Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED that the application for a Variation of Premises Licence be granted subject to the following – · ‘When licensable activities are taking place after 21.00, sound checks will be undertaken on the outside of the venue on at least an hourly basis beginning no later than 22.00 to ensure that any noise emanating from the premises does not give rise to a public nuisance’. This condition replaces the existing condition of ‘Recorded music will be kept to background level’ · the Applicant must investigate the feasibility of installing a lobby door system at the premises on all main/smoking exits on the inside of the venue. The Applicant must make his findings available to the Licensing Authority and if he considers it feasible and cost effective to install a lobby door system on the inside of the venue then he must do so · the Applicant must investigate the feasibility of installing soundproof curtains at the premises. The Applicant must make his findings available to the Licensing Authority and if he considers that it is feasible and cost effective to install soundproof curtains at the premises then he must do so · the part of the application which requested provision of live music Monday – Sunday from 23.00 – 00.00 be rejected. The Legal Advisor conveyed the Sub Committee’s decision to all parties present and outlined the conditions to be imposed adding that the full decision and detailed reasons therefore, together with the right of appeal, would be issued in writing. The reasons for the decision were as follows – The Sub Committee, having regard to the representations, found that the Licensing Objective of ‘prevention of public nuisance’ was engaged by the application. Although the Sub Committee considered the licensing objective of ‘prevention of public nuisance’ was engaged, they found the risks of a public nuisance arising out of noise nuisance could be mitigated with the additional conditions detailed above and by refusing the part of the application that requested live music Monday – Sunday from 23:00 – 00.00. The Sub Committee considered it was appropriate to grant the requested alteration to the existing condition of ‘Recorded music will be kept to background level’ because this was no longer enforceable due to deregulation. Although the Sub Committee expected the Applicant to monitor noise emanating from the premises to ensure it did not cause a public nuisance as a matter of good practice, the Sub Committee still considered it was proportionate for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives to add this condition as the Applicant had initially proposed it and the hours proposed to carry out the sound checks were when local residents might consider loud noise emanating from the premises to constitute a public nuisance. The Sub Committee granted the variation in respect of the bringing forward of the hours of licensable activities to 08.00 as this aspect of the application did not appear to concern local residents and therefore, they were satisfied that the licensing objectives could be upheld in this respect. Although the Sub Committee allowed the Applicant to rely on the petition notwithstanding its late submission, they did not place weight on this as it was not provided during the statutory consultation process. The Sub Committee placed weight on the representation and oral submissions of the Environmental Health Officer given his experience in that regard. Therefore, the Sub Committee considered it was appropriate to direct that the Applicant investigate the feasibility and cost effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures suggested given that ordinarily such measures were requested for applications requesting regulated activity until 02.00. The Sub Committee considered it would be disproportionate to require the Applicant to undertake measures that were unfeasible for reasons such as not being permitted under Planning Law or measures which were unduly costly and note that such circumstances could be raised in defence of enforcement action such as prosecution. However, if such measures were feasible and cost effective then the Sub Committee considered it to be appropriate that these be put in place for the promotion of the licensing objectives given the Environmental Health Officer’s submissions. The Sub Committee refused part of the application that requested live music Monday – Sunday from 23.00 – 00.00 as the Applicant had requested to amend his application to withdraw this part. The Sub Committee granted the part of the application requesting late night refreshment as there did not appear to be any objection to this aspect and the Sub Committee considered the proposed use of it, namely selling hot drinks, would not breach the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee carefully considered the representations opposing the grant of the application. The Sub Committee noted that complaints had been made against the premises in the past, they also noted that no formal action had been taken in respect of these. Therefore, the Sub Committee considered that refusing the application outright would have been disproportionate on the strength of the evidence. The Sub Committee considered that the Applicant would take steps to ensure the noise emanating from his premises did not give rise to a public nuisance. In the circumstances the Sub Committee was satisfied that the licensing objectives, in particular ‘the prevention of public nuisance’ would be upheld in granting the application as described above. The meeting concluded at 3.30 pm.
