Agenda and minutes

To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).

The Procedure for the hearing was confirmed.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To hear and determine an opposed application for a new premises licence.

Present for this item were:

Mr Woodward – Interested Party

Mr Alsopp – Interested Party

Mr Dulay – Interested Party

Councillor Marlow – Interested Councillor

Mr McCann – Agent for the Applicant

Mr Kyne – Premises Manager

Mr McCann introduced the Applicant’s proposal by outlining the application as applied for. He was accompanied by Peter Ward – Operations Manager; Samantha Laird – the proposed Premises Supervisor and Edward Kind – Premises Manager.

He had met with local residents at a meeting held on Monday 16 July and had subsequently chosen to amend the licence based on residents concerns.

The Applicant wished to withdraw the provision of facilities for dancing from their application and make the following amendments to the application:

The supply of alcohol would be: Monday to Saturday 11am – 11:30pm and Sundays 11:00am – 10:30pm.

Live music would be limited to three acoustic performers on Friday and Saturday, 8:00pm – 11:00pm.

Residents had relayed their concerns regarding smokers outside the pub. The pub’s staff would stop customers from taking drinks outside, to stop smokers staying outside for long periods. Signage would be put in place to direct smokers to the designated area, and ashtrays installed, too.

Residents were also concerned about student nights at the pub. He reassured the Committee that the Applicant did not intend to hold student nights or have promotions which would appeal directly to students.

Mr McCann did not envisage any problems with customers dispersing from the premises as most of them would be local and choose to walk home. In addition, the pub would operate a dedicated taxi service and order, taxis upon request, for customers.  

The Applicant’s intention was to provide a good quality local pub, not a club-style venue.  They would to provide good quality food, with meat sourced from a local butcher. The pub was a free house and would supply a varying selection of real ales and wines.

It was unlikely there would be any disruption to local residents, including the properties above the pub, as soundproofing had been installed. In addition, there were not applying for a licence to play recorded music. Mr McCann highlighted that there had been no objections from statutory authorities. 

Following the changes to the licence, Mr McCann suggested that the following conditions imposed by the Applicant were now unnecessary: “no customers shall be permitted to re-enter the premises after 00:30 hours on a Friday or Saturday night, save for patrons leaving to smoke; a minimum of two SIA registered door supervisors on duty on Friday and Saturday evening until the premises have closed and the patrons are off the premises.”

He urged the Sub-Committee to grant the licence.

The Chairman consented to the meeting being adjourned for 5 minutes so the Interested Parties could consider the Applicants changes to the licence application.

Mr Woodward made the following representation: He lived forty yards from the premises and was concerned that students from St Mary’s University College could cause disruption when visiting the pub. He asked for reassurance from the manager that they could maintain a busy pub to high standards.

Mr Kyne – the manager, said he had managed rowdy pubs in the past including the Teddington Arms, which had improved after he had taken it over.

Mr Alsopp made the following representation on behalf of Strawberry Hill Residents Association and as a local resident. He said the pub had previously had trouble with customers dispersing noisily. The drinking up time should be reduced to fifteen minutes instead of thirty. He was concerned that smokers’ fumes could enter residents’ properties above the pub via open windows, and that smoking areas should be clearly marked, ashtrays installed, and staff patrol the buildings exterior at regular intervals, to ensure that there was no endue disruption. In addition, he thought that automatic gates should be installed to stop customers’ using the residents’ car-park at the rear.

Mr McCann responded to Mr Woodward’s points: He didn’t anticipate any undue noise caused by customers leaving the premises, but this could be reviewed at a later date. Mr McCann said the Applicant would agree to regular patrols to monitor smokers outside the premises. He recollected that the housing association, who owned the car-park, had run out of money and were not able to install the electric gates they wanted.

Mr Dulay made the following representation: He stressed the need for competent management of the pub. He had heard that the pub might be s taking sponsorship from St Mary’s Rugby Student Union, which he felt would be irresponsible. Mr McCann said the management had not decided on a sponsor for the pub.

Councillor Marlow, speaking as an Interested Councillor, summed up the Interested Parties views: He asked that the Sub-Committee agree to limit the drinking-up time to fifteen minutes rather than thirty; that the Sub-Committee remove the additional hour at the end of the permitted hours on St Patrick’s Day, and that quarterly meetings be held between the premises managers and local residents.

The Sub-Committee retired to closed session.

It was RESOLVED that the application be granted for the following reasons:

“Residents mentioned issues regarding planning permission in their letter of representation / evidence.  It was not for the Licensing Sub-Committee to examine whether a proposed application for a premises licence or conditions or operation required planning consent (R (on the application of Blackwood) v Birmingham Magistrates, Birmingham City Council & Mitchells & Butler Leisure Retail Ltd 2006 (The ‘Blackwood’ Case)) and that should not be in the mind of the Committee when considering a licensing application. 

The case of Daniel Thwaites Plc v Wirral Borough Magistrates’ Court 2008 was applied and considered during deliberations and the Sub-Committee felt that there was sufficient “real evidence” presented by the Interested Parties present, and within the representations and evidence presented to the Sub Committee.  The Licensing Sub-Committee observed the strength of feeling of those present at the meeting. However, certain restrictions sought were not considered appropriate and proportionate.”