Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded for part of the meeting because of the disclosure to them of exempt information as identified in paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Apologies for absence were received from L. Gittings and C. Rees (Residents) and Councillor E. M. Aldworth (Elected Ward Member).
There were no declarations of interest made at the beginning or during the course of the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded for part of the meeting because of the disclosure to them of exempt information as identified in paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Committee were advised that there were recordings that would be played to the committee and advised at that point the live streaming would be paused and the meeting would go into exempt session. Members considered the public interest test certificate from the Proper Officer and concluded that on balance the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information and it was. RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded for part of the meeting because of the disclosure to them of exempt information as identified in paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting and reported that Members had previously familiarised themselves with the report of the Licensing Manager, the application and plan of the premises together with the written submissions from the Responsible Authorities, Residents, Elected Ward Member and evidence provided by the Premises licence holder including the additional information received the day before the hearing. The Chair confirmed that the committee members had received the recent evidence submitted. The Licensing Manager presented the report and outlined the application submitted for a Determination of Premises Review Licence Application under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the Ruperra Club, Navigation Street, Trethomas, CF83 8FR. The Premises licence holder and current Designated Premises Supervisor being Mr Ross Perkins. It was highlighted that the review was brought by Environmental Health due to complaints. Members were referred to the existing permissions and conditions set out at 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 of the report and highlighted that the licence permitted alcohol sales (on premises only), late night refreshment, live/recorded music, and indoor sporting events until 01:00. No off sales are permitted. Attention was drawn to the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Home Office guidance and the Councils statement of licensing policy and all representations made today and those within the report. The Sub Committee were referred to the recommendations set out in the report at 1.10, it was recommended that Members determined to reduce the hours for all licensable activities at the Ruperra Club and for a revision of conditions of the licence, with revised conditions to be attached to the premises licence. Members were advised that in determining the review there were a number of options, which included taking no action through to the potential revocation of this premises licence, the suspension of the licence for up to a period of three months, the removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor, the removal of licensable activities and the modification of conditions of the premises licence itself. The decision would be left to the sub-committee. The Chair thanked the Officer and all parties present, were invited to ask questions. The Solicitor sought confirmation from the Licensing Manager on whether the recommendation in the report would change based on the additional evidence submitted by Mr. Perkins. It was confirmed the recommendation remained unchanged. The committee were advised that there were no further questions at this time and the Chair invited representations from the Applicant Ms V. Woodland Environmental Health (Pollution Team). The Officer explained the basis for the review as outlined in the report which was based on the ongoing investigation since April 2025 due to complaints of noise and antisocial behaviour linked to patrons in external areas. The complainant had maintained daily incident records, and CCTV footage was provided as evidence in exempt session where the live stream would be paused. The Live streaming was paused at this point and the committee meeting entered exempt session. Following exempt session, the live-streamed resumed. The Applicant presented evidence of statutory nuisance, including CCTV/audio, incident logs, and corroboration from multiple officers. It was detailed that the evidence provided confirmation that the complaints were not frivolous or vexatious. It was noted that there had been breaches of abatement notice on three occasions and the applicant recommended the reducing of the terminal hours and modifying conditions to improve management and prevent public nuisance and highlighted that the location of the club was in a predominantly residential area with domestic dwellings on three sides and an allotment to the rear. The Officer referred to the UK Law and World Health Organisation and the strict noise controls to prevent sleep disturbance. The Chair referred to the number of incidents documented where officers engaged with the Premises licence holder on several occasions to give advice. The Officer advised that there had been a number of interventions from informal to letters to site meetings, including one meeting that had been recorded by the Premises