Councillor Bobby Feeley was appointed Chair for the meeting. The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and all present were introduced. The hearing procedures had been circulated previously to all parties and copies of the Statement of Licensing Policy were made available at the meeting.
No declarations of interest were raised.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that the application for a Variation of Premises Licence be granted subject to the following – · ‘When licensable activities are taking place after 21.00, sound checks will be undertaken on the outside of the venue on at least an hourly basis beginning no later than 22.00 to ensure that any noise emanating from the premises does not give rise to a public nuisance’. This condition replaces the existing condition of ‘Recorded music will be kept to background level’ · the Applicant must investigate the feasibility of installing a lobby door system at the premises on all main/smoking exits on the inside of the venue. The Applicant must make his findings available to the Licensing Authority and if he considers it feasible and cost effective to install a lobby door system on the inside of the venue then he must do so · the Applicant must investigate the feasibility of installing soundproof curtains at the premises. The Applicant must make his findings available to the Licensing Authority and if he considers that it is feasible and cost effective to install soundproof curtains at the premises then he must do so · the part of the application which requested provision of live music Monday – Sunday from 23.00 – 00.00 be rejected. The Legal Advisor conveyed the Sub Committee’s decision to all parties present and outlined the conditions to be imposed adding that the full decision and detailed reasons therefore, together with the right of appeal, would be issued in writing. The reasons for the decision were as follows – The Sub Committee, having regard to the representations, found that the Licensing Objective of ‘prevention of public nuisance’ was engaged by the application. Although the Sub Committee considered the licensing objective of ‘prevention of public nuisance’ was engaged, they found the risks of a public nuisance arising out of noise nuisance could be mitigated with the additional conditions detailed above and by refusing the part of the application that requested live music Monday – Sunday from 23:00 – 00.00. The Sub Committee considered it was appropriate to grant the requested alteration to the existing condition of ‘Recorded music will be kept to background level’ because this was no longer enforceable due to deregulation. Although the Sub Committee expected the Applicant to monitor noise emanating from the premises to ensure it did not cause a public nuisance as a matter of good practice, the Sub Committee still considered it was proportionate for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives to add this condition as the Applicant had initially proposed it and the hours proposed to carry out the sound checks were when local residents might consider loud noise emanating from the premises to constitute a public nuisance. The Sub Committee granted the variation in respect of the bringing forward of the hours of licensable activities to 08.00 as this aspect of the application did not appear to concern local residents and therefore, they were satisfied that the licensing objectives could be upheld in this respect. Although the Sub Committee allowed the Applicant to rely on the petition notwithstanding its late submission, they did not place weight on this as it was not provided during the statutory consultation process. The Sub Committee placed weight on the representation and oral submissions of the Environmental Health Officer given his experience in that regard. Therefore, the Sub Committee considered it was appropriate to direct that the Applicant investigate the feasibility and cost effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures suggested given that ordinarily such measures were requested for applications requesting regulated activity until 02.00. The Sub Committee considered it would be disproportionate to require the Applicant to undertake measures that were unfeasible for reasons such as not being permitted under Planning Law or measures which were unduly costly and note that such circumstances could be raised in defence of enforcement action such as prosecution. However, if such measures were feasible and cost effective then the Sub Committee considered it to be appropriate that these be put in place for the promotion of the licensing objectives given the Environmental Health Officer’s submissions. The Sub Committee refused part of the application that requested live music Monday – Sunday from 23.00 – 00.00 as the Applicant had requested to amend his application to withdraw this part. The Sub Committee granted the part of the application requesting late night refreshment as there did not appear to be any objection to this aspect and the Sub Committee considered the proposed use of it, namely selling hot drinks, would not breach the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee carefully considered the representations opposing the grant of the application. The Sub Committee noted that complaints had been made against the premises in the past, they also noted that no formal action had been taken in respect of these. Therefore, the Sub Committee considered that refusing the application outright would have been disproportionate on the strength of the evidence. The Sub Committee considered that the Applicant would take steps to ensure the noise emanating from his premises did not give rise to a public nuisance. In the circumstances the Sub Committee was satisfied that the licensing objectives, in particular ‘the prevention of public nuisance’ would be upheld in granting the application as described above. The meeting concluded at 3.30 pm.
