District Judge upholds reduction in licensing hours over noise from departing customers

A district judge has rejected an appellant’s argument that noise from departing customers was a matter for their individual responsibility and should not have led to a reduction in licensed hours.

The case of Kouttis v London Borough of Enfield (9 September 2011) involved the Willow Public House in Winchmore Hill. The venue had previously suffered from crime and disorder, but the operators had refurbished the pub with a restaurant upstairs and a music and cocktail bar downstairs.

The Trading Standards authority, with the backing of some local residents, applied to remove musical entertainment from the licence and reduce its hours because of noise breakout and disturbance from departing customers.

A noise management plan, including sound attenuation measures, was drawn up and presented to the Licensing Sub-Committee.

The sub-committee accepted the plan and agreed to allow musical entertainment to continue. However, it also reduced the terminal licensing hour from midnight to 11 pm on Fridays and Saturdays because of the noise on dispersal.

Before District Judge Daber, the appellant submitted that noise from departing customers was their individual responsibility and should not have led to a reduction in licensing hours.

They relied on government guidance which says that “beyond the vicinity of the premises, these are matters for personal responsibility of individuals under the law. An individual who engages in anti-social behaviour is accountable in their own right”

The appellant also argued that:

• given that certain residents were not disturbed, this did not amount to public nuisance within the meaning of para 2.33 of the guidance as approved by Burton J in the Hope and Glory case
• the authority was not obliged to respond to every nuisance, but should be more concerned with whether the operator’s attitude was such as to minimise nuisance which is occurring.

District Judge Daber dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay £21,000 in costs to the council.

The judge concluded that there was sufficient evidence of public nuisance, and that section 4 of the Licensing Act gave the licensing authority a positive duty to deal with it proportionately.

No less interventionist way of dealing with the nuisance had been suggested in the case, the judge said. He held that not only was the authority not wrong, but that it was in fact right to reduce the hours as it had.

Philip Kolvin QC of 2-3 Gray’s Inn Square represented the London Borough of Enfield.