licence holder and there had been formal actions too which have progressed and the Premises licence holder had made aware of case proceedings. The Chair sought confirmation as to whether or not there had been any improvements. It was confirmed that very little had changed as demonstrated in the video footage shown to the committee between April and November, however there had been some improvements, but these have been in relation to other areas for instance issues with noise from fans, it was confirmed that this has been resolved satisfactorily. The Premises licence holder confirmed that this had been resolved. The Solicitor sought clarification on the recorded meeting by the Premises licence holder and asked whether this was a common request, whether any reason had been provided for this request. It was confirmed that this was very rare, and the licence holder had emailed and stated that it was for personal reasons. The Solicitor further asked had she requested a copy of the recording and if so, had it been produced. The Officer confirmed that the Premises licence holder had been asked to provide a copy, however this was not provided and no explanation given. The Premises licence holder acknowledged that he regretted not sharing the recording and stated there was no reason not to provide it. The Chair referred to an email dated 11th November where the Premises licence holder stated that the complaints were a vendetta, and you would be hearing from his legal team and asked if there had been any contact from his legal team. It was confirmed that nothing had been received from any legal team in respect of this matter. The Solicitor asked the Officer if in her professional opinion and given everything noted in the report whether the Premises licence holder was cooperative in all aspects or resistant in some respects. It was confirmed that the Premises licence holder was resistive and dismissive of complaints and in general throughout. The Chair queried is it a general rule that you would go out and provide advice to Premises licence holders on potential problems. In response to complaints there is a dialogue to provide advice and guidance to Premises licence holders on how to manage and deal with all situations where breaches of conditions or nuisance episodes. The Chair referred to the fact that the Premises licence holder was new to this role and thought that there would be more willingness to understand and follow advice given. The applicant detailed that the Premises licence holder did not appear to understand the gravity of the situation and had eluded that the complaints were a vendetta against him and that Officers would hear from his legal team. It was noted that no CCTV footage had been provided to refute any claims made by the complainant. Members asked if it was standard practise for officers to have to put the request to view CCTV footage in writing. The Licensing Manager clarified that it was not in the current licence conditions for this premises to provide CCTV under the Licensing Act, so the Premises licence holder was within his rights to say no, but it would be good practice to promote licensing objectives. The Solicitor referred to point 5 in the conditions for members guidance. This was noted by the Chair. There were no further questions, and the Chair invited The Licensing Authority in its role as Responsible Authority to submit their representations. The Licensing Officer referred to their representations within the report which supported the review, citing lack of confidence in the Premises licence holder’s management and DPS role, and recommended terminal hour of 23:00 with 30-minute dispersal. Discussions ensued between all parties concerning meetings arranged prior to attending and the DPS was not available. The license holder stated that he was present regularly to manage the premises but planned to appoint a new DPS who lived closer and was more available. When asked had an application for a new DPS been made, it was confirmed that no application had been made at the time of the meeting and their availability when authorities were trying to make contact with the DPS. The Licensing Manager referenced in the report on pages 141 to 143 of the intention to changing the designated premises supervisor. There were no further questions, and the Chair invited Gwent Police in its role as Responsible Authority to submit their representations. PC. J. Taylor addressed the Sub Committee outlining the representations included at appendix 8 included within the report and confirmed that Gwent Police supported the review, recommended six new conditions be added to make the licence more robust and fit for purpose and to promote the licensing objectives, which would make the DPS more responsible in the management of the premises licence , to make the removal of one existing condition, which was condition 5. Gwent Police welcomed the introduction of a new DPS as already discussed and supported the terminal hour of 23:00 for all licensing activities to cease. It was noted that the premises was not a police hotspot but supported robust conditions for better management. The Chair referenced the visit from Gwent Police to the premises on the 5th November concerning fighting at the premises. PC Taylor confirmed on page 122 of the report the police log noted and highlighted what was recorded on that log. The Chair asked if this was a hotspot area for this spilling out on to Navigation Street. PC Taylor confirmed that there was no evidence that this was a hotspot and