The Licensing Sub-Committee of Tunbridge Wells Council met on Monday 18 May 2026 to determine an application for a premises licence for The Upper Walk, The Pantiles. The committee granted the application subject to a number of conditions, primarily focused on managing noise levels and event frequency.

Adjournment Request

The meeting began with a request for an adjournment from the applicant, Targetfollow (Pantiles) Ltd, represented by Martin O'Mara. Mr. O'Mara cited the late notification that the Pantiles Residents Association would be represented by a barrister as the reason for the request, arguing it was necessary for fairness and adequate legal representation.

However, Helen Ward, the legal advisor, and Michael Feeney, representing the Pantiles Residents Association, argued against the adjournment. They stated that the applicant had sufficient time to secure legal representation and that the barrister's skeleton argument did not introduce new information. Furthermore, they highlighted the public interest in determining the application promptly due to ongoing noise nuisance and the costs incurred by residents and objectors in attending the hearing. Environmental Health also supported the refusal of the adjournment, citing the impracticality of rescheduling before the event season.

The Sub-Committee considered the arguments and decided not to grant the adjournment, noting that all parties were present, the skeleton argument contained no new evidence, and all parties had had proper notice and the opportunity to seek advice.

Premises Licence Application for The Upper Walk, The Pantiles

The main business of the meeting was to determine the application for a premises licence for The Upper Walk, The Pantiles, in Royal Tunbridge Wells. The application sought authorisation for various licensable activities, including live and recorded music, the supply of alcohol, and late-night refreshment.

Key Issues and Discussions:

• Noise Nuisance: The primary concern raised by residents and Environmental Health was the prevention of public nuisance, specifically relating to noise from amplified music events. Representations detailed a significant increase in the frequency and volume of events since 2024, leading to disturbances for residents, particularly those in Grade 2 listed buildings with single-glazed windows.
• Music Noise Levels (MNL): A central point of contention was the proposed MNL of 81 dB(A) (L_Aeq,15min). Environmental Health and the Pantiles Residents Association (PRA) argued for this to be a strict limit, not a guideline, as previously agreed. They highlighted that the proposed 81 dB(A) is already higher than the Code of Practice on Environmental Noise Control at Concerts recommendation of 65 dB(A) for similar venues. Targetfollow (Pantiles) Ltd argued for a guideline-based approach, citing the unique acoustic environment of The Pantiles and the practical difficulties of rigid enforcement, suggesting that further propagation testing was required.
• Event Frequency and Timing: The PRA and Environmental Health sought to restrict the number and timing of amplified music events. They proposed zero amplified daytime music events between May and September, a maximum of 21 evening amplified music events per week (with specific conditions on frequency), and no consecutive amplified music events. Targetfollow (Pantiles) Ltd initially proposed a cap of four daytime events and 21 evening events, but later agreed to zero amplified daytime events.
• Noise Monitoring: The PRA and Environmental Health insisted on robust, independent, and ongoing noise monitoring throughout the entire event season. They expressed a lack of confidence in Targetfollow's ability to self-monitor, citing past non-compliance with noise management plans. Targetfollow argued that continuous independent monitoring was not commercially viable but agreed to fund monitoring for the season if external funding was not secured. They proposed monitoring for the first five events, which was deemed insufficient by objectors.
• Temporary Event Notices (TENs): Concerns were raised about the use of TENs to increase the number of events beyond the existing licence conditions. Targetfollow clarified that most TENs in 2025 were for alcohol sales during markets, not regulated entertainment, and that live music events were conducted under the existing premises licence. They agreed not to apply for any TENs for amplified music events during the May to September period.
• Capacity and Deregulation: The 499-person threshold for deregulation under the Live Music Act was discussed. While Targetfollow argued that controlling numbers in the open-plan Pantiles was impractical, objectors stressed the importance of this limit for the application of licence conditions.
• Surrender of Existing Licence: A condition was proposed to ensure the surrender of the existing bandstand licence upon the granting of the new premises licence, to avoid confusion and ensure a single, coherent set of controls.

Decision:

The Sub-Committee, after careful consideration and with advice from their legal advisor, granted the application for a premises licence. The decision was subject to a number of conditions, primarily drawn from the skeleton argument submitted by the Pantiles Residents Association. These conditions included:

• Condition 1: The premises must have a noise management plan in place, implemented in full and adhered to at all times.
• Condition 2: Zero amplified live music events during the daytime between 1st May and 30th September.
• Condition 3: A maximum of 21 amplified evening music events between 1st May and 30th September, with specific restrictions on frequency and timing.
• Condition 4: No amplified evening music events to follow an organised daytime event on the same day, and no two amplified music events on consecutive days.
• Condition 8 (as amended): The premises shall have in place a noise management plan which shall be implemented in full for all regulated entertainment events and shall be adhered to at all times.
• Condition 10: (Specific details not fully elaborated in the transcript but implied to relate to noise management).
• Condition 17: (Specific details not fully elaborated in the transcript but implied to relate to complaint procedures).
• Condition 18: (Specific details not fully elaborated in the transcript but implied to relate to the surrender of the existing licence).

A written decision detailing these conditions and the appeal process will be provided within five working days.