Councillors Grant New Pier Licences For Hastings

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.