the two-incident logged demonstrated due diligence from the premise holders and provided examples of those incidents. It was not a regular area for police activity PC Taylor encouraged premises to ring police if they cannot manage any situation. There were no further questions for Gwent Police, and the Chair invited the Trading Standards Officer to present their representations. The Trading Standards Officer outlined the representations within in the report in respect of the application which supported the review, recommending conditions for underage sales prevention and the terminal hour of 23:00. Expressed concern over the lack of experience of the Premises licence holder who does not appear to have the day-to-day control of the premises. There were no questions for the Trading Standards Officer, and the Chair invited the Environmental Health (Health and Safety Officer in its role as Responsible Authority to present their representations. The Environmental Health Officer (Health and Safety) addressed the Sub Committee outlining the representations included within the report and confirmed they supported the review, emphasizing the need for robust conditions and proper equipment maintenance. The Officer also expressed concern of the lack of confidence as already stated concerning the lack of experience of the Premises licence holder and appointed DPS to fully commit to the day to day management of the premises and meet the licensing objectives and fully supports the recommendation and the terminal hour be changed to 23:00 hours and echoes the importance of the licensing objectives specifically the protection of children from harm. The Officer also expressed concern of the late night following the videos that were shown, that demonstrated that the premises was not being managed in a way that it should be. The Chair thanked the Officer and invited the residents to make their representations. The Resident Mrs Preece read out a statement to the committee which she had prepared and described ongoing disturbance, lack of effective action by the Premises licence holder, and incidents of intimidation and antisocial behaviour. Mrs Preece fully supported the recommendations for reduced hours and stronger conditions. The Chair referred to dates mentioned on Boxing Day and January and asked if they had been reported. Mrs Preece confirmed that both incidents had been reported and logged with the out of hours teams for Environmental Health and Licensing. The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that both complaints for these incidences had been reported and logged by the out of hours teams. Referring to the social media posts and the comments relating to intimidation the Chair sought clarification on what happened on those instances. Mrs Preece stated that it was an attempt of intimidation as the post on social media indicated which household had made the complaints. The Chair sought confirmation from Mrs Preece how long they had resided at the property as the premises had been a pub for a long time. Mrs Preece confirmed that her grandparents had owned the house since the 1950’s and that her family had moved into the property in 2005 and acknowledged that there had been incidents of disturbance over the years but not as regular as they were now and not on the scale to cause as much upset as now. The Solicitor sought clarification on what Mrs Preece deemed to be intimidating from a telephone conversation with the premises holder. Mrs Preece stated that following an incident Mr Preece received a telephone call from the Premises licence holder which was quite confrontational regarding complaints the club had received and that because they lived next door to a club you should expect disturbance and continued down those lines. Mrs Preece stated she was aware that the Premises licence holder had been contacted at this point by the authorities in relation to the complaints and the breaches of the noise abatement orders and as they had not received any communication throughout the year until this point it felt like the Premises licence holder felt aggrieved and that he may have felt that we had brought all these problems for the premises. It was felt that this was an attempt to make the resident stop the complaints. The Solicitor asked for confirmation if this was the first time they had been contacted by the Premises licence holder. Mrs Preece stated that this was the first time they felt intimidated but had been contacted when the Premises licence holder took over the premises initially and they had been reassured that the premises would be run as a community pub and that would be great. The residents were informed of a planned event in March, which made the residents have concerns, however the event went without any issues, and the resident praised the Premises licence holder for the way it was managed, and this was communicated to the Premises licence holder at the time. There were no further questions for the residents. The Chair thanked the Residents and invited the Premises licence holder to make their representations. The Licensing holder provided the committee with an overview of what the intentions for the premises were since taking over in 2024 and what he had introduced since taking on the premises and what he envisaged for the premises future and outlined all the improvements made to reduce any noise disturbance, which included the introduction of training of staff, signage, patrols, removal of benches, crowd dispersal, regular licensed door staff, Challenge 