Agenda item

To receive the report of the Lead Licensing Officer.

The Chair opened the meeting, introducing the Licensing Sub-Committee Members. He advised that the hearing had been convened to consider an application for a Premises Licence – The Silk Lounge.

 

The Councillors present declared they had no personal or prejudicial interests in the application.

 

The Lead Licensing Officer introduced all Officers present including Paul Butler, Police Licensing Officer, who was representing the Police as a Responsible Authority.

 

The Chair asked the applicant to identify himself along with any representatives and witnesses.

 

The Chair asked the objectors to identify themselves.

 

The four objectors identified themselves confirming whether they were speaking as themselves or as a representative of another. They each identifies that their objection was personal.

 

The Chair explained the procedure and purpose of the meeting.

 

The Lead Licensing Officer presented the report, the purpose of which was to provide the sub-Committee with information relating to an application for a premises licence for The Silk Lounge, 6 Cooper Street, Bideford to enable the sub-Committee to determine the application.

 

The Chair thanked the Lead Licensing Officer for his report and asked the panel if they had any questions for the Lead Licensing Officer.

 

Councillor Hackett asked when the applicant began using the premises licence. The Lead Licensing Officer confirmed that the applicant has used the licence since June 2025. The applicant added that he had worked as a doorman since 2018, and discussions about taking over ownership began in January 2025, with the change being implemented in June 2025.

 

The applicant and his representatives were invited to put forward their case.

 

The applicant confirmed that there are no plans to change how the property is currently used.

 

The Chair asked the panel if they had any questions for the applicant. There were no questions at this time.

 

The Chair invited the objectors to make their representation.

 

The first objector, Ms L Kinkaid, spoke as representative of Ms S Stagg. She addressed the Committee by reading a letter that outlined Ms Stagg’s concerns. She raised issues regarding noise nuisance caused by loud live and recorded music and stated that it has led to sleep deprivation and ill health. It was highlighted that the current premises licence classifies the passageway on the site as an enclosed area which has contributed to the amplification of music. It was mentioned that Ms Stagg has approached Torridge District Council for alternative accommodation. Matters regarding  accessibility were raised, specifically in relation to the usage of noise monitoring equipment. Overall, Ms S Stagg requested a review of the premises licence, and for the panel to consider the music, and the classification of indoor/outdoor areas. The representative then read a letter on behalf of Ms S Stagg’s daughter which expanded on these concerns.

 

Ms J Collino, as representative for Mr D Millar read aloud a letter which detailed his concerns as resident. The letter explained the objectives that the Committee need to consider and provided examples of nuisance, distress, and inconvenience. The letter considered the duration of the music as unreasonable and persistent. Like the previous objector, Mr D Millar expressed that music in the passageway contributes to disruption. In conclusion, the objectors asked that the granting of the licence is subject to conditions that include the below:

 

-       No live or recorded music in outside areas (including the passageway)

-       A reduction of permitted hours

-       And consideration over the location of the speakers within the premises.

 

Ms D Millar addressed the Committee as a neighbouring resident, and started by detailing that her property is located within a conservation area, which often restricts alternations that could help mitigate noise issues. She reported witnessing antisocial behaviour, littering, and public indecency outside of her property. Ms D Millar also raised concerns about the increasing use of temporary event licences and lack of effective monitoring. She explained that she has submitted multiple reports over time to various authorities outlining these issues. In conclusion, Ms D Millar requested that the premises licence be reviewed, proposing additional conditions such as keeping doors and windows closed during music events, installing a noise limiter on speakers, and reconsidering the use of the passageway.

 

The Chair asked the panel if they had any questions for the objectors.

 

Councillor Hackett asked the objectors about recent incidents. In response, Ms S Stagg reported the noise disturbance that occurred on Saturday, 27^th September 2025 lasted until 12:45am. After some confusion, the applicant clarified that the premises had been closed for three weeks and was only open on that specific date until 11pm. The objectors reiterated that the noise continued until after midnight.

 

The panel and the objectors had a detailed discussion regarding the origin of the antisocial behaviour within the vicinity.

 

After questioning from the panel, P Butler, the Police Licensing Officer summarised the reports submitted to the police from the 1^st October 2024 until the 22^nd September 2025. He stated that within this timeframe, The Silk Lounge accounted for 3.7% of the reports. Ms D Millar reported that the police advised her to submit her reports directly to Torridge District Council rather than the police. The Chair emphasised the importance of continuing to report issues to both the police and Torridge District Council.

 

The objectors expressed that the lack of monitoring at relevant times has led to residents feeling frustrated at the amount of logs, diaries, and evidence needing to be supplied.

 

The panel asked the applicant if he would be able to accommodate the conditions raised. The applicant confirmed that it would not be a problem.

 

Ms D Millar informed the panel that residents were unaware of the recent change in ownership until the new premises licence application was submitted.

 

The Lead Licensing Officer explained that a noise monitoring device was used in March 2024. While no significant noise was recorded, the device did detect noise occurring after the permitted hours. As a result, a second monitoring opportunity was offered during the summer to be evaluated alongside logs and diaries. However, this did not take place. The Officer also noted that a letter from the Public Health and Community Safety Manager was sent to Ms S Stagg and Ms D Millar, inviting them to a meeting. A further letter was sent by the Head of Legal and Governance offering to meet with the objectors and offering the installation of noise equipment.

 

The applicant was invited to have final reply.            

 

The applicant reassured the Committee of his willingness to collaborate with neighbours.

 

At 11.20am the sub-Committee retired for deliberation.

 

At 12.00pm the sub-Committee returned.

 

The Chair stated that the sub-Committee had carefully considered the matter and the oral evidence of all parties. They believed that the relevant licensing objectives identified in the representations received included:

 

-       The prevention of public nuisance

 

Their deliberations had focused on the steps they believed were appropriate for the promotion of these objectives.

 

The decision was made to grant the licence with additional conditions that included:

 

-       No music permitted outside at any time.

-       No music in the passageway at any time.

 

The decision was unanimous.

 

Any party may appeal to the magistrate’s court within 21 days.