Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED that; The decision of the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee from the hearing held on 9 August 2023 and 3 October 2023 in respect of an application for a Variation Premises Licence at Brew Monster is that the variation of the licence is granted subject to conditions. The Sub-Committee has varied the licensable activity trading for the supply of alcohol (on and off sales) to now include the following: · Bank Holidays 09.00 to 23.00 hours · New Years Eve 09.00 to 02.00 hours The Sub Committee has decided to vary licence condition 15 of the existing licence to the following: All alcoholic drinks will be consumed indoors within the licensed area, save between the hours of 11.00 to 21.00 on Saturdays and Sunday, where alcoholic drinks may be consumed in the outdoor courtyard area delineated in blue hatch upon the attached plan. In addition, further variations to the existing licensing conditions for the premises were made by the Sub-Committee. The amended schedule of license conditions are annexed hereto marked “A” (with amendments and additions being in underlined italics). The variations and reasons for the same are set out further below. The amended Premises Plan is annexed hereto marked “B”. The Sub Committee have listened very carefully to all representations made today and read very carefully all the written representations received. The Sub Committee have considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, the revised Home Office Guidance, and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The reasons for the Sub Committee’s decision are as follows. Extension of licensable hours In regard to the extend hours for the supply of alcohol (on and off sales) on a Bank Holiday and New Years Eve, the Sub Committee gave weight to the lack of objection in this regard from Gwent Police, Environmental Health, or the Licensing Officer (acting as the Responsible Authority). In regard to the resident objectors, only Mr Butler objected to this aspect of the variation application. Mr Butler indicated his objection to this aspect of the variation application via email of 18 July 2023 (page 65 of the Licensing Report). Within the email he simply confirms that he objects to both aspects of the variation application. He did not set out specifically why he objected to the extension of the licensable hours for Bank Holiday’s and New Years Eve. His representations made within his email of 15 July 2023 (page 63 of the Licensing Report) are primarily directed at the request to use the courtyard as a beer garden. Mr Bulter’s sets out objections on page 63 of the Licensing Report which arguably could be relevant to the extension of licensable hours request. The objection relates to the impediment of the public footpath on account of pop-up signage place by the Applicant whilst trading and the permanent presence of large commercial bins. The latter issue did not seem to be affected by the extension of the hours, as the bins appear to permanently reside where stated. Mr Butler indicated that the impediment on the footpath may affect families going to and from Twyn school site and passers-by. The Sub-Committee did not accept that this issue would affect persons connected to the Twyn school site as the hours sought to be extended were only applicable to days on which the school would be closed in any event by virtue of a public holiday. The Sub Committee were not persuaded by Mr Butler’s objections as to that aspect of the variation application warranted refusal. The Sub Committee were adequately satisfied that licensing objectives would be sufficiently promoted under the conditions of licence that would inevitably apply to the earlier opening hours. The Sub Committee gave significant weight to the extension of the hours being for an earlier start time, rather than extending the hours further into the night/very early morning. As such, this aspect of the variation application was granted and no amendments to the license conditions were required in this respect. “Brewery Yard” as limited beer garden It was abundantly clear to the Sub Committee that the licensing objective at greatest risk of being undermined by this aspect of the application was the prevention of public nuisance. This was principally due to the risk of patron noise within the beer garden, and the noise created by patrons walking to and from the beer garden. A further issue being the noise potentially created by the likely increase in the number of times the entry doors of the premises would be opened, allowing noise from within the premises to escape. A secondary aspect was the promotion of public safety possibly being undermined. Public safety In regards to public safety, the Sub Committee took into account the representations made from Gwent Police and the Environmental Health’s Health and Safety Officer, their respective recommended works and amendments/additions to the licencing conditions, and the Applicant’s readiness to accept such works and amendments/additions. For the Sub Committee, the amendments and additions sought, and agreed by the Applicant, adequately promoted the licensing objective of public safety and nothing further needed to be added by the Sub Committee. Regarding public safety, the Sub Committee has reservations as to the data protection issues arising from the requirement to operate CCTV on the section of public footpath from the premises entrance to the entrance of the Brewery Yard. This has significant potential to collect personal data of members of the public (by the capturing of their image) who are wholly unconnected to the Applicant’s business. How that personal data is collected, stored and used would give rise to complex issues for the Applicant to navigate. The Sub Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed to such additional condition within the premises licence and that this was likely to have been done so with the Applicant’s “eyes wide open”. The Sub Committee took the view that this was a matter for the Applicant to manage, possible with advice and guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office as to appropriate signage and ancillary obligations the Applicant will have to those whose personal data is collected by it. Prevention of Public Nuisance The Sub-Committee took into account paragraph 2.21 of the current Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and paragraph 11.2 of the council’s policy and accepting the noise issues raised by the three nearby residents, and the representations from Environmental Health were directly relevant to the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. The Sub Committee determined that the nuisance was sufficiently public – affecting a small number of local residents. Noise has previously arisen because of groups of patrons standing outside the immediate entrance to the premises, on the public footpath forming the immediate curtilage of the premises, to smoke. The noise of the patrons doing so, and the number of people within the groups, during the quieter hours of the evening/late evening – has disturbed local residents living directly across the road from the premises. The Applicant indicated that it had intended to provide a smoking shelter within the courtyard area, away from the public footpath, but patrons had not sought to use it due to the condition of the courtyard and it generally being uninviting. It was the Applicant’s submission that by using the courtyard in the way the variation intended would partly alleviate this problem by moving the smoking patrons to the courtyard. The Sub Committee gave some weight to the Applicant not being required to provide such shelter, but it does have a responsibility to manage patron noise within the immediate vicinity of the premises. Resident evidence, supported by Environmental Health, submitted that the Applicant had taken little or no, steps to attempt to mitigate this noise issue, though Environmental Health also stated that they did not witness prolonged noise from patrons. The Sub Committee did accept that the intended use of the courtyard, for the consumption of alcohol on weekends until 9pm would not completely alleviate the above noise issue. There remained the prospect that larger groups frequenting the premises after 9pm on a weekend would continue to smoke immediately outside the premises entrance and could make incidental noise that disturbs neighbouring residents. In the same respect, the Sub-Committee did not fully accept that the intended use of the courtyard would exacerbate this issue. The terminable hour for the courtyard being sought was 9pm – and largely the same risk of congregated patron