25 and proof of id. The Premises licence holder denied some allegations and expressed willingness to accept new conditions and the change of DPS. The Premises licence holder requested compromise on hours as it was felt that the reduction in hours would have an effect, as it a community hub. A Member queried why had the noise continued after advice and abatement notice had been served. It was stated that improvements were made by training staff to carry out checks as it was identified that the noise was coming from the smoking area so to resolve this the benches were removed other changes included staff training, signage and perimeter checks but acknowledged some issues persisted and improvements were not always effective. The Member sought clarification on how many staff were there in total and what training were staff provided with on the licensing objectives. It was confirmed that there six members of staff in total with a mixture of full and part time. Confirmation was given that there were signs to inform patrons to keep the noise down and these had been placed in the smoking area and one at the front entrance. staff were trained in house to carry out checks on those areas to ensure there were no noise nuisance and that they were keen to engage. The Chair asked the licence holder if he stood by his comments that the complaints were vexatious and that there was a vendetta against him given the videos that were seen and asked if he thought this was normal. The Premises licence holder stated that in the beginning everything was fine and then the complaints started. In relation to videos, he stated that he did not think the behaviour was normal and stated there was a lot more footage of normal behaviour of activities at the premises. Improvements had been introduced to address issues of loitering and fighting after hours. The Chair commented that the report stated that there had been numerous instances of patron’s re-entering after 11pm and asked whether patrons take glasses out with them. The Premises licence holder confirmed that he was not aware of re-entry and confirmed that no-one takes glasses away with them. There had been open vessels outside but that had been dealt with by signs being put up and regular perimeter checks, the removal of a bench to stop people sitting outside, and that during events there would be a plastic cup policy. The Chair referred to a comment that the Premises licence holder had made in relation to drinks being taken outside in the smoking area, this was noted on page 53 of the report following professional advice, the Chair read the section out where the Premises licence holder had stated that he did not want to stop the fun and questioned how were you to manage the situation and asked the Premises licence holder for clarification on the comment. It was confirmed that the Premises licence holder had said that at the time as it was a case of going from one area where it was permitted to another area where it was not and also stated that he felt that following every meeting with officers they raised an issue it was felt that there wasn’t really an issue so he decided to manage it in a different way and to resolve this the benches were removed. The Chair noted that the Premises licence holder wanted to keep the terminal hour at 1:00am but would be happy to change it to 11:30 end at 12:00pm as it would affect the community hub and sort confirmation from the Premises licence holder how it would affect them. The Premises licence holder stated that losing the hour every day would have a massive effect on trade and commented that the hospitality industry was struggling at the moment. A Member expressed concern of having the longer hours which had resulted in the incidents that had been shown in the videos. It was commented that the premises licence holder had been dismissive of advice from Officers. The Member queried whether it would be wise to follow the professional advice given. The Premises licence holder stated that the incidents happened earlier in the year and were not happening now and that he was not dismissive of advice it was him questioning things. The Premises licence holder was asked to confirm where he was in arranging the new designated premises supervisor. It was confirmed that a manager was now in place and a member of staff with 20 years’ experience in the industry and they lived locally and that this would be the new DPS. A Member asked how many staff are on duty and how was the smoking area managed, what the maximum number of patrons in the smoking area was, could it be managed and sought confirmation as to whether free training was offered by the authority. It was confirmed staffing levels were 2 to 4 depending on events and that CCTV was used. It was confirmed that the CCTV did not have any audio. the Premises licence holder agreed to proposed limits on the number of patrons and said it could be managed. It was confirmed that two staff had attended free personal licence training. Members asked how the patrons were dispersal managed at closing and if patrons were causing a nuisance would they be allowed back in. It was confirmed that the patrons tend to leave in their groups and that the routine was that staff reminded patrons it was time for them to leave and then carry out checks of the premises to ensure there was no one left inside, in relation to nuisance behaviour they would not be let back into the premises. The Member queried whether there were signs regarding noise levels out the front and whether patrons