Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. Having considered the application to adjourn together with the representations, the Sub Committee: UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the application to adjourn the meeting be rejected. Reasons: • It was satisfied that it had sufficient evidence upon which to determine the application; • That the Planning and Licensing regimes were entirely separate and there was nothing in the statutory licensing guidance to suggest that an adjournment was appropriate; • There would be significant prejudice to the applicants if the matter were adjourned further, there having already been a number of adjournments already; • Determining the Licensing application would not prejudice the Planning application. The decisions were subject to completely different legal considerations and not dependent upon each other. The Sub Committee proceeded to consider the substantive application for a Premises Licence, this included all the documents submitted and all relevant written representations received before the hearing from the parties. The Licensing Authority representative referred to his representations, as detailed within Appendix B to the report. Reference was made to the letter of representation at page 87 of the agenda pack. Confirmation was provided that the events had taken place at the premises under the authority of Temporary Event Notice’s (TEN’s). The Sub Committee was informed that since the application had been received, 18 TENS had been submitted by the applicants. Mr. Jones confirmed that at the time the representation was prepared, he was aware of the objections made to the application, including from Public Health Services and that this had influenced his representations. Since then, however, no complaints had been received despite 18 TEN’s being used to hold events. In addition, the Public Health Services had stated that they no longer objected to the application after having been monitoring the events that had taken place. The Licensing Authority representative stated that in view of the amended representations (Page 91 of agenda pack) and the subsequent events at the premises without any complaints, he felt that granting the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the Licensing Authority representative on the representations made. Mr. Aled Morgan (Public Health Services) referred to his representations, as detailed within Appendix C to the report. Mr Morgan stated that this was a complex case, and that he had taken a precautionary approach towards this application. It was explained that he had previously received a noise complaint from the objectors about an event at the premises in June 2023. Mr Morgan then read out part of the complaint to the Sub Committee. Mr Morgan confirmed that this was the only complaint received by Public Health Services. Mr Morgan outlined the noise monitoring undertaken of events at the premises in 2023. The monitoring had led to the original objection being made to the application. Since then, a number of site visits and further noise monitoring had taken place. It was reported that that there had been incremental improvements since then and when noise monitoring was undertaken on 27th April 2024 only a slight noise from the event could be heard. On that occasion confirmation was received from objectors’ staff that no residents had been disturbed by the event. This was the last time he had visited the premises. Based on his personal observations, noise recording results, statements from care home staff and a lack of complaints to subsequent events, he had submitted an updated representation removing his objection. Furthermore, a subjective impact assessment had been made based on range of information including noise recording results. Other than the complaint received on 14th June 2023, no further complaints had been received regarding events at the applicant’s premises. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning Mr Morgan on his representations made. Representations were received from one objector re-iterating the points raised in their written representations within Appendix D. Counsel for Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre - Mr Lewendon Mr Lewendon expressed to the Sub Committee that in his client’s view, the grant of a licence would have adverse effect on licensing objectives and on the nature and role of his client’s premises and the residents. It was emphasised that the quiet and peaceful nature of the location was important to his client’s business and its residents therein. Mr Lewendon referred to the experts reports in the agenda pack, particularly regarding the sensitivities of the residents, and the impact of noise upon them. He felt that the noise assessments did not seem to address this. He submitted that this raised equality issues which the Sub Committee should consider. In addition, Mr Lewendon submitted that based upon the evidence, how could the Sub Committee be satisfied that the noise levels deemed acceptable by Public Health for general public were acceptable to residents of the care facility given their sensitivities. He further stated that the noise nuisance from music was not the only issue and that other noises could equally cause a nuisance and adversely affect the residents. Mr Lewendon continued to describe the impact of an event on residents as set out in the experts’ report contained in the agenda pack. He submitted that these raised significant safeguarding concerns and may require the home to change its processes and procedures to address these concerns, potentially restricting the residents’ future freedoms. Mr. Lewendon questioned the effectiveness of the proposed control measures, particularly regarding outdoor activity in the summer months. He also questioned whether the noise management plan would be applied all the time and the extent to which they could be properly enforced given its rural location. He stated that whilst complaints had not been made, distress had been caused to residents at the home by events at the premises. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the objector on the representations made. The Counsel and the Chief Executive of Glasallt Fawr, Ms Andrea Bennett responded to the issues raised. Ms Andrea Bennett, Chief Executive of Glasallt Fawr stated that whilst the big event in 2023 was the main concern, some of the recent events had also caused distress to the resident’s and caused disruption. In response to a query, Ms Bennett stated that events to date had affected residents about 60% of the time and that staff were concerned/affected during every event. Ms Bennett confirmed that she did make a complaint about noise in June 2023 and that she was aware of the process for making a noise complaint. However, she has not made any noise complaints to the Public Health Services since June 2023 and that they had not commissioned any further experts reports since improvements had been made to the farm. Ms Bennett confirmed that she had not expressed any concerns to the applicants. Applicants - Mr. Carwyn Rees, Huw Rees & Peter Rees – Green Grove Farm, Llangadog The applicants addressed the Sub Committee and confirmed that they managed a small family farm. The applicants recognised the needs of the residents at Glasallt Fawr Camphil Centre and had implemented the proposed control measures to address them. The venue was originally developed for a family event and had subsequently expanded following positive feedback. They had not engaged in any pro-active advertising. The applicants confirmed details of the guest access to the venue and that external areas used by patrons were not visible in the care home. The maximum capacity was 300. The applicants accepted that the original event (a family wedding) had caused a problem, however, at that point they had not completed any noise mitigation work and were not aware at that time of the problems that would be caused. The applicants detailed the extensive noise mitigation works that had been undertaken since then to prevent a noise nuisance. The applicants also confirmed the following:- - Customers could only access external areas to the southwest of the building and that there was no bar outside. - They do occasionally serve drinks outside on arrival depending on the requirements of the customers. - The noise management plan confirms glass bottles retained inside until the following working day. - That an event was held each time a Temporary Event Notice was issued. - That a further noise report had been commissioned since works were carried out and shared with Public Health Services but not with the objectors or put before the Sub-Committee. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the applicant on the representations made. FURTHER UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. Having had regard to relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing policy and of Guidance issued by the DCMS and Statutory Section 182 Guidance, it was:- RESOLVED that, having considered all the evidence placed before the Sub Committee, the application for a premises licence for Green Grove Farm, Llangadog, SA19 9AS be granted, subject to the licence conditions proposed by Public Health Services and accepted by the applicants. The Sub Committee had attached weight to the views of the Responsible Authorities, particularly Public Health Services in line with the decisions of the Administrative Court in the case of R (on the application of Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral borough Magistrates Court [2008] EWHC 838 (admin) and Carmarthenshire County Council v Llanelli Magistrates Court [2009] EWHC 3016 (admin). In coming to its decision, the Sub Committee had made the following findings. • None of the Responsible Authorities now recommend that this application should be refused on the grounds that it fails to promote the Licensing objectives. • The applicants had accepted that the most recent representations made by Public Health Services, in particular the control measures put forward in the email from Mr Aled Morgan dated 3rd October 2024. • The proposed licensed premises and Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre were in close proximity to each other. • Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre was a residential care centre providing 24-hour care, 52 weeks a year for up to 29 adults with learning disabilities and had been in operation for over 40 years. • No complaints of noise nuisance had been received when the premises recently carried out licensable activities under Temporary Event Notices. • Whilst evidence was presented to the Sub Committee that residents had been affected by 60% of these recent events, no concerns had been expressed to the applicants or the responsible authorities at the time. The Sub Committee had given regard to Paragraph 2.21 of the statutory Guidance which states: “It is therefore important that in considering the promotion of this licensing objective, licensing authorities and responsible authorities focus on the effect of the licensable activities at the specific premises on persons living and working (including those carrying on business) in the area around the premises which may be disproportionate and unreasonable” and paragraph 2.24 which states “the approach of licensing authorities and responsible authorities should be one of prevention and when their powers are engaged, licensing authorities should be aware of the fact that other legislation may not adequately cover concerns raised in relevant representations and additional conditions may be appropriate. 