smokers making noise after 9pm immediately outside the premises remained whether or not the application was granted. This issue was relevant to the degree of confidence that the Sub Committee could have in the Applicant managing this particular noise issue. Therefore the Sub Committee in exercising its judgement determined to vary the license condition numbered 13 to: · Prominent and clear notices displayed at points where clientele leave and enter the building, instructing them to leave the premises and area quietly, and if smoking outside to do so quietly. In weighing the risk to the promotion of prevention of public nuisance, Sub Committee, in exercising its judgement, took into account several factors. A lot of weight was given by the Sub Committee to the days and hours requested by the Applicant. The use was being self-limited to only weekends, and only until the terminable hour of 9pm. The Sub Committee reached the common-sense view that the courtyard, like many beer gardens, may not be an attractive area to consume alcohol during period of wet and cold weather that occurs beyond spring and summer. The Sub Committee reached the common-sense view that the courtyard was unlikely to be frequented by patrons 52 weekends of the year – and this was more likely during spring/summer. The risk to undermining this licensing objective was unlikely to persistently present itself on every weekend throughout the year. The terminable hour of 9pm was viewed by the Sub Committee as being reasonable. It appeared to fairly balance the needs of the Applicant and that of neighbouring residents – as the foot traffic between premises entry and courtyard would cease to continue at a time when residents would expect peace and quiet in the later hours of the evening. This went a substantial way to the promotion of this particular licensing objective. A further consideration in this respect was the increased frequency of the premises entry doors to open and close on weekends up until 9pm – as patrons enter/exit and re-enter/re-exit to obtain drinks to consume within the courtyard. This would allow more frequent spillage of noise from within the premises to neighbouring residents across the street. The Sub Committee gave weight to the risk largely being limited to weekend afternoons and evenings up to 9pm. The Sub Committee determined that managing this risk to the promotion of the licensing objective an additional condition of licence will be attended, based on term NP12 of the council’s model pool of conditions. The inclusion of such condition would enable an increased management of the risk of noise escaping should the entry door fail to be closed by patrons entering or exiting the premises for whatever reason. The additional condition is: · An automatic door closer shall be installed at the main entry door from the public footpath into the building to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority by 1 March 2024. The Sub Committee reached the view that the above condition would largely alleviate the Applicant’s staff from having to monitor the sound trap remaining effective by the main entrance door being left open, particularly during busy periods of trade. The Sub Committee heard evidence from a neighbouring resident’s daughter, on behalf of her mother, as to the excessive noise her elderly mother had experienced during the 3 Temporary Event Notice (“TEN”) events held in the courtyard earlier in the year. She indicated that otherwise for the use of the courtyard her mother did not have any other noise issues with the Applicant’s use of the premises. There were 3 TEN events involving the courtyard run by the Applicant earlier in the year. The Sub Committee were advised that no service requests to the Environmental Health team eventuated from such events. The Sub Committee heard evidence and submissions, principally from the Applicant and the Environmental Health Officer regarding proposed noise mitigation measures the Applicant was seeking to install to the respective fence lines within the courtyard. This perhaps unexpectedly had not formed a part of the Applicant’s variation application until the day before the initial hearing. It was a design the Applicant had researched and designed via Mr White, its director. Mr White accepted he had not spoken with the manufacturer of the acoustic panelling he is proposing to use. The Sub Committee heard submissions from residents and the Environmental Health Officer about the effectiveness and suitability of such acoustic panelling to an uncovered, external area, that would be exposed to the elements. In considering the mitigation offered by the Applicant in terms of the works to the fence lines, the clarity of evidence was scant. This was noted clearly by the Environmental Health Officer, who explained that to reach a clear view on the potential effectiveness of the intending works an assessment from an acoustic consultant would be required. Mr Jennings cautioned that real world effectiveness was often significantly different to how the product may perform in controlled conditions. The Sub Committee accepted this point – and were not persuaded by Mr White’s indication that the works would prevent any noise escaping the courtyard and or reducing the noise by more than 70 decibels. Mr Jennings, very fairly, indicated that noise from the courtyard can be mitigated against and the measures proposed were likely to result in a reduction of patron noise escaping from the courtyard – but he could not guess at the level of reduction. In his experienced view, the uncertainty did not provide adequate reassurance for him to remove his objection to the application being granted. In judging this aspect of the application, the Sub Committee considered the same aspects detailed above, namely the limited hours and days in which the courtyard would be used and these likely to be limited to the warmer and drier weather. The Sub Committee recognised that the licensing regime was intended to be a permissive regime, subject to ensuring the promotion of the four licensing objectives. In this instance, the Sub Committee had sufficient confidence that the combination of the noise reduction works, as detailed in the information provided by the Applicant to it, and further conditions of license would adequately safeguard the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance. The Sub Committee accorded weight to the fact that should a public nuisance arise, despite the mitigation works and further conditions of license, the residents and relevant authorities could request a review of the license. The Applicant acts in the clear knowledge that the intended works and steps it intends to undertake would not eliminate the possibility of a future review should the licensing objectives not be promoted. Furthermore, the residents will have the ever-present potential protection of the local authority dealing with any alleged statutory nuisance arising via the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Sub Committee considered the likelihood that the Applicant would be permitted to install the acoustic panelling to the fence line without infringing planning requirements/restrictions. The evidence on this issue was also scant and principally limited to information from the Applicant itself. Mr White confirmed that the single planning application had been made for the change of use for the courtyard and the intended noise reduction works to the fence line – but this application had not as yet been determined. The Sub Committee are not bound by planning decisions and the planning authority are not bound by licensing authority decisions – the two regulatory systems are separate, but often consider similar areas of issue. The Applicant appeared to be acutely aware that planning is required to use the courtyard in the manner intended, which he does not presently have, and the objecting residents are also acutely aware of this outstanding issue. If the Applicant uses the courtyard area, as permitted by his varied premises license without having all required planning consent – then it runs the very real risk of breaching planning regulations. The Applicant recognised this issue. On balance, the Sub Committee were sufficiently confident that should the courtyard be permitted by planning to use the area as sought then the acoustic works would be allowed. If not, then the Applicant may have to make a further variation application to the Licensing Authority to amend the relevant conditions imposed by the Sub Committee in this instance. The Sub Committee considered the evidence that the premises has no direct line of sight to the courtyard area. Objecting parties submitted that this would make the