could take drinks out there if they went to smoke there. It was confirmed that signs were outside the main entrance. There had been occasions where individuals had gone out the front and taken glasses as the door staff are not on site at all times, people tend to use the smoking area where they can take drinks, but they cannot purchase drinks outside. To assist Members the Licensing Manager clarified that the smoking area was contained within the licensed area within the footprint, he also asked the Premises licence holder to confirm when he had implemented the changes to improve issues. The Premises licence holder confirmed that improvement works had been ongoing throughout 2025. One Member asked if staff had received any additional training on how to empower them to have the knowledge and would know how to approach intoxicated or aggressive individuals and how was this being managed in his role as DPS. The Premises licence holder confirmed that this training was something that needed to be put in place and stated that the staff tend to do deal with these situations and training was provided in-house with meetings on perimeter checks but acknowledged the need for professional training and agreed to implement it. Authorities questioned the sufficiency and content of the training on how perimeter checks and patron dispersal managed and how were incidents such as fighting, urination managed. The Premises licence holder described regular checks, staff reminders, and dispersal in groups, staff intervention, meetings, and risk assessments for certain events. A Member asked whether any risk assessments were carried out and whether the DPS was familiar why a risk assessment would be needed. It was confirmed that he was aware of the need for a risk assessment and provided an example of where a risk assessment was undertaken and this resulted in placing door staff for that particular event. It was also acknowledged that the risk assessment protected both the staff, patrons, and public. The Solicitor sought confirmation from the Premises licence holder why he made the call to the resident, and did he feel that the call was intimidating. The Premises licence holder stated that he had made the call to speak to the resident to see what the issues were and to try to work things out. The Solicitor questioned why there was a need to speak to the resident as the authorities had already visited the premises and stated what the issues were and that the premises also had their own CCTV footage that they could check. Clarification was sought on why the recording from the meeting with officers had not been provided to the officers when requested. The Premises licence holder was unable to confirm an answer as to why it had not been provided and stated that he had regretted not providing it and that if this were to happen again the recording would be handed over. Conversations ensued where the Solicitor sought confirmation as to whether the Premises licence holder had felt frustrated with officer’s attending and asking questions. The Premises licence holder detailed that this had been frustrating. The Solicitor referred to Appendix 7 page 145 of the report and asked the Premises licence holder to address whether he felt that any of the recommendations proposed were disproportionate, unworkable, or unfair and asked if there were any objections to the proposed recommendations. It was confirmed that there were no objections to the proposed recommendations and to change the DPS. A Member asked what consideration had been given to the neighbours and asked whether the Premises licence holder had tried to work with the neighbours. The Premises licence holder stated that he had tried initially but things broke down, but he was always willing to work with neighbours. The Member asked if the Premises licence holder had tried to contact neighbours following incidents to try and rebuild bridges with them and provide reassurances that you would work with the licensing authorities to run a good place. It was confirmed that this happened initially but broke down. Mrs Preece agreed and provided the committee with examples of incidents and stated that the relationship between the Premises licence holder and themselves had deteriorated due to the lack of resolving those issues. The Chair referenced the interventions from the responsible authorities and the lack of engagement from the Premises licence holder and asked why he had stated that they would hear from his legal team. It was confirmed that there was no legal team representing them. A Member asked why his proposals to close at 11:30 would work well. It was stated that with the improvements introduced and it would be a case of agreeing to meet in middle on the closing times. The Trading Standards officer clarified that the smoking shelter concerns had been addressed following recommendations from the smoking officer following his visit and not by any improvements introduced by the Premises licence holder. The Officer asked what training was provided to staff for age prevention and who provided that training. In relation to training, it was confirmed that the training was done in house, but the Premise licence Holder was not able to explain what training was given other than to say they have regular staff meetings. The Solicitor referenced that throughout the meeting the committee were being told that training was provided to staff and when being asked to explain how and what training was provided the Premises licence holder was unable to explain