The Lead Officer (Licensing) submitted a report (previously circulated) upon – (i) an application having been received from Mr. Joe Ainsworth to vary an existing Premises Licence in respect of Bar VibeZ, 5 Oak Mews, Oak Street, Llangollen, to add the provision of live music (Indoors only), and Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and Outdoors), together with extending the licensable hours for the provision of recorded music (Indoors only) and to extend the existing licensable hours for the sale of alcohol for consumption both on and off the premises at (Appendix A to the report) as follows – LICENSABLE ACTIVITY DAYS APPLICABLE TIME FROM TIME TO Supply of alcohol (for consumption both on and off the premises) Sunday – Wednesday Thursday – Saturday / Sunday am 08:00 08:00 00:00 02:00 Provision of Live Music (Indoors) Monday – Sunday 23:00 00:00 Provision of Recorded Music (Indoors) Sunday – Wednesday Thursday – Saturday / Sunday am 23:00 23:00 00:00 02:00 Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and Outdoors) Sunday – Wednesday Thursday – Saturday / Sunday am 23:00 23:00 00:00 02:00 The Sale of Alcohol (For Consumption both on and off the premises) Sunday – Wednesday Thursday – Saturday / Sunday am 08:00 08:00 00:00 02:00 Hours Premises are open to the Public Sunday – Wednesday Thursday – Saturday / Sunday am 08:00 08:00 00:00 02:00 (ii) the Applicant also wishing to replace an existing condition imposed on their licence as follows ‘Recorded music will be kept to background level’ to state ‘When music is performed after 21:00, regular checks will be made outside of the premises on at least an hourly basis to try and ensure that sound does not give rise to a public nuisance’; (iii) the existing Premises Licence (Appendix B to the report); (iv) the Council’s Environmental Health Section having submitted representations, advising of previous noise complaints regarding the premises at which time the Licence Holder was able to manage the potential noise nuisance adequately with no further action taken. However, it was noted that Environmental Health would normally recommend certain conditions being added to a licence requesting recorded music until 02.00 but at the time of their response they felt that these conditions could not be easily and cost effectively implemented at the premises (Appendix C to the report); (v) the North Wales Police having made no objection to the application; (vi) three written representations having been received from Other Persons in response to the requisite public notice relating mainly to disturbance from noise, anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder, and public safety (Appendix D to the report); (vii) the Applicant having submitted a written response to the three Other Persons who submitted representations with a hope to address some of the concerns raised (Appendix E to the report); (viii) further correspondence having been received from the three Other Persons (Appendix F to the report) and the Applicant (Appendix G to the report); (ix) mediation having been offered to all parties as a result of the representations received with no formal agreement having been reached. As part of the mediation process the Applicant had offered to cease live music at 23.00; as per the deregulation of the Licensing Act 2003 no licence permission was required for: a performance of unamplified live music between 08.00 and 23.00 on any day, on any premises, or a performance of amplified live music between 08.00 and 23.00 on any day on premises authorised to sell alcohol for consumption on those premises, provided that the audience did not exceed 500. Therefore, live music was no longer required on this application; (x) the need to consider the application taking due account of Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy; other relevant legislation and relevant representations received, and (xi) the options available to the Sub Committee when determining the application. The Lead Officer (Licensing) summarised the report and facts of the case. She also reminded members that the purpose of the hearing was to only consider the application to vary the premises licence and not other matters. APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION The Applicant, Mr. Joe Ainsworth was in attendance in support of the application and relied on his written representations included in the agenda pack in which he had responded to the points raised by those objecting to the application. Mr. Ainsworth asked for permission to submit a petition to demonstrate support for the premises. The Lead Officer (Licensing) read out the substance of the petition seeking support for later opening hours for the bar and highlighting the benefits for tourism and locals which had attracted 72 signatories. The Legal Adviser confirmed it was open to the Chair to consider the relevance of the late petition and whether to accept it. The Chair decided to receive the petition, and, in that case, the Legal Adviser advised that it was a matter for the Sub Committee to consider how much weight to attach to it during their deliberations. REPRESENTATIONS FROM RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES The Senior Technical Officer (Environmental Health Section) referred to his written representations (Appendix C to the report) confirming he had nothing further to add. No questions were raised at this stage from members to either the Applicant or the Responsible Authority. REPRESENTATIONS