management of noise and behaviour in the courtyard area difficult to manage. The Sub Committee took account that the requested amendment to the licensing conditions made by Gwent Police for the requirement for CCTV to be used in the courtyard area was accepted by the Applicant. The Sub Committee held concerns as to the lack of noise monitoring the CCTV would provide but in its judgement believed that this issue could be managed by the further addition of conditions of license. These conditions, based upon the model pool of condition are: · The outdoor courtyard area shall only be open to patrons to consume alcohol on Saturday and Sundays from 11.00 until 21.00 hours. Adequate notices shall be displayed in appropriate locations to ensure that this information is brought to the attention of patrons. At 21.00 hours the outdoor courtyard is to be clear of patrons and all entry points to the courtyard be closed and secured to prevent access by patrons. · The premises licence holder shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that patrons using the outdoor courtyard area do so in a quiet and orderly fashion. · The manager, licence holder or other competent person shall carry out observations in, or in the vicinity of, the outdoor courtyard area, on at least hourly between 12pm and 9pm when the outdoor courtyard is being used by patrons in order to establish whether there is noise being made at a level likely to cause disturbance to the occupants of properties in the vicinity. If such observation reveals such level of noise to cause disturbance, then patrons causing such noise will be asked to reduce the volume of noise and or to leave the courtyard area. A record of such observations shall be kept in a book for that purpose, such book shall be completed immediately after the observation detailing the time, location and duration of the observation, the level of noise and any action taken to reduce such noise. Such book to be made available at all times upon request to an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority or a constable. The Sub Committee took into account the concerns expressed by the Environmental Health Officer and the Licensing Officer as to the ability of the Applicant to adequately manage the varied license. However, on balance, in the Sub Committee’s judgement was that this did not result in it having such low confidence in the applicant that it undermined the promotion of the licensing objectives that would justify an outright refusal of the application. Any person aggrieved by this decision has 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision to appeal to the local Magistrates Court. _______________________ CHAIR
Apologies for absence received from Mrs A. Dicks Assistant Licensing Manger and Mr M. Butler.
There were no declarations of interest made at the beginning or during the course of the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that; The decision of the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee from the hearing held on 9 August 2023 and 3 October 2023 in respect of an application for a Variation Premises Licence at Brew Monster is that the variation of the licence is granted subject to conditions. The Sub-Committee has varied the licensable activity trading for the supply of alcohol (on and off sales) to now include the following: · Bank Holidays 09.00 to 23.00 hours · New Years Eve 09.00 to 02.00 hours The Sub Committee has decided to vary licence condition 15 of the existing licence to the following: All alcoholic drinks will be consumed indoors within the licensed area, save between the hours of 11.00 to 21.00 on Saturdays and Sunday, where alcoholic drinks may be consumed in the outdoor courtyard area delineated in blue hatch upon the attached plan. In addition, further variations to the existing licensing conditions for the premises were made by the Sub-Committee. The amended schedule of license conditions are annexed hereto marked “A” (with amendments and additions being in underlined italics). The variations and reasons for the same are set out further below. The amended Premises Plan is annexed hereto marked “B”. The Sub Committee have listened very carefully to all representations made today and read very carefully all the written representations received. The Sub Committee have considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, the revised Home Office Guidance, and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The reasons for the Sub Committee’s decision are as follows. Extension of licensable hours In regard to the extend hours for the supply of alcohol (on and off sales) on a Bank Holiday and New Years Eve, the Sub Committee gave weight to the lack of objection in this regard from Gwent Police, Environmental Health, or the Licensing Officer (acting as the Responsible Authority). In regard to the resident objectors, only Mr Butler objected to this aspect of the variation application. Mr Butler indicated his objection to this aspect of the variation application via email of 18 July 2023 (page 65 of the Licensing Report). Within the email he simply confirms that he objects to both aspects of the variation application. He did not set out specifically why he objected to the extension of the licensable hours for Bank Holiday’s and New Years Eve. His representations made within his email of 15 July 2023 (page 63 of the Licensing Report) are primarily directed at the request to use the courtyard as a beer garden. Mr Bulter’s sets out objections on page 63 of the Licensing Report which arguably could be relevant to the extension of licensable hours request. The objection relates to the impediment of the public footpath on account of pop-up signage place by the Applicant whilst trading and the permanent presence of large commercial bins. The latter issue did not seem to be affected by the extension of the hours, as the bins appear to permanently reside where stated. Mr Butler indicated that the impediment on the footpath may affect families going to and from Twyn school site and passers-by. The Sub-Committee did not accept that this issue would affect persons connected to the Twyn school site as the hours sought to be extended were only applicable to days on which the school would be closed in any event by virtue of a public holiday. The Sub Committee were not persuaded by Mr Butler’s objections as to that aspect of the variation application warranted refusal. The Sub Committee were adequately satisfied that licensing objectives would be sufficiently promoted under the conditions of licence that would inevitably apply to the earlier opening hours. The Sub Committee gave significant weight to the extension of the hours being for an earlier start time, rather than extending the hours further into the night/very early morning. As such, this aspect of the variation application was granted and no amendments to the license conditions were required in this respect. “Brewery Yard” as limited beer garden It was abundantly clear to the Sub Committee that the licensing objective at greatest risk of being undermined by this aspect of the application was the prevention of public nuisance. This was principally due to the risk of patron noise within the beer garden, and the noise created by patrons walking to and from the beer garden. A further issue being the noise potentially created by the likely increase in the number of times the entry doors of the premises would be opened, allowing noise from within the premises to escape. A secondary aspect was the promotion of public safety possibly being undermined. Public safety In regards to public safety, the Sub Committee took into account the representations made from Gwent Police and the Environmental Health’s Health and Safety Officer, their respective recommended works and amendments/additions to the licencing conditions, and the Applicant’s readiness to accept such works and amendments/additions. For the Sub Committee, the amendments and additions sought, and agreed by the Applicant, adequately promoted the licensing objective of public safety and nothing further needed to be added by the Sub Committee. Regarding public safety, the Sub Committee has reservations as to the data protection issues arising from the requirement to operate CCTV on the section of public footpath from the premises entrance to the entrance of the Brewery Yard. This has significant potential to collect personal data of members of the public (by the capturing of their image) who are wholly unconnected to the Applicant’s business. How that personal data is collected, stored and used would give rise to complex issues for the Applicant to navigate. The Sub Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed to such additional condition within the premises licence and that this was likely to have been done so with the Applicant’s “eyes wide open”. The Sub Committee took the view that this was a matter for the Applicant to manage, possible with advice and guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office as to appropriate signage and ancillary obligations the Applicant will have to those whose personal data is collected by it. Prevention of Public Nuisance The Sub-Committee took into account paragraph 2.21 of the current Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and paragraph 11.2 of the council’s policy and accepting the noise issues raised by the three nearby residents, and the representations from Environmental Health were directly relevant to the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. The Sub Committee determined that the nuisance was sufficiently public – affecting a small number of local residents. Noise has previously arisen because of groups of patrons standing outside the immediate entrance to the premises, on the public footpath forming the immediate curtilage of the premises, to smoke. The noise of the patrons doing so, and the number of people within the groups, during the quieter hours of the evening/late evening – has disturbed local residents living directly across the road from the premises. The Applicant indicated that it had intended to provide a smoking shelter within the courtyard area, away from the public footpath, but patrons had not sought to use it due to the condition of the courtyard and it generally being uninviting. It was the Applicant’s submission that by using the courtyard in the way the variation intended would partly alleviate this problem by moving the smoking patrons to the courtyard. The Sub Committee gave some weight to the Applicant not being required to provide such shelter, but it does have a responsibility to manage patron noise within the immediate vicinity of the premises. Resident evidence, supported by Environmental Health, submitted that the Applicant had taken little or no, steps to attempt to mitigate this noise issue, though Environmental Health also stated that they did not witness prolonged noise from patrons. The Sub Committee did accept that the intended use of the courtyard, for the consumption of alcohol on weekends until 9pm would not completely alleviate the above noise issue. There remained the prospect that larger groups frequenting the premises after 9pm on a weekend would continue to smoke immediately outside the premises entrance and could make incidental noise that disturbs neighbouring residents. In the same respect, the Sub-Committee did not fully accept that the intended use of the courtyard would exacerbate this issue. The terminable hour for the courtyard being sought was 9pm – and largely the same risk of congregated patron smokers making noise after 9pm immediately outside the premises remained whether or not the application was granted. This issue was relevant to the degree of confidence that the Sub Committee could have in the Applicant managing this particular noise issue. Therefore the Sub Committee in exercising its judgement determined to vary the license condition numbered 13 to: · Prominent and clear notices displayed at points where clientele leave and enter the building, instructing them to leave the premises and area quietly, and if smoking outside to do so quietly. In weighing the risk to the promotion of prevention of public nuisance, Sub Committee, in exercising its judgement, took into account several factors. A lot of weight was given by the Sub Committee to the days and hours requested by the Applicant. The use was being self-limited to only weekends, and only until the terminable hour of 9pm. The Sub Committee reached the common-sense view that the courtyard, like many beer gardens, may not be an attractive area to consume alcohol during period of wet and cold weather that occurs beyond spring and summer. The Sub Committee reached the common-sense view that the courtyard was unlikely to be frequented by patrons 52 weekends of the year – and this was more likely during spring/summer. The risk to undermining this licensing objective was unlikely to persistently present itself on every weekend throughout the year. The terminable hour of 9pm was viewed by the Sub Committee as being reasonable. It appeared to fairly balance the needs of the Applicant and that of neighbouring residents – as the foot traffic between premises entry and courtyard would cease to continue at a time when residents would expect peace and quiet in the later hours of the evening. This went a substantial way to the promotion of this particular licensing objective. A further consideration in this respect was the increased frequency of the premises entry doors to open and close on weekends up until 9pm – as patrons enter/exit and re-enter/re-exit to obtain drinks to consume within the courtyard. This would allow more frequent spillage of noise from within the premises to neighbouring residents across the street. The Sub Committee gave weight to the risk largely being limited to weekend afternoons and evenings up to 9pm. The Sub Committee determined that managing this risk to the promotion of the licensing objective an additional condition of licence will be attended, based on term NP12 of the council’s model pool of conditions. The inclusion of such condition would enable an increased management of the risk of noise escaping should the entry door fail to be closed by patrons entering or exiting the premises for whatever reason. The additional condition is: · An automatic door closer shall be installed at the main entry door from the public footpath into the building to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority by 1 March 2024. The Sub Committee reached the view that the above condition would largely alleviate the Applicant’s staff from having to monitor the sound trap remaining effective by the main entrance door being left open, particularly during busy periods of trade. The Sub Committee heard evidence from a neighbouring resident’s daughter, on behalf of her mother, as to the excessive noise her elderly mother had experienced during the 3 Temporary Event Notice (“TEN”) events held in the courtyard earlier in the year. She indicated that otherwise for the use of the courtyard her mother did not have any other noise issues with the Applicant’s use of the premises. There were 3 TEN events involving the courtyard run by the Applicant earlier in the year. The Sub Committee were advised that no service requests to the Environmental Health team eventuated from such events. The Sub Committee heard evidence and submissions, principally from the Applicant and the Environmental Health Officer regarding proposed noise mitigation measures the Applicant was seeking to install to the respective fence lines within the courtyard. This perhaps unexpectedly had not formed a part of the Applicant’s variation application until the day before the initial hearing. It was a design the Applicant had researched and designed via Mr White, its director. Mr White accepted he had not spoken with the manufacturer of the acoustic panelling he is proposing to use. The Sub Committee heard submissions from residents and the Environmental Health Officer about the effectiveness and suitability of such acoustic panelling to an uncovered, external area, that would be exposed to the elements. In considering the mitigation offered by the Applicant in terms of the works to the fence lines, the clarity of evidence was scant. This was noted clearly by the Environmental Health Officer, who explained that to reach a clear view on the potential effectiveness of the intending works an assessment from an acoustic consultant would be required. Mr Jennings cautioned that real world effectiveness was often significantly different to how the product may perform in controlled conditions. The Sub Committee accepted this point – and were not persuaded by Mr White’s indication that the works would prevent any noise escaping the courtyard and or reducing the noise by more than 70 decibels. Mr Jennings, very fairly, indicated that noise from the courtyard can be mitigated against and the measures proposed were likely to result in a reduction of patron noise escaping from the courtyard – but he could not guess at the level of reduction. In his experienced view, the uncertainty did not provide adequate reassurance for him to remove his objection to the application being granted. In judging this aspect of the application, the Sub Committee considered the same aspects detailed above, namely the limited hours and days in which the courtyard would be