To confirm the procedures for the hearings (attached).

The licensing application will be heard in compliance with procedure note 1.

Street trading applications will heard in compliance with procedure note 2.

The procedures for the hearings were noted.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To agree as a correct record the proceedings held on 28 March 2011, 4 July 2011, 12 July 2011 and 20 July 2011 and 30 August 2011 (attached).

The minutes of the meetings held on 28 March 2011, 4 July 2011, 12 July 2011 and 20 July 2011 and 30 August 2011 were received and approved and the Chairman was authorised to sign them.

To hear and determine an opposed application for a variation of a premises licence granted in September 2005 and varied as detailed in the licence application attached at Appendix ‘A’.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

Jeremy Veitch – Licensing Manager (Greene King Pubs)

Shaun Hobson – Designated Premises Supervisor

Jan Casson – interested party

Keith Graham – interested party

Michelle Atkinson – interested party

MrVeitch introduced the application.  He said that the current management team was an experienced one who had made significant progress in transforming the Rising Sun into a community pub.  Overall investment in the premises was going to be around £85,000, with £35,000 of that invested by the premises’ managers themselves.  The pub was also adopting a greater emphasis on selling food.

Local residents were involved throughout the application process, with a number of previous objectors either withdrawing their comments or at least tempering them.

Mr Veitch confirmed that the pub was applying to open from 10.00am in order to catch the occasional morning funeral trade.  Mr Hobson added that funerals were not to be a common occurrence, with maybe one or two gatherings a month.  The premises was also applying to open from 5.00am for the provision of non-alcoholic refreshments before one of the occasional coach trips it organised.

There had been some amendments made to the application to take account of comments made by residents and responsible authorities.  One such concession was the installation of expensive CCTV to the police’s specification.  Further concessions included higher fencing around the patio area and plant screening to eliminate sound travelling from the site.  It was clarified that the reasons for applying for the wide range of activities was enable a variety of private events to be catered for in the new separate function suite.  Conditions 4, 5 and 7 were requested to be removed as they were no longer necessary and inhibited the effective running of the premises by the new management, who had not received any complaints from neighbours.

The new function suite was yet to be used, although the sub-committee was advised of its specification, which included air-conditioning (to remove the need for open windows), large amounts of sound insulation and doors that automatically closed.

Mr Veitch to the sub-committee’s attention the wide ranging nature of the representations, where some were in favour and some had very specific concerns.  He said that even the objections made positive comments about the new management.

Following questions from the sub-committee, the meeting was advised that:

• Although the main reason for selling alcohol from 10.00am was to enable the pub to cater for funerals, the pub would be open to the general public.
• Funerals tended to be at short notice, which meant that a Temporary Event Notice could not be sought for them.
• Three local pubs had longer opening hours than were being applied for.
• The garden area at the rear was used until 11.00pm, which catered for users of Bushy Park who tended to have their dogs with them.
• Smokers were permitted in the rear garden until 11.00pm weekdays and 11.30pm at weekends.
• The new opening hours meant that shift workers and those who work unsociable hours were able to be provided for.
• The function area would typically be used to provide a space for sports such as the local cricket team and darts teams, which would then enable the main pub area to be empty to provide its usual services.
• The managers lived above the premises.
• There was an informal arrangement between the pubs in Hampton Hill whereby they notified each other of refused sales because a drunk person attempted to buy alcohol.
• The bar area had a capacity of 120, although only 80 tickets to events were ever sold.

Ms Casson said that she was generally pleased with how the Rising Sun was now being managed.  She stated that she still had occasional problems with noise, although had never complained about these.  She said that she sometimes had to close her windows during the summer because of people in the garden shouting, after she had gone to bed at around 10.30pm.  Mrs Casson was also concerned that permitting admission after 11.00pm would encourage more people making noise late at night.

Mr Graham said that he shared Mrs Casson’s concerns.  He added that if the new licence was granted, it would permit patrons too use the garden until 1.00am.

Ms Atkinson said that she felt the management was doing a good job.  She noted that the Rising Sun was on a road with a 24 hour bus route, which meant there was some noise in the area anyway, so early morning coach trips were not an issue.

Ms Casson made a closing statement on behalf of the interested parties.  She said that the main concern that remained was patrons in the garden after 10.30.  She noted that those using the function area would also need to use the back garden to access it.

Mr Veitch made a closing statement on behalf of the applicant.  He said that in his experience, there had not before been an instance where objectors made positive comments about the applicant and application.  Agreements had been reached with the local police, the environmental health department and residents, with some concessions made in order to mitigate concerns that were held.

RESOLVED that the application for an opposed premises licence be GRANTED.  The reasons for the decision were:

“The Sub-Committee considered that the grant of the Premises Licence variation application would be in compliance with all four licensing objectives.”

[The decision notice is attached.]

This report outlines street trading designations and variations that are sought.  Consideration is to be given to the approval or not, of these changes.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

The Tow Path outside the Water Gallery (measuring 2m x 1.5m)

RESOLVED that the above area be designated for street trading.

[The decision notice is attached.]

Triangular area adjoining the junction with Well Lane and Christchurch Road, outside The Plough Inn, 42 Christchurch Road, East Sheen, London SW14 7AF

RESOLVED that the above area be designated for street trading.

[The decision notice is attached.]

Mr Antony O’Neill, holder of the lease, spoke against the street trading designation, stating that the owner did not know about the issues over land ownership; previous local authority land searches had shown this was private land.  He said that while the ownership was being established, the street trading designation should be halted, because it was not clear that highways had control over the land.

William Ward, Highways Engineer, said that this designation had bee brought about as a result of the erection of a new wall around the disputed area.  Subsequent investigations established that the land was previously public highway, hence the application by the freeholder being made.

The Solicitor present said that the sub-committee needed to satisfy itself that all rules relating to street trading had been met; land disputes did not form part of their considerations.