FROM OTHER PERSONS Three written representations had been received (Appendix D and F to the report) from Other Persons relating mainly to disturbance from noise, anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder, and public safety. Two of those who had submitted representations were in attendance – Mr. Michael Adams and Mr. Paul Smith. Mr. Adams referred to the Environmental Health Officer’s report which specified conditions they would usually request which were not practical in the venue, and he submitted that if it was not practical then the venue was not suitable. He also questioned whether admitting new information on the day of the hearing which had not been shared with all parties was procedurally correct. Whilst accepting that information would be considered, he asked that the postcodes within the petition be validated to ensure they would be directly affected by the bar. He also highlighted that he was very aware of Llangollen’s situation and tourist requirements. Mr. Smith spoke on behalf of himself and his wife who had submitted a joint written representation. He restated their opposition to the proposed changes to the licence and the basis of their objections, raising the following points – · allowing the extension to the opening hours would increase the level of disruption and continue to have a negative impact on their quality of life · the sound of both recorded and live music could be clearly heard inside their property and continued to have a detrimental impact on their wellbeing · the Environmental Health Officer’s report did not reflect the feedback following investigation of their noise complaint; when advised that no further action would be taken the inference was the investigation would be paused not concluded · they were not informed of improvements to the door and repositioning of the speakers at Bar VibeZ, and whilst they had improved the situation a little, they disputed the noise nuisance had been successfully managed · they had recently started submitting new sound recordings for investigation as the venue became busier with the start of the tourist season and good weather · they believed the existing licence condition that recorded music be kept to a background level was not being adhered to as it could be heard from their house · if the premises was unable to implement the expected licensing conditions the correct action would be to reject the application rather than drop the conditions · improvements made to the door were defeated by people going in and out and the difference in volume when the door was open was considerable · people drinking and congregating outside the premises and revellers leaving increased the level of noise and disruption and would be extended to 02.00 · the outdoor area was a concern with glasses/bottles left behind, and table and chairs outside with patrons congregating which left little room for pedestrians · whilst initially prepared to enter into mediation, the Applicant’s reaction to their objection meant they had no confidence in his ability to mediate in good faith · they had not been disturbed by most other premises as they were not as close by; live music from a specific bar could be heard but they only held events a few times a year, Bar VibeZ wanted live music most weekends and during the week · the current situation was detrimentally impacting their quality of life; if the changes to the licence were approved, the impact would increase considerably. Members put questions to the Applicant who responded as follows – · regarding the Environmental Health Officer’s comments and difficulty in implementing specific conditions, he confirmed the terms of his lease prohibited building works such as double glazing the windows [the premises was situated in a conservation area]. He added that everything possible had been done to minimise noise and disruption and staff had been asked to help disperse patrons at closing time from outside the premises in a quiet and timely manner · confirmed that the Late Night Refreshment element of the application was for hot drinks only and not hot food which was not permitted under the lease · he had offered to cease live music at 23.00 and therefore no licence permission was required in that regard; in reality live music started at 20.30 and finished at 22.30 and there was no intention for live music to continue beyond 22.30. Reference was also made to the mediation process which had not been successful in this case with no agreement on a way forward being agreed between parties. The Senior Technical Officer (Environmental Health Section) clarified issues in response to members’ questions. In terms of the lobby door system/double glazed windows that Environmental Health would usually recommend it was explained that he would ordinarily like to see such conditions. However, when considering the legal framework for a prosecution, the local authority could only ask for reasonable measures to be carried out, with the Applicant or any defendant having a defence available to them known as ‘the best practical means without causing significant expenditure’ which had been a consideration when formulating their response to the application. He also considered that Planning law may not permit the installation of secondary glazing and while a lobby door system on the inside may be viable depending on the layout, he was only able to make a recommendation based on the information he knew. Having regard to alternative