used and these likely to be limited to the warmer and drier weather. The Sub Committee recognised that the licensing regime was intended to be a permissive regime, subject to ensuring the promotion of the four licensing objectives. In this instance, the Sub Committee had sufficient confidence that the combination of the noise reduction works, as detailed in the information provided by the Applicant to it, and further conditions of license would adequately safeguard the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance. The Sub Committee accorded weight to the fact that should a public nuisance arise, despite the mitigation works and further conditions of license, the residents and relevant authorities could request a review of the license. The Applicant acts in the clear knowledge that the intended works and steps it intends to undertake would not eliminate the possibility of a future review should the licensing objectives not be promoted. Furthermore, the residents will have the ever-present potential protection of the local authority dealing with any alleged statutory nuisance arising via the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Sub Committee considered the likelihood that the Applicant would be permitted to install the acoustic panelling to the fence line without infringing planning requirements/restrictions. The evidence on this issue was also scant and principally limited to information from the Applicant itself. Mr White confirmed that the single planning application had been made for the change of use for the courtyard and the intended noise reduction works to the fence line – but this application had not as yet been determined. The Sub Committee are not bound by planning decisions and the planning authority are not bound by licensing authority decisions – the two regulatory systems are separate, but often consider similar areas of issue. The Applicant appeared to be acutely aware that planning is required to use the courtyard in the manner intended, which he does not presently have, and the objecting residents are also acutely aware of this outstanding issue. If the Applicant uses the courtyard area, as permitted by his varied premises license without having all required planning consent – then it runs the very real risk of breaching planning regulations. The Applicant recognised this issue. On balance, the Sub Committee were sufficiently confident that should the courtyard be permitted by planning to use the area as sought then the acoustic works would be allowed. If not, then the Applicant may have to make a further variation application to the Licensing Authority to amend the relevant conditions imposed by the Sub Committee in this instance. The Sub Committee considered the evidence that the premises has no direct line of sight to the courtyard area. Objecting parties submitted that this would make the management of noise and behaviour in the courtyard area difficult to manage. The Sub Committee took account that the requested amendment to the licensing conditions made by Gwent Police for the requirement for CCTV to be used in the courtyard area was accepted by the Applicant. The Sub Committee held concerns as to the lack of noise monitoring the CCTV would provide but in its judgement believed that this issue could be managed by the further addition of conditions of license. These conditions, based upon the model pool of condition are: · The outdoor courtyard area shall only be open to patrons to consume alcohol on Saturday and Sundays from 11.00 until 21.00 hours. Adequate notices shall be displayed in appropriate locations to ensure that this information is brought to the attention of patrons. At 21.00 hours the outdoor courtyard is to be clear of patrons and all entry points to the courtyard be closed and secured to prevent access by patrons. · The premises licence holder shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that patrons using the outdoor courtyard area do so in a quiet and orderly fashion. · The manager, licence holder or other competent person shall carry out observations in, or in the vicinity of, the outdoor courtyard area, on at least hourly between 12pm and 9pm when the outdoor courtyard is being used by patrons in order to establish whether there is noise being made at a level likely to cause disturbance to the occupants of properties in the vicinity. If such observation reveals such level of noise to cause disturbance, then patrons causing such noise will be asked to reduce the volume of noise and or to leave the courtyard area. A record of such observations shall be kept in a book for that purpose, such book shall be completed immediately after the observation detailing the time, location and duration of the observation, the level of noise and any action taken to reduce such noise. Such book to be made available at all times upon request to an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority or a constable. The Sub Committee took into account the concerns expressed by the Environmental Health Officer and the Licensing Officer as to the ability of the Applicant to adequately manage the varied license. However, on balance, in the Sub Committee’s judgement was that this did not result in it having such low confidence in the applicant that it undermined the promotion of the licensing objectives that would justify an outright refusal of the application. Any person aggrieved by this decision has 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision to appeal to the local Magistrates Court. _______________________ CHAIR
The Chairman opened the meeting and introductions were made. The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting advising all parties, this meeting was reconvened from 9th August 2023. At that meeting there was a suggestion with scant evidence that noise mitigation measures the applicant was seeking to put in place would offset the concerns in relation to the use and the proposed use of the Yard. The Sub Committee were not in a position to make an informed decision, without further information. Therefore, the meeting was adjourned to allow additional information to be provided. The Legal Advisor advised all parties, that this meeting was limited to only discussions on noise mitigation measures as all parties gave substantive reports and submission at the previous meeting. All parties were advised that the meeting would run in slightly amended procedure that would normally be followed. The Licensing Manager was invited to give a brief overview as to what has happened since 9th August in relation to the provision of the distribution of the information. The applicant would then be invited to present their information and then all parties would be invited to ask question limited to only the additional information provided. The Licensing Manager addressed the Sub Committee and all outlined the additional information submitted by the applicant. The Licensing Manager advised the Members that the deadline for additional information was 4pm on 12th September 2023. This information was then circulated to all parties who were given the opportunity to make representations and comments by 4pm on 26th September 2023. Mr White addressed the Sub Committee and referred to the additional information submitted. He advised the Members, that a lot of research has been undertaken on the different options available to mitigate the issue of noise in the Yard. Mr White explained that the general decibel level of people speaking reaches are 60 and the system that the PLH is proposing should achieve is the reduction of 71 decibels. Therefore, more than adequate for the proposed area. Mr White advised the Members that he had taken on board comments from the EHO which said that in practice it may not achieve the full amount suggested. However, Mr White was confident that the system proposed is a substantial system that would be more than capable of keeping the noise to an acceptable level in the Yard, so not to cause a public nuisance. Mr White further informed the Sub Committee that on the northern side of the Yard there was approximately a meter below the ground level of the property, together with this and the height of the wall the risk of noise to the nearest property, which is a bungalow, was in the opinion of Mr White a very low. All parties were given the opportunity to ask questions of Mr White. The Sub Committee raised a query regarding the accuracy to the suggestion submitted by the applicant that there would be a complete ring around the Yard that would prevent any sound escaping. Mr White agreed that this could have been worded better. However, was still of the opinion that any noise that would escape would be minimal. A