ENTERKINE House Hotel has been granted planning permission for a temporary marquee despite noise complaints.

At the recent Regulatory Panel meeting, councillors approved a three-year temporary marquee to be placed immediately adjacent to the north-east of Enterkine House Hotel, where the proposed site sits on a grassed area on which a marquee, for use by the hotel, has been sited.

However, the planning application has received a number of objections, mainly being related to noise issues.

Speaking at the Regulatory Panel meeting, Rosie Mapplebeck, a resident who lives three quarters of a mile away from the hotel explains that she has been having problems with the live entertainment and said: “Since 2008 sound has been regularly loud even for me to even join in with the songs and I can hear the DJs announcements which is ridiculous. All of this means that I am disturbed and left upset late at night.

“I met with Environmental Health in 2014 where there were some improvements taken but noise leakage continued. I have never objected to Enterkine’s licenses though I have been offered to do so.

"I want all our local businesses to thrive, create employment and money in the community. I think neighbours should be treated with respect when it comes to noise.”

Another resident, Ewen Sutcliffe, says that the noise from the venue has “absolutely changed” the way they live.

He added: “There is no doubt that the noise from the marquee has been a problem for a long time. We have three primary school aged children and managing bed times has become increasingly difficult over the years.

"The noise from the hotel has absolutely changed the way that we are living – the music is loud enough to identify what music is being played.”

The Ayr Advertiser previously reported that Environmental Health had been to the venue numerous times to examine the entertainment events held at the marquee and found them to be a “statutory nuisance” and failed to comply with “licensing standards” and that some £60,000 had been spent on soundproofing the site to prevent noisy parties disturbing surrounding neighbours.

Cllr Peter Convery, commented: “The bottom line is that there is something that neighbours are entitled to and they are entitled to a good night sleep – from that point of view, I would certainly be more comfortable if it wasn’t three years and over two years instead.”

Cllr Brian Connolly, concluded: “I don’t think the time is relevant if it is not working – from a planning perspective I don’t see an advantage in shortening the time.”