Agenda and minutes

To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).

The procedure for the meeting was noted.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the meetings held on11 November 2010, 9 December 2010, 20 December 2010, 21 December 2010, 11 January 2011, 17 January 2011, 20 January 2011 and 1 February 2011 attached.

 December The minutes of the 11 November 2010, 9 December 2010, 20 December 201, 21 December 2010, 11 January 2011, 17 January 2011 and 1 February 2011 were agreed and signed by Chairman.

To hear and determine an application for the variation of a premises licence to

which representations have been received from Interested Parties.

Participating in the item were:

Applicant’s Party:

Ø      Ms Clare Johnson (representing the Applicant)

Ø      Mr Richard Smyth (on behalf of the Applicant)

Ø      Mr Alan Rickets (Premises manager)

Ø      Mrs Clare Rickets (Premises Manager)

Interested Parties:

Ø      Mr Robert Cowie (Resident)

Ø      Mrs Leslie Cowie (Resident)

Ø      Mrs Carolyn Barry (Resident)

Ø      Mr Paul Davis (representing Ms Diana Keach)

Ms Jonson introduced the application on behalf of the applicant.  She referred to the following information:

(i)      That the doors causing concern as an exit were there as part of the fire regulations and would be closed shut and fixed with a bar.  They would not be used as an entrance and exit.

(ii)    That Sgt George had written to the applicant regarding conditions that they would like to see on the license if granted.  Although the deadline for submissions had passed when these requests were received the applicant was prepared to accept conditions relating to CCTV and the Fire exit.

(iii)   That the managers were established licensees at another locality in the town and would be moving from a managed site in order to run their own business.

(iv)  That the Managers had too teenage sons studying for exams.  In addition to their wish to be responsible landlord they would not want a noisy or troublesome environment to interrupt their family life either.

In response to questions from members of the sub-committee, the applicant’s party gave the following information:

(a)   That the beer garden had been used in the same way as proposed for some time previously without complaint.

(b)   That 9pm would be the latest time that food would be served outside.

(c)   That the tent was no longer on site.

(d)   That the outdoor lighting would be wall lighting

(e)   That there would be designated outdoor smoking areas.

(f)     That it would be possible to allow smoking in the beer garden only until 11:20pm and after that time encourage smokers to access Heath Rd to smoke.

Mr and Mrs Cowie addressed the committee.  They referred to the following:

(i)      On behalf of neighbours to the rear of the application site, Jane and Neil Lindsay-Stewart concerns were raised regarding noise and smells from the beer garden.

(ii)    On behalf of Mr & Mrs Williams concerns were raised that musical events would cause disturbance to neighbours.  However the clarification that the doors would not be held open was welcomed.

(iii)   For their family the problems centred around their 11 year old daughter.  Previously the pub beer garden, even with the small benefit of the tent – now removed - had caused their family to be disturbed.  

(iv)  That the smoking ban would increase the disturbance experienced owing to there being more people congregating outside for longer.

(v)    That in particular the disturbance would have an adverse impact on their daughter who was diabetic and regularly did not sleep well.

The Applicant’s party responded as follows:

(a)   That the pub was not intending to have late night parties on a nightly basis.  The managers also had a family life to protect.

(b)   That the smoking legislation had been in place when the previous pub was open but there had been no cause for review.  

Mr Cowie regarded that this was related to the low number of customers the pub had at the time of the smoking legislation introduction.

Mrs Barry addressed the sub-committee and made the following points:

(i)      That her family also lived near by but were delighted that the pub was to be reopened.

(ii)    That she would have no objection to customers, including sports fans, or music in the area.

(iii)   That she felt confident knowing that the two managers were experienced publicans and that their current pub was well run and an asset to the town centre.

The sub-committee retired to consider the points raised during the meeting.

RESOLVED that the sub-committee grant the premises licence subject to the conditions as set out in the attached decision notice.

The REASONS for this decision were:

That Licensing Sub-committee considered that the imposition of conditions and recommendations made to address concerns relating to crime and disorder and public nuisance, were proportionate and necessary to promote licensing objectives as required by Licensing Act 2003, its Regulations, Guidance and case law.