further query was raised with the effectiveness of the suggested soundproofing and whether the product would be suitable for external use. Mr White explained there will primarily be two parts to the sounding proofing, which will be the block wall and the membrane which is going to be used will be protected with a visqueen plastic to ensure that it does not get damaged by water. Assurance was made that the applicant did not intend on risking doing all the works suggested only to have it not work. It was felt that a lot of time and effort was had been put in researching the best product to use. However, if the system installed and needs improvement then improvements will be made. Mr White, explained to the Sub Committee that in order to provide a more robust sound proofing the material has multiple layers, of which more can be added to be made more effective. In response to further concerns over whether the product is suitable for external use Mr White strongly felt that other than the durability aspect, the products would still act as a barrier to absorb sound. Discussions took place over the diagram which was provided by the applicant which showed examples of different levels of decibels. A resident queried if the diagram shows that 2 children talking would equate to 60 decibels then surly that would be far greater for the Yard with up to 60 customers. Mr White responded, advising the Sub Committee that there will not always be 60 customers in the Yard at one time and the system that will be in place would provide a suitable noise barrier, which will absorb 71 decibels, which would be more than adequate. Assurances were made that even with the system in place monitoring would still take place on a regular basis especially at busier times, and Mr White would advocate a condition to that effect being placed on the licence. Representations were invited from the Environmental Health Officer, who confirmed that although the works that are proposed by the applicant would likely result in the reduction of noise emanating from the Yard, concerns still remain over the proof and efficacy of the mitigation proposed. Representations were invited from the Health and Safety Officer, confirmed that there were no objections to the application as the applicant had worked with Health and Safety to address any concerns that had been raised. Representations were invited from Local Residents. Ms Jordan addressed the Sub Committee who was speaking on behalf of her mother Majorie Tilley, who felt that the use of the Yard is not suitable and can not be sound proofed adequately to stop a noise nuisance. The premises has held TENs in the past and these events had caused a public nuisance. Ms Jordan asked the Sub Committee to turn down the application to allow the use of the Yard due to the material proposed to be used in her opinion, following research Ms Jordan had not found any evidence of its use in an outdoor area also the Yard has no roof so it can not be soundproofed. Furthermore, Brew Monster state that "The intention of the proposed screening in combination with the existing buildings is intended to produce a complete ring around the Yard that will prevent the escape of any sound when the yard is in use by patrons." Ms Jordan felt this claim was false and the noise could and will escape from the air above. Following discussions, Mr Brown addressed the Sub Committee and advised them that he would also be representing Mr Butler in his absence. Dr Brown referred to the additional information that had been submitted and asked the Sub-Committee to consider rejecting the use of the Yard due to the additional information submitted by the applicant not providing any evidence that the sound proofing system proposed will be suitable for use in an outside area. Following discussions all parties present were given the opportunity to sum up before the Sub-Committee retired to make its decision. The Licensing Manager asked Members to consider all the information before them and to take into account all relevant licensing guidance when making their decision and referred Members to the recommendation in the report which recommended that the application to vary the premises licence be refused. The Licensing Manager also asked Members to consider the objections of the Licensing Authority in the absence of the Assistant Licensing Manager. PC Taylor (Heddlu Gwent Police) confirmed Heddlu Gwent Police did not have any additional comments following the previous meeting. The Environmental Health Officer (Environmental Health Noise Pollution) confirmed that their position remained unchanged, and the objection to the application remained, due to the belief that allowing the use of the Yard would be contrary to promoting the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective. The Health and Safety Officer confirmed his position that there were no objection to the application. Ms Jordan asked that the Sub Committee take into account the additional information provided and reject the application to allow the use of the Yard, to allow her mother to be able to enjoy the use of her garden. Dr Brown again asked the Sub Committee to consider rejecting the application to prevent public nuisance. Mr White asked the Sub Committee that when making their decision they take into consideration the in-depth research the applicant has taken and proposed conditions and solutions to mitigate any noise or crime and disorder nuisance that could potentially cause a nuisance to their nearest residents. The Legal Advisor informed all parties present that the Sub Committee would retire to consider the representations made at the meeting and they would be informed in writing of the decision in the next 5 days. The Sub Committee retired at 11.10am to make its decision and all other parties left the meeting. Following consideration of the application and having regard to the Licensing Officer’s report and all the representations made, the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee unanimously RESOLVED that; The decision of the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee from the hearing held on 9 August 2023 and 3 October 2023 in respect of an application for a Variation Premises Licence at Brew Monster is that the variation of the licence is granted subject to conditions. The Sub-Committee has varied the licensable activity trading for the supply of alcohol (on and off sales) to now include the following: · Bank Holidays 09.00 to 23.00 hours · New Years Eve 09.00 to 02.00 hours The Sub Committee has decided to vary licence condition 15 of the existing licence to the following: All alcoholic drinks will be consumed indoors within the licensed area, save between the hours of 11.00 to 21.00 on Saturdays and Sunday, where alcoholic drinks may be consumed in the outdoor courtyard area delineated in blue hatch upon the attached plan. In addition, further variations to the existing licensing conditions for the premises were made by the Sub-Committee. The amended schedule of license conditions are annexed hereto marked “A” (with amendments and additions being in underlined italics). The variations and reasons for the same are set out further below. The amended Premises Plan is annexed hereto marked “B”. The Sub Committee have listened very carefully to all representations made today and read very carefully all the written representations received. The Sub Committee have considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, the revised Home Office Guidance, and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The reasons for the Sub Committee’s decision are as follows. Extension of licensable hours In regard to the extend hours for the supply of alcohol (on and off sales) on a Bank Holiday and New Years Eve, the Sub Committee gave weight to the lack of objection in this regard from Gwent Police, Environmental Health, or the Licensing Officer (acting as the Responsible Authority). In regard to the resident objectors, only Mr Butler objected to this aspect of the variation application. Mr Butler indicated his objection to this aspect of the variation application via email of 18 July 2023 (page 65 of the Licensing Report). Within the email he simply confirms that he objects to both aspects of the variation application. He did not set out specifically why he objected to the extension of the licensable hours for Bank Holiday’s and New Years Eve. His representations made within his email of 15 July 2023 (page 63 of the Licensing Report) are primarily directed at the request to use the courtyard as a beer garden. Mr Bulter’s sets out objections on page 63 of the Licensing Report which arguably could be relevant to the extension of licensable hours