To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).

The procedures were 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 meeting held on 29 February 2012 attached.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2012 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them.

To hear and determine an opposed application for a new Premises Licence.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item was the applicant Mr Mukesh Patel.

Mr Patel presented his application. He stated that he had been trading at his shop for 32 years and wanted to expand his product range because of the current economic situation.  He said that he would make efforts to promote the licensing objectives and gave examples of things like closed circuit television and till prompts for age verification.

Mr Patel said that the objection to his application appeared to relate to another premises, and was describing an area nearly two miles away from his shop.  He therefore suggested to the sub-committee that it was not relevant.

RESOLVED that the objection received to the application be dismissed.  Consequently, the premises licence was granted.

To hear and determine an opposed application for a new Premises Licence.  The premises are located within the Twickenham Cumulative Impact Zone.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

• Mr John Marchant – solicitor on behalf of the applicant
• Mr Noel McNamee – the applicant
• Mr Richard Morgan – the freeholder
• Mr Ian Duncan – interested party

Mr Marchant confirmed the hours the premises was currently trading, as well as those it was applying for.  He stated that the application was essentially for an extra hour’s trading on a Friday and Saturday night, including recorded music.  He submitted that all three objections were similar in their nature and that the “supper hour” being referred to had not operated for some time.  Mr Marchant felt that the additional hour would cause less noise because patrons would leave gradually over the course of the hour. He added that European football games would finish earlier in the evening and that there were different rules for the Queen’s jubilee.  It was mentioned that there had been a number of Temporary Event Notices on the premises, none of which had been the subject of a complaint.

Following questions from the committee, those present were told that:

• The function room was part of the main building.
• The volume control was not adjustable by patrons; it was only controllable from behind the bar.
• There was double glazing downstairs and a noise log was maintained.
• A second doorman was employed behind the bar and could join the other should more than 100 customers be present.
• A ‘clicker and stamp’ system was to be employed.

PC McGann said that the pub was in a residential area and presented a map to support his claim.  He believed there would be an increase in the number of people using the pub, with drinkers remaining there until the later time.  PC McGann said that the Royal Oak was becoming more of a vertical drinking establishment, which were known to present policing issues.  The police were concerned that the pub would become a problematic premises, likening the potential situation to how things were a few years ago.  He believed it would have a negative effect on the Cumulative Impact Zone.

Mr Duncan said that the Royal Oak’s staff were confused regarding the hours it was operating, stating the their website advertised different hours to what they had permission for.  He was concerned that later hours would mean later disturbances such as loud conversations, shouting and car doors being slammed shut.  Mr Duncan said that bottle clearing was sometimes a problem and often disturbed residents. He asked that the application be refused and the current permissible hours be clarified.

In closing statements, those present reiterated the points they had made earlier in the hearing.  The applicant confirmed that they would accept a condition limiting the noise made during bottle clearance.

Upon returning from closed session, it was reported that Councillor Bouchier had been called away.  Those present noted that she had been present for the deliberations and decision.

RESOLVED that the application be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached decision notice.  The reasons for the decision were:

“The Licensing Sub-Committee would normally refuse this application, but the Licensing Sub-Committee considered that the applicant could demonstrate that their proposed operation would have no negative impact on the licensing objectives because the 11 Temporary Event Notices lasting until 1am on Friday and Saturday nights (without any conditions being required) had passed without Police or residents’ objections and with no Reviews or complaints arising from the TENs and that generally since September 2010 there had been no reported complaints to the Police or Council Officers and no Reviews of the existing Premises Licence.”