and requested clarification on this. The Premises licence holder stated that staff training referenced was where staff undertook regular checks to the perimeters and monitor the noise, but in relation to professional training this had not been provided, and this was something that would be put in place. The Chair commented that the Responsible Authorities were not seeking to revoke the licence but put in place recommendations to ensure the licensing objectives were followed and raised concern over the lack of training and asked how the committee could be reassured that they could manage the premises with the terminal hour being 11:00pm. The Premises licence holder stated that professional training would be put in place. A Member sought confirmation as to whether any training had been offered by the authority. The Licensing Manager confirmed that two members of staff had attended a personal licence course which was offered by the authority free of charge in May last year. The Applicant sought clarification from the Premises licence holder as to whether he had viewed CCTV footage and what action had been taken following a number of incidents that had taken place in November which led to noise abatement notices being served. It was confirmed that he had viewed footage and met with staff on how to deal with those issues by carrying out regular perimeter checks. Clarification was sought on how often those checks were carried out. It was confirmed that staff check the area and tick the sheet and sign to state they have checked that area. The licensing authority RA asked for confirmation on how many staff would be on duty at one time to manage the premises given that it was a large premises with different rooms and asked how the checks would be carried out and sought confirmation as to whether it was considered that there were not enough staff. It was confirmed that there were two members of staff on duty and one would undertake the checks whilst the other was working. When there were larger events, additional staff would be brought in and would increase to three or four. The officer asked if a risk assessment had been carried out for a large function on the 5th November incident and were SIA door staff present. It was confirmed that a risk assessment was carried out but it was deemed that door staff were not required. A Member sought clarification on what the capacity was for standing and sitting patrons in the function hall. It was confirmed that the capacity was 150. The Chair referenced noise complaints within the report and asked if the rooms were soundproofed. It was confirmed that the rooms were not soundproofed. The Applicant – Environmental Health officer confirmed that an officer had attended and witnessed noise from the premises, the Premises licence holder repeated that the music was not amplified. The Chair advised there were no further questions all parties were then afforded the opportunity to sum up before the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee retired to make its decision. Licensing - In closing the Licensing Manager asked Members to consider all the representations before them, the evidence heard at the meeting, and all Licensing guidance when making their decision. The Sub Committee were reminded of the need to consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives and whether the applicant would be able to meet the same. Applicant – the Environmental Health Officer stated that based on the information on the evidence produced today and the information within the report Environmental Health had no confidence and stands by the recommendations within in the report. The Licensing Authority had nothing further to add other than to confirm she was happy to support the applicant and the recommendations of the terminal hour being moved to 23:00. Gwent Police echoed the same concerns as the other responsible authorities and supported the terminal hour being changed to 23:00 and also welcomed the change of the DPS. Trading Standards were encouraged to hear that improvements had been made, however it was felt that these were minimal and had been implemented at such a late stage. In relation to underage sales prevention was being utilised and their position remained the same which supports the Environmental Health Officer’s recommendations within the report as there was no confidence that appropriate underage prevention measures were in place and was also satisfied with the additional conditions that the applicant had agreed to and had nothing further to add. Environmental Health (Health and Safety) confirmed that he supported the other responsible authorities with the proposed recommendations. In addition, he highlighted that from a health and safety perspective the noise of the fan, there was a requirement in health and safety legislation for the maintenance of equipment and emphasised that this would also need to be taken on board by the Premises licence holder. Mrs Preece had nothing further to add other than to state that she strongly advocates Environmental Health’s position on this. The Premises licence holder confirmed that he would work on the things that needed to be implemented including the replacement of the DPS. The Chair thanked all parties for their submissions and handed over to the Legal Advisor to explain the procedure. 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 12:25 pm to make its decision and all other parties left the meeting. This is the decision of the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee (“Sub-Committee”) regarding the hearing held on 16th January 2026 in respect of the Determination of Premises Licence Review Application. After considering all of the evidence and options before them, the Sub-Committee has decided to vary the hours of all licensable activities at the premises (Ruperra Club – PRM442), amend the conditions of licence and to remove Mr Ross Perkins as the Designated Premises Supervisor. The licensable activities will now be permitted during the following hours: · Supply of Alcohol (on sales only) Monday to Sunday 09:00 to 23:00 New Year’s Eve 09:00 to 01:00 the following morning · Late Night Refreshment (indoors only) New Year’s Eve 23:00 to 01:00 the following morning · Live/Recorded Music/Plays/Indoor Sporting Events/Films/ Boxing/Performance of dance/provision of making music/Dancing/Entertainment of a similar description (indoors only) Monday to Sunday 09:00 to 23:00 · Opening Hours Monday to Sunday 09:00 to 23:30 New Year’s Eve 09:00 to 01:30 the following morning For the reasons set out below, the Sub-Committee has determined to replace all non-mandatory licence conditions with the suggested licence conditions contained within Appendix 17 of the Licencing Manager’s report of 9 January 2026 – which are annexed hereto labelled “New Licence Conditions”. For the reasons set out below, pursuant to section 52(4)(c) of the Licensing Act 2003 the Sub-Committee removes Mr Ross Perkins as the Designated Supervisor for the premises (Ruperra Club). The removal, as with all of the above noted amendments to the licence, will take effect as per section 52(11) of the Licensing Act 2003. The Sub-Committee considered the promotion of the four licensing objectives. It seemed abundantly clear that the principal objective engaged in the review application was the prevention of public nuisance, with the prevention of crime and disorder also clearly engaged but to a lesser extent. The reasons of the Sub-Committee principally fell within its consideration of the promotion of those two licensing objectives. Prevention of Public Nuisance The Sub-Committee accepted that nuisance complained of namely excessive noise at anti-social hours, within the review application met the threshold of being public. There was unopposed evidence that up to four local residents were in support of the review application and the majority of these indicated noise nuisance from the Ruperra Club as adversely impacting their lives. The Sub-Committee were shown several CCTV clips that had audio recordings from various dates across 2025. Most of the footage was captured around 00:00 - 01:00 hours, whereas one clip was earlier (shortly before 22:00 hours). The clips mostly showed very loud patron noise as they exited the Ruperra Club into the car park comprising the immediate front curtilage of the premises. The Sub-Committee could hear repeated foul language being shouted and at time loud arguments broke out between exiting patrons. In one instance, after a prolonged heated verbal argument a physical fight ensued on the road. The evidence appeared to suggest, by the elapsed timings of the CCTV clips, that the episodes of loud noise from patrons exiting the club could extend to period of around 5-20 minutes. The Sub-Committee accepted that the evidence adequately demonstrated instances of public nuisance as it appeared very likely that the noise adversely impacted on the local amenity and was very likely to have repeatedly disturbed the sleep of local residents. The Sub-Committee gave significant weight in reaching its decision to the evidenced efforts made by the Environmental Health Officer and Licensing Officer’s attempts during several periods across 2025 to try to engage with Mr Ross Perkins and to turn his mind to his obligation to promote the relevant licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee reached the view on the evidence presented that the officers involved had acted proportionately and reasonably in trying to resolve the issues without having to seek a review of the licence. The Sub-Committee accepted that there were instances where Mr Ross Perkins did deal with some noise issues reasonably promptly. However, in its judgement of the evidence both in the report and given by parties during the hearing, the Sub-Committee reached the view that Mr Perkins appeared at times during the 2025 involvement of officers to be uncooperative, at time seeking to minimise the problem and was dismissive of concerns. Mr Perkins during the hearing tended to make sweeping statements about improvements made but very little detailed evidence that would support or corroborate such assertions. There was little credible evidence of what specific steps had been taken, amended or introduced etc across 2025 to deal with the noise issues arising from the Ruperra Club. The lack of supporting evidence affected how credible the Sub-Committee found Mr Perkins to be. The Sub-Committee took into account the formal efforts of the Environmental Health team in the latter half of 2025, which included professionally witnessing nuisance of such degree it was judged to be compelled to serve at least one Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Whilst the Sub-Committee did not take into account any pending prosecutions for alleged breaches of such notice – it did give weight to paragraph 9.12 of the statutory guidance issued under the Licensing Act 2003 that Environmental Health, as a responsible authority, is an expert in its respective field. As such weight was given to the