekends the previous summer and that this had caused them significant distress.
Speaking on behalf of the pier, Manus Singh, who introduced himself as “Mr Gulzar’s operations manager”, said the business would be open to some form of condition which limited how frequently events could take place. But he also stressed that events would need to be somewhat grouped together to limit the costs faced by organisers. He said: “The bigger issue is the amount of cost it takes to bring a stage, equipment and everything to the pier.
Normally, a promoter would do a two- or three-day event, but it will not be a heavy event; one of those days would be a drum and bass event, one of the days they will probably just have a live band and one of the days they will have a family event. “What we are more than happy to propose is finding the right balance. Of course, the licence allows us to have a set amount of events, but if you want to add a condition [saying] the pier can have an event on two consecutive weekends but it cannot be three, so after every two consecutive weekends if you want us to give a weekend break we are more than willing to do that.
” Mr Singh also stressed the importance of holding the large events for the wider economic health of the pier as a business. He said: “With the limited buildings on the pier and the flat deck, we are very, very limited to what we can do. We are trying to do things to generate some sort of revenue to keep the pier sustained.
“If the events are lost, or if the events cannot continue on the pier ...
the sustainability of the pier in the long term will come into question, especially because of the expense it takes to keep the pier afloat.” Councillors eventually decided to impose a condition which would prevent events from taking place on consecutive weekends. They also imposed other conditions which sought to cover smaller events.
Collectively, these would require the pier to conduct some form of noise monitoring at all times. Both applications had sought permission for a range of licensed activities, including performances of live music and the sale of alcohol. The applications had initially sought the ability to conduct all of these activities until midnight, seven days a week.
These would have mostly applied from 8am for the events space and from 10am for the middle building. The proposed hours of operation were amended before the hearing, however, with most of the activities to cease at 11pm instead. There would be an exception for late night refreshments, i.
e. the sale of hot food and drinks after 11pm, which would be able to continue until midnight in both spaces. The middle building would also have slightly longer hours for the sale of alcohol than the event space, being able to serve such drinks until 11.
30pm each night. These activities will mostly commence from 8am for the events space and from 10am for the middle building. There would also be an exception for events held on New Years’ Eve.
On this night, it is proposed, both parts of the venue would be able to conduct their licensable activities — including performances of live music, the sale of alcohol and the sale of late night refreshments — until 2am. This is reduced from a 4.30am finish, sought in the initial applications.
Before making their decision, councillors had also heard how the council’s planning department had raised an objection to the applications. This, officers said, was due to the pier not having specific planning permission allowing events to take place, nor for the middle building to be used as anything other than a “family entertainment centre”. During the hearing, Mr Singh said the pier was not planning to hold any further events until these planning matters were resolved.
.