2.25 Where applications have given rise to representations, any appropriate condition” The Sub Committee noted the contents of the experts’ reports submitted on behalf of the applicant and Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre. However, none of these experts attended before the Sub Committee to give evidence and their reports pre-dated the mitigation works carried out by the applicants. As such the Sub Committee had given preference to the evidence of Mr Aled Morgan, over these written reports. The Sub Committee found that the evidence of Mr Aled Morgan, from Public Health services was credible and compelling and accepted his professional opinion that the proposed control measures were sufficient enough to promote the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The Sub Committee did not consider that the objective of promoting public safety was engaged in this case. Paragraph 2.8 of the Statutory Guidance clearly states that this objective related to the safety of persons at the licensed premises, not the safety of persons at the adjoining premises. Having regard to all the evidence and representations the Sub Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the above decision was appropriate to promote the prevention of public nuisance objective in the Licensing Act 2003. The Sub Committee also considered this to be a proportionate response to the issues placed before it.
There were no declarations of Personal Interest.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. Having considered the application to adjourn together with the representations, the Sub Committee: UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the application to adjourn the meeting be rejected. Reasons: • It was satisfied that it had sufficient evidence upon which to determine the application; • That the Planning and Licensing regimes were entirely separate and there was nothing in the statutory licensing guidance to suggest that an adjournment was appropriate; • There would be significant prejudice to the applicants if the matter were adjourned further, there having already been a number of adjournments already; • Determining the Licensing application would not prejudice the Planning application. The decisions were subject to completely different legal considerations and not dependent upon each other. The Sub Committee proceeded to consider the substantive application for a Premises Licence, this included all the documents submitted and all relevant written representations received before the hearing from the parties. The Licensing Authority representative referred to his representations, as detailed within Appendix B to the report. Reference was made to the letter of representation at page 87 of the agenda pack. Confirmation was provided that the events had taken place at the premises under the authority of Temporary Event Notice’s (TEN’s). The Sub Committee was informed that since the application had been received, 18 TENS had been submitted by the applicants. Mr. Jones confirmed that at the time the representation was prepared, he was aware of the objections made to the application, including from Public Health Services and that this had influenced his representations. Since then, however, no complaints had been received despite 18 TEN’s being used to hold events. In addition, the Public Health Services had stated that they no longer objected to the application after having been monitoring the events that had taken place. The Licensing Authority representative stated that in view of the amended representations (Page 91 of agenda pack) and the subsequent events at the premises without any complaints, he felt that granting the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the Licensing Authority representative on the representations made. Mr. Aled Morgan (Public Health Services) referred to his representations, as detailed within Appendix C to the report. Mr Morgan stated that this was a complex case, and that he had taken a precautionary approach towards this application. It was explained that he had previously received a noise complaint from the objectors about an event at the premises in June 2023. Mr Morgan then read out part of the complaint to the Sub Committee. Mr Morgan confirmed that this was the only complaint received by Public Health Services. Mr Morgan outlined the noise monitoring undertaken of events at the premises in 2023. The monitoring had led to the original objection being made to the application. Since then, a number of site visits and further noise monitoring had taken place. It was reported that that there had been incremental improvements since then and when noise monitoring was undertaken on 27th April 2024 only a slight noise from the event could be heard. On that occasion confirmation was received from objectors’ staff that no residents had been disturbed by the event. This was the last time he had visited the premises. Based on his personal observations, noise recording results, statements from care home staff and a lack of complaints to subsequent events, he had submitted an updated representation removing his objection. Furthermore, a subjective impact assessment had been made based on range of information including noise recording results. Other than the complaint received on 14th June 2023, no further complaints had been received regarding events at the applicant’s premises. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning Mr Morgan on his representations made. Representations were received from one objector re-iterating the points raised in their written representations within Appendix D. Counsel for Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre - Mr Lewendon Mr Lewendon expressed to the Sub Committee that in his client’s view, the grant of a licence would have adverse effect on licensing objectives and on the nature and role of his client’s premises and the residents. It was emphasised that the quiet and peaceful nature of the location was important to his client’s business and its residents therein. Mr Lewendon referred to the experts reports in the agenda pack, particularly regarding the sensitivities of the residents, and the impact of noise upon them. He felt that the noise assessments did not seem to address this. He submitted that this raised equality issues which the Sub Committee should consider. In addition, Mr Lewendon submitted that based upon the evidence, how could the Sub Committee be satisfied that the noise levels deemed acceptable by Public Health for general public were acceptable to residents of the care facility given their sensitivities. He further stated that the noise nuisance from music was not the only issue and that other noises could equally cause a nuisance and adversely affect the residents. Mr Lewendon continued to describe the impact of an event on residents as set out in the experts’ report contained in the agenda pack. He submitted that these raised significant safeguarding concerns and may require the home to change its processes and procedures to address these concerns, potentially restricting the residents’ future freedoms. Mr. Lewendon questioned the effectiveness of the proposed control measures, particularly regarding outdoor activity in the summer months. He also questioned whether the noise management plan would be applied all the time and the extent to which they could be properly enforced given its rural location. He stated that whilst complaints had not been made, distress had been caused to residents at the home by events at the premises. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the objector on the representations made. The Counsel and the Chief Executive of Glasallt Fawr, Ms Andrea Bennett responded to the issues raised. Ms Andrea Bennett, Chief Executive of Glasallt Fawr stated that whilst the big event in 2023 was the main concern, some of the recent events had also caused distress to the resident’s and caused disruption. In response to a query, Ms Bennett stated that events to date had affected residents about 60% of the time and that staff were concerned/affected during every event. Ms Bennett confirmed that she did make a complaint about noise in June 2023 and that she was aware of the process for making a noise complaint. However, she has not made any noise complaints to the Public Health Services since June 2023 and that they had not commissioned any further experts reports since improvements had been made to the farm. Ms Bennett confirmed that she had not expressed any concerns to the applicants. Applicants - Mr. Carwyn Rees, Huw Rees & Peter Rees – Green Grove Farm, Llangadog The applicants addressed the Sub Committee and confirmed that they managed a small family farm. The applicants recognised the needs of the residents at Glasallt Fawr Camphil Centre and had implemented the proposed control measures to address them. The venue was originally developed for a family event and had subsequently expanded following positive feedback. They had not engaged in any pro-active advertising. The applicants confirmed details of the guest access to the venue and that external areas used by patrons were not visible in the care home. The maximum capacity was 300. The applicants accepted that the original event (a family wedding) had caused a problem, however, at that point they had not completed any noise mitigation work and were not aware at that time of the problems that would be caused. The applicants detailed the extensive noise mitigation works that had been undertaken since then to prevent a noise nuisance. The applicants also confirmed the following:- - Customers could only access external areas to the southwest of the building and that there was no bar outside. - They do occasionally serve drinks outside on arrival depending on the requirements of the customers. - The noise management plan confirms glass bottles retained inside until the following working day. - That an event was held each time a Temporary Event Notice was issued. - That a further noise report had been commissioned since works were carried out and shared with Public Health Services but not with the objectors or put before the Sub-Committee. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the applicant on the representations made. FURTHER UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. Having had regard to relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing policy and of Guidance issued by the DCMS and Statutory Section 182 Guidance, it was:- RESOLVED that, having considered all the evidence placed before the Sub Committee, the application for a premises licence for Green Grove Farm, Llangadog, SA19 9AS be granted, subject to the licence conditions proposed by Public Health Services and accepted by the applicants. The Sub Committee had attached weight to the views of the Responsible Authorities, particularly Public Health Services in line with the decisions of the Administrative Court in the case of R (on the application of Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral borough Magistrates Court [2008] EWHC 838 (admin) and Carmarthenshire County Council v Llanelli Magistrates Court [2009] EWHC 3016 (admin). In coming to its decision, the Sub Committee had made the following findings. • None of the Responsible Authorities now recommend that this application should be refused on the grounds that it fails to promote the Licensing objectives. • The applicants had accepted that the most recent representations made by Public Health Services, in particular the control measures put forward in the email from Mr Aled Morgan dated 3rd October 2024. • The proposed licensed premises and Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre were in close proximity to each other. • Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre was a residential care centre providing 24-hour care, 52 weeks a year for up to 29 adults with learning disabilities and had been in operation for over 40 years. • No complaints of noise nuisance had been received when the premises recently carried out licensable activities under Temporary Event Notices. • Whilst evidence was presented to the Sub Committee that residents had been affected by 60% of these recent events, no concerns had been expressed to the applicants or the responsible authorities at the time. The Sub Committee had given regard to Paragraph 2.21 of the statutory Guidance which states: “It is therefore important that in considering the promotion of this licensing objective, licensing authorities and responsible authorities focus on the effect of the licensable activities at the specific premises on persons living and working (including those carrying on business) in the area around the premises which may be disproportionate and unreasonable” and paragraph 2.24 which states “the approach of licensing authorities and responsible authorities should be one of prevention and when their powers are engaged, licensing authorities should be aware of the fact that other legislation may not adequately cover concerns raised in relevant representations and additional conditions may be appropriate. 2.25 Where applications have given rise to representations, any appropriate condition” The Sub Committee noted the contents of the experts’ reports submitted on behalf of the applicant and Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre. However, none of these experts attended before the Sub Committee to give evidence and their reports pre-dated the mitigation works carried out by the applicants. As such the Sub Committee had given preference to the evidence of Mr Aled Morgan, over these written reports. The Sub Committee found that the evidence of Mr Aled Morgan, from Public Health services was credible and compelling and accepted his professional opinion that the proposed control measures were sufficient enough to promote the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The Sub Committee did not consider that the objective of promoting public safety was engaged in this case. Paragraph 2.8 of the Statutory Guidance clearly states that this objective related to the safety of persons at the licensed premises, not the safety of persons at the adjoining premises. Having regard to all the evidence and representations the Sub Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the above decision was appropriate to promote the prevention of public nuisance objective in the Licensing Act 2003. The Sub Committee also considered this to be a proportionate response to the issues placed before it.
The Legal Services Manager briefed all present on the procedure for the meeting which had been convened to consider an application from Green Grove Barns Partnership for a premises licence in respect of the above premises. To allow:- • Supply of Alcohol - Monday to Sunday 10:00 - 01:00; • Live Music/Recorded Music/Performances of Dance - Monday to Sunday 10:00 - 00:15; • Late Night Refreshment - Monday to Sunday 23:00 - 01:00 The Sub Committee noted that the following documentation was attached to the report:- Appendix A – copy of the original application and supplementary documents provided by the applicant; Appendix B – representations submitted by the Licensing Authority; Appendix C - representations submitted by Public Health Services; Appendix D – representations submitted by other persons. The Committee were made aware that additional representations had been received from the Licensing Authority and Public Health Services, the latter of which have been accepted by the applicants. Furthermore, representations had also been received from other persons namely Morgan La Roche Solicitors on behalf of their client Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre, Llangadog. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Counsel Mr F. Lewendon, acting on behalf of the interested party, made an application to adjourn the hearing until after the applicants ongoing planning application had been determined. All parties were afforded the opportunity to provide an oral representation in regard to the application to adjourn. UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. Having considered the application to adjourn together with the representations, the Sub Committee: UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the application to adjourn the meeting be rejected. Reasons: • It was satisfied that it had sufficient evidence upon which to determine the application; • That the Planning and Licensing regimes were entirely separate and there was nothing in the statutory licensing guidance to suggest that an adjournment was appropriate; • There would be significant prejudice to the applicants if the matter were adjourned further, there having already been a number of adjournments already; • Determining the Licensing application would not prejudice the Planning application. The decisions were subject to completely different legal considerations and not dependent upon each other. The Sub Committee proceeded to consider the substantive application for a Premises Licence, this included all the documents submitted and all relevant written representations received before the hearing from the parties. The Licensing Authority representative referred to his representations, as detailed within Appendix B to the report. Reference was made to the letter of representation at page 87 of the agenda pack. Confirmation was provided that the events had taken place at the premises under the authority of Temporary Event Notice’s (TEN’s). The Sub Committee was informed that since the application had been received, 18 TENS had been submitted by the applicants. Mr. Jones confirmed that at the time the representation was prepared, he was aware of the objections made to the application, including from Public Health Services and that this had influenced his representations. Since then, however, no complaints had been received despite 18 TEN’s being used to hold events. In addition, the Public Health Services had stated that they no longer objected to the application after having been monitoring the events that had taken place. The Licensing Authority representative stated that in view of the amended representations (Page 91 of agenda pack) and the subsequent events at the premises without any complaints, he felt that granting the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the Licensing Authority representative on the representations made. Mr. Aled Morgan (Public Health Services) referred to his representations, as detailed within Appendix C to the report. Mr Morgan stated that this was a complex case, and that he had taken a precautionary approach towards this application. It was explained that he had previously received a noise complaint from the objectors about an event at the premises in June 2023. Mr Morgan then read out part of the complaint to the Sub Committee. Mr Morgan confirmed that this was the only complaint received by Public Health Services. Mr Morgan outlined the noise monitoring undertaken of events at the premises in 2023. The monitoring had led to the original objection being made to the application. Since then, a number of site visits and further noise monitoring had taken place. It was reported that that there had been incremental improvements since then and when noise monitoring was undertaken on 27th April 2024 only a slight noise from the event could be heard. On that occasion confirmation was received from objectors’ staff that no residents had been disturbed by the event. This was the last time he had visited the premises. Based on his personal observations, noise recording results, statements from care home staff and a lack of complaints to subsequent events, he had submitted an updated representation removing his objection. Furthermore, a subjective impact assessment had been made based on range of information including noise recording results. Other than the complaint received on 14th June 2023, no further complaints had been received regarding events at the applicant’s premises. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning Mr Morgan on his representations made. Representations were received from one objector re-iterating the points raised in their written representations within Appendix D. Counsel for Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre - Mr Lewendon Mr Lewendon expressed to the Sub Committee that in his client’s view, the grant of a licence would have adverse effect on licensing objectives and on the nature and role of his client’s premises and the residents. It was emphasised that the quiet and peaceful nature of the location was important to his client’s business and its residents therein. Mr Lewendon referred to the experts reports in the agenda pack, particularly regarding the sensitivities of the residents, and the impact of noise upon them. He felt that the noise assessments did not seem to address this. He submitted that this raised equality issues which the Sub Committee should consider. In addition, Mr Lewendon submitted that based upon the evidence, how could the Sub Committee be satisfied that the noise levels deemed acceptable by Public Health for general public were acceptable to residents of the care facility given their sensitivities. He further stated that the noise nuisance from music was not the only issue and that other noises could equally cause a nuisance and adversely affect the residents. Mr Lewendon continued to describe the impact of an event on residents as set out in the experts’ report contained in the agenda pack. He submitted that these raised significant safeguarding concerns and may require the home to change its processes and procedures to address these concerns, potentially restricting the residents’ future freedoms. Mr. Lewendon questioned the effectiveness of the proposed control measures, particularly regarding outdoor activity in the summer months. He also questioned whether the noise management plan would be applied all the time and the extent to which they could be properly enforced given its rural location. He stated that whilst complaints had not been made, distress had been caused to residents at the home by events at the premises. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the objector on the representations made. The Counsel and the Chief Executive of Glasallt Fawr, Ms Andrea Bennett responded to the issues raised. Ms Andrea Bennett, Chief Executive of Glasallt Fawr stated that whilst the big event in 2023 was the main concern, some of the recent events had also caused distress to the resident’s and caused disruption. In response to a query, Ms Bennett stated that events to date had affected residents about 60% of the time and that staff were concerned/affected during every event. Ms Bennett confirmed that she did make a complaint about noise in June 2023 and that she was aware of the process for making a noise complaint. However, she has not made any noise complaints to the Public Health Services since June 2023 and that they had not commissioned any further experts reports since improvements had been made to the farm. Ms Bennett confirmed that she had not expressed any concerns to the applicants. Applicants - Mr. Carwyn Rees, Huw Rees & Peter Rees – Green Grove Farm, Llangadog The applicants addressed the Sub Committee and confirmed that they managed a small family farm. The applicants recognised the needs of the residents at Glasallt Fawr Camphil Centre and had implemented the proposed control measures to address them. The venue was originally developed for a family event and had subsequently expanded following positive feedback. They had not engaged in any pro-active advertising. The applicants confirmed details of the guest access to the venue and that external areas used by patrons were not visible in the care home. The maximum capacity was 300. The applicants accepted that the original event (a family wedding) had caused a problem, however, at that point they had not completed any noise mitigation work and were not aware at that time of the problems that would be caused. The applicants detailed the extensive noise mitigation works that had been undertaken since then to prevent a noise nuisance. The applicants also confirmed the following:- - Customers could only access external areas to the southwest of the building and that there was no bar outside. - They do occasionally serve drinks outside on arrival depending on the requirements of the customers. - The noise management plan confirms glass bottles retained inside until the following working day. - That an event was held each time a Temporary Event Notice was issued. - That a further noise report had been commissioned since works were carried out and shared with Public Health Services but not with the objectors or put before the Sub-Committee. All parties were afforded the opportunity of questioning the applicant on the representations made. FURTHER UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. Having had regard to relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing policy and of Guidance issued by the DCMS and Statutory Section 182 Guidance, it was:- RESOLVED that, having considered all the evidence placed before the Sub Committee, the application for a premises licence for Green Grove Farm, Llangadog, SA19 9AS be granted, subject to the licence conditions proposed by Public Health Services and accepted by the applicants. The Sub Committee had attached weight to the views of the Responsible Authorities, particularly Public Health Services in line with the decisions of the Administrative Court in the case of R (on the application of Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral borough Magistrates Court [2008] EWHC 838 (admin) and Carmarthenshire County Council v Llanelli Magistrates Court [2009] EWHC 3016 (admin). In coming to its decision, the Sub Committee had made the following findings. • None of the Responsible Authorities now recommend that this application should be refused on the grounds that it fails to promote the Licensing objectives. • The applicants had accepted that the most recent representations made by Public Health Services, in particular the control measures put forward in the email from Mr Aled Morgan dated 3rd October 2024. • The proposed licensed premises and Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre were in close proximity to each other. • Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre was a residential care centre providing 24-hour care, 52 weeks a year for up to 29 adults with learning disabilities and had been in operation for over 40 years. • No complaints of noise nuisance had been received when the premises recently carried out licensable activities under Temporary Event Notices. • Whilst evidence was presented to the Sub Committee that residents had been affected by 60% of these recent events, no concerns had been expressed to the applicants or the responsible authorities at the time. The Sub Committee had given regard to Paragraph 2.21 of the statutory Guidance which states: “It is therefore important that in considering the promotion of this licensing objective, licensing authorities and responsible authorities focus on the effect of the licensable activities at the specific premises on persons living and working (including those carrying on business) in the area around the premises which may be disproportionate and unreasonable” and paragraph 2.24 which states “the approach of licensing authorities and responsible authorities should be one of prevention and when their powers are engaged, licensing authorities should be aware of the fact that other legislation may not adequately cover concerns raised in relevant representations and additional conditions may be appropriate. 2.25 Where applications have given rise to representations, any appropriate condition” The Sub Committee noted the contents of the experts’ reports submitted on behalf of the applicant and Glasallt Fawr Camphill Centre. However, none of these experts attended before the Sub Committee to give evidence and their reports pre-dated the mitigation works carried out by the applicants. As such the Sub Committee had given preference to the evidence of Mr Aled Morgan, over these written reports. The Sub Committee found that the evidence of Mr Aled Morgan, from Public Health services was credible and compelling and accepted his professional opinion that the proposed control measures were sufficient enough to promote the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The Sub Committee did not consider that the objective of promoting public safety was engaged in this case. Paragraph 2.8 of the Statutory Guidance clearly states that this objective related to the safety of persons at the licensed premises, not the safety of persons at the adjoining premises. Having regard to all the evidence and representations the Sub Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the above decision was appropriate to promote the prevention of public nuisance objective in the Licensing Act 2003. The Sub Committee also considered this to be a proportionate response to the issues placed before it.
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.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.