evidence contained at paragraphs 1.22-1.23 and 1.28-1.31 of the Review Application. Whilst the Sub-Committee gave some weight to the evidence that suggested some level of improvement across December 2025 and into the new year – the evidence across 2025 appeared to suggest there was a risk improvement could be short lived. Given the above, the Sub-Committee reached the unanimous view that steps were needed to be taken under section 52(4) of the Licensing Act 2003 for the promotion of this licensing objective. The Prevention of crime and disorder The Sub-Committee felt that there was some level of cross over between this licensing objective and the objective to prevent public nuisance. Whist there was several allegations about alleged drug dealing taking place in the vicinity of the Ruperra Club involving patrons of the same – there was little, if any, evidence that supported this allegation. It was not something that was raised or furthered by Gwent Police in its support of the review application. As a result, no weight was given by the Sub-Committee to this aspect. The Sub-Committee accepted there was evidence of at least one physical fight occurring in very close proximity to the Ruperra Club, and the repeated instance of foul language being used by patrons of the premises within external areas – which are instances of disorder. The Sub-Committee reached the same views as detailed above under the “prevention of public nuisance” above in considering the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. The evidence showed a proportionate approach by the relevant responsible authorities and lead to the conclusion that steps were needed to be taken under section 52(4) of the Licensing Act 2003 for the promotion of this licensing objective. Steps needed for the promotion of the licensing objectives The Sub-Committee, in its deliberations acknowledged that it was a finely balanced decision as to whether to suspend or revoke the premises licence. However, the Sub-Committee took into account the fact that none of the Responsible Authorities recommended immediate revocation, and it was noted, the objectors preferred a new terminal hour. The Sub-Committee accepted that most, but not all, of the incidents that were undermining the promotion of the licensing objectives were occurring in the later hours of the evening between 22:00 – 01:30 hours. As such, to suspend or revoke the premises licence at this time, appeared to the Sub-Committee to be more than was possibly required to adequately promote the licensing objectives. In the Sub-Committee’s judgement based on the evidence before it, it lacked sufficient confidence in Mr Perkins to meaningfully fulfil the based on the evidence before it, it lacked sufficient confidence in Mr Perkins to meaningfully fulfil the important role of Designated Premises Supervisor (“DPS”). Mr Perkins at points throughout 2025 appeared to want to blame a specific neighbour for the issues, implying that there was a vendetta against the premises, he was uncooperative with efforts by responsible authorities to better promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee had no confidence in his ability to manage the day-to-day licensable activities at the premises. Whilst the Sub-Committee noted Mr Perkins evidence that he is seeking to remove himself as the DPS, it wanted to ensure that this took place within an expedited time frame. It is hoped that a new DPS will ensure that the licensing objectives are adequately promoted on a day-to-day basis at the premises. The Sub-Committee considered Mr Perkins proposal to reduce the licensable activities to the terminable hour of 23:30 hours as opposed to 23:00 hours which was being sought under the review application. Whilst Mr Perkins reasons for doing so were understandable (linked to the decrease in trade and likely financial impact), the Sub-Committee did not feel that having a terminable hour beyond 23:00 would promote the licensing objectives. A terminable hour of 23:30, with a 30 minute “drink up” time – risked the potential for patron noise once outside the premises to occur after midnight. In the Sub-Committee’s view, given what the local residents have had to endure across 2025, was not acceptable. The Sub-Committee gave weight to the opportunity provided to Mr Perkins to make representations to it during the hearing as to the suggested conditions of licence set out in Appendix 17 of the licensing managers’ report. Mr Perkins did not make any representations to the Sub-Committee that he felt any particular proposed condition was disproportionate or unworkable. The Sub-Committee is aware that the lack of such representations did not mean that Mr Perkins agreed with such proposed licence conditions. The Sub-Committee took into account the age of the existing conditions on the premises licence and it being a perhaps rare case of a club premises licence later becoming a premises licence. The Sub-Committee felt that the existing license conditions were largely unfit for purpose – as the condition as to CCTV clearly demonstrated. On considering the proposed conditions in Appendix 17, the Sub-Committee reached the view that each was a necessary step to better promote the licensing objectives and strict compliance with the same is likely to have a positive effect on reducing instances of noise nuisance and disorder. The licence holder has 21 days from receiving written notification of this decision to appeal to the Gwent Magistrates Court.
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.