request. The objection relates to the impediment of the public footpath on account of pop-up signage place by the Applicant whilst trading and the permanent presence of large commercial bins. The latter issue did not seem to be affected by the extension of the hours, as the bins appear to permanently reside where stated. Mr Butler indicated that the impediment on the footpath may affect families going to and from Twyn school site and passers-by. The Sub-Committee did not accept that this issue would affect persons connected to the Twyn school site as the hours sought to be extended were only applicable to days on which the school would be closed in any event by virtue of a public holiday. The Sub Committee were not persuaded by Mr Butler’s objections as to that aspect of the variation application warranted refusal. The Sub Committee were adequately satisfied that licensing objectives would be sufficiently promoted under the conditions of licence that would inevitably apply to the earlier opening hours. The Sub Committee gave significant weight to the extension of the hours being for an earlier start time, rather than extending the hours further into the night/very early morning. As such, this aspect of the variation application was granted and no amendments to the license conditions were required in this respect. “Brewery Yard” as limited beer garden It was abundantly clear to the Sub Committee that the licensing objective at greatest risk of being undermined by this aspect of the application was the prevention of public nuisance. This was principally due to the risk of patron noise within the beer garden, and the noise created by patrons walking to and from the beer garden. A further issue being the noise potentially created by the likely increase in the number of times the entry doors of the premises would be opened, allowing noise from within the premises to escape. A secondary aspect was the promotion of public safety possibly being undermined. Public safety In regards to public safety, the Sub Committee took into account the representations made from Gwent Police and the Environmental Health’s Health and Safety Officer, their respective recommended works and amendments/additions to the licencing conditions, and the Applicant’s readiness to accept such works and amendments/additions. For the Sub Committee, the amendments and additions sought, and agreed by the Applicant, adequately promoted the licensing objective of public safety and nothing further needed to be added by the Sub Committee. Regarding public safety, the Sub Committee has reservations as to the data protection issues arising from the requirement to operate CCTV on the section of public footpath from the premises entrance to the entrance of the Brewery Yard. This has significant potential to collect personal data of members of the public (by the capturing of their image) who are wholly unconnected to the Applicant’s business. How that personal data is collected, stored and used would give rise to complex issues for the Applicant to navigate. The Sub Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed to such additional condition within the premises licence and that this was likely to have been done so with the Applicant’s “eyes wide open”. The Sub Committee took the view that this was a matter for the Applicant to manage, possible with advice and guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office as to appropriate signage and ancillary obligations the Applicant will have to those whose personal data is collected by it. Prevention of Public Nuisance The Sub-Committee took into account paragraph 2.21 of the current Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and paragraph 11.2 of the council’s policy and accepting the noise issues raised by the three nearby residents, and the representations from Environmental Health were directly relevant to the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. The Sub Committee determined that the nuisance was sufficiently public – affecting a small number of local residents. Noise has previously arisen because of groups of patrons standing outside the immediate entrance to the premises, on the public footpath forming the immediate curtilage of the premises, to smoke. The noise of the patrons doing so, and the number of people within the groups, during the quieter hours of the evening/late evening – has disturbed local residents living directly across the road from the premises. The Applicant indicated that it had intended to provide a smoking shelter within the courtyard area, away from the public footpath, but patrons had not sought to use it due to the condition of the courtyard and it generally being uninviting. It was the Applicant’s submission that by using the courtyard in the way the variation intended would partly alleviate this problem by moving the smoking patrons to the courtyard. The Sub Committee gave some weight to the Applicant not being required to provide such shelter, but it does have a responsibility to manage patron noise within the immediate vicinity of the premises. Resident evidence, supported by Environmental Health, submitted that the Applicant had taken little or no, steps to attempt to mitigate this noise issue, though Environmental Health also stated that they did not witness prolonged noise from patrons. The Sub Committee did accept that the intended use of the courtyard, for the consumption of alcohol on weekends until 9pm would not completely alleviate the above noise issue. There remained the prospect that larger groups frequenting the premises after 9pm on a weekend would continue to smoke immediately outside the premises entrance and could make incidental noise that disturbs neighbouring residents. In the same respect, the Sub-Committee did not fully accept that the intended use of the courtyard would exacerbate this issue. The terminable hour for the courtyard being sought was 9pm – and largely the same risk of congregated patron smokers making noise after 9pm immediately outside the premises remained whether or not the application was granted. This issue was relevant to the degree of confidence that the Sub Committee could have in the Applicant managing this particular noise issue. Therefore the Sub Committee in exercising its judgement determined to vary the license condition numbered 13 to: · Prominent and clear notices displayed at points where clientele leave and enter the building, instructing them to leave the premises and area quietly, and if smoking outside to do so quietly. In weighing the risk to the promotion of prevention of public nuisance, Sub Committee, in exercising its judgement, took into account several factors. A lot of weight was given by the Sub Committee to the days and hours requested by the Applicant. The use was being self-limited to only weekends, and only until the terminable hour of 9pm. The Sub Committee reached the common-sense view that the courtyard, like many beer gardens, may not be an attractive area to consume alcohol during period of wet and cold weather that occurs beyond spring and summer. The Sub Committee reached the common-sense view that the courtyard was unlikely to be frequented by patrons 52 weekends of the year – and this was more likely during spring/summer. The risk to undermining this licensing objective was unlikely to persistently present itself on every weekend throughout the year. The terminable hour of 9pm was viewed by the Sub Committee as being reasonable. It appeared to fairly balance the needs of the Applicant and that of neighbouring residents – as the foot traffic between premises entry and courtyard would cease to continue at a time when residents would expect peace and quiet in the later hours of the evening. This went a substantial way to the promotion of this particular licensing objective. A further consideration in this respect was the increased frequency of the premises entry doors to open and close on weekends up until 9pm – as patrons enter/exit and re-enter/re-exit to obtain drinks to consume within the courtyard. This would allow more frequent spillage of noise from within the premises to neighbouring residents across the street. The Sub Committee gave weight to the risk largely being limited to weekend afternoons and evenings up to 9pm. The Sub Committee determined that managing this risk to the promotion of the licensing objective an additional condition of licence will be attended, based on term NP12 of the council’s model pool of conditions. The inclusion of such condition would enable an increased management of the risk of noise escaping should the entry door fail to be closed by patrons entering or exiting the premises for whatever reason. The additional condition is: · An automatic door closer shall be installed at the main entry door from the public footpath into the building to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority by 1 March 2024. The Sub Committee reached the view that the above condition would largely alleviate the Applicant’s staff from having to monitor the sound trap remaining effective by the main entrance door being left open, particularly during busy periods of trade. The Sub Committee heard evidence from a neighbouring resident’s daughter, on behalf of her mother, as to the excessive noise her elderly mother had experienced during the 3 Temporary Event Notice (“TEN”) events held in the courtyard earlier in the year. She indicated that otherwise for the use of the courtyard her mother did not have any other noise issues with the Applicant’s use of the premises. There were 3 TEN events involving the courtyard run by the Applicant earlier in the year. The Sub Committee were advised that no service requests to the Environmental Health team eventuated from such events. The Sub Committee heard evidence and submissions, principally from the Applicant and the Environmental Health Officer regarding proposed noise mitigation measures the Applicant was seeking to install to the respective fence lines within the courtyard. This perhaps unexpectedly had not formed a part of the Applicant’s variation application until the day before the initial hearing. It was a design the Applicant had researched and designed via Mr White, its director. Mr White accepted he had not spoken with the manufacturer of the acoustic panelling he is proposing to use. The Sub Committee heard submissions from residents and the Environmental Health Officer about the effectiveness and suitability of such acoustic panelling to an uncovered, external area, that would be exposed to the elements. In considering the mitigation offered by the Applicant in terms of the works to the fence lines, the clarity of evidence was scant. This was noted clearly by the Environmental Health Officer, who explained that to reach a clear view on the potential effectiveness of the intending works an assessment from an acoustic consultant would be required. Mr Jennings cautioned that real world effectiveness was often significantly different to how the product may perform in controlled conditions. The Sub Committee accepted this point – and were not persuaded by Mr White’s indication that the works would prevent any noise escaping the courtyard and or reducing the noise by more than 70 decibels. Mr Jennings, very fairly, indicated that noise from the courtyard can be mitigated against and the measures proposed were likely to result in a reduction of patron noise escaping from the courtyard – but he could not guess at the level of reduction. In his experienced view, the uncertainty did not provide adequate reassurance for him to remove his objection to the application being granted. In judging this aspect of the application, the Sub Committee considered the same aspects detailed above, namely the limited hours and days in which the courtyard would be used and these likely to be limited to the warmer and drier weather. The Sub Committee recognised that the licensing regime was intended to be a permissive regime, subject to ensuring the promotion of the four licensing objectives. In this instance, the Sub Committee had sufficient confidence that the combination of the noise reduction works, as detailed in the information provided by the Applicant to it, and further conditions of license would adequately safeguard the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance. The Sub Committee accorded weight to the fact that should a public nuisance arise, despite the mitigation works and further conditions of license, the residents and relevant authorities could request a review of the license. The Applicant acts in the clear knowledge that the intended works and steps it intends to undertake would not eliminate the possibility of a future review should the licensing objectives not be promoted. Furthermore, the residents will have the ever-present potential protection of the local authority dealing with any alleged statutory nuisance arising via the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Sub Committee considered the likelihood that the Applicant would be permitted to install the acoustic panelling to the fence line without infringing planning requirements/restrictions. The evidence on this issue was also scant and principally limited to information from the Applicant itself. Mr White confirmed that the single planning application had been made for the change of use for the courtyard and the intended noise reduction works to the fence line – but this application had not as yet been determined. The Sub Committee are not bound by planning decisions and the planning authority are not bound by licensing authority decisions – the two regulatory systems are separate, but often consider similar areas of issue. The Applicant appeared to be acutely aware that planning is required to use the courtyard in the manner intended, which he does not presently have, and the objecting residents are also acutely aware of this outstanding issue. If the Applicant uses the courtyard area, as permitted by his varied premises license without having all required planning consent – then it runs the very real risk of breaching planning regulations. The Applicant recognised this issue. On balance, the Sub Committee were sufficiently confident that should the courtyard be permitted by planning to use the area as sought then the acoustic works would be allowed. If not, then the Applicant may have to make a further variation application to the Licensing Authority to amend the relevant conditions imposed by the Sub Committee in this instance. The Sub Committee considered the evidence that the premises has no direct line of sight to the courtyard area. Objecting parties submitted that this would make the management of noise and behaviour in the courtyard area difficult to manage. The Sub Committee took account that the requested amendment to the licensing conditions made by Gwent Police for the requirement for CCTV to be used in the courtyard area was accepted by the Applicant. The Sub Committee held concerns as to the lack of noise monitoring the CCTV would provide but in its judgement believed that this issue could be managed by the further addition of conditions of license. These conditions, based upon the model pool of condition are: · The outdoor courtyard area shall only be open to patrons to consume alcohol on Saturday and Sundays from 11.00 until 21.00 hours. Adequate notices shall be displayed in appropriate locations to ensure that this information is brought to the attention of patrons. At 21.00 hours the outdoor courtyard is to be clear of patrons and all entry points to the courtyard be closed and secured to prevent access by patrons. · The premises licence holder shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that patrons using the outdoor courtyard area do so in a quiet and orderly fashion. · The manager, licence holder or other competent person shall carry out observations in, or in the vicinity of, the outdoor courtyard area, on at least hourly between 12pm and 9pm when the outdoor courtyard is being used by patrons in order to establish whether there is noise being made at a level likely to cause disturbance to the occupants of properties in the vicinity. If such observation reveals such level of noise to cause disturbance, then patrons causing such noise will be asked to reduce the volume of noise and or to leave the courtyard area. A record of such observations shall be kept in a book for that purpose, such book shall be completed immediately after the observation detailing the time, location and duration of the observation, the level of noise and any action taken to reduce such noise. Such book to be made available at all times upon request to an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority or a constable. The Sub Committee took into account the concerns expressed by the Environmental Health Officer and the Licensing Officer as to the ability of the Applicant to adequately manage the varied license. However, on balance, in the Sub Committee’s judgement was that this did not result in it having such low confidence in the applicant that it undermined the promotion of the licensing objectives that would justify an outright refusal of the application. Any person aggrieved by this decision has 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision to appeal to the local Magistrates Court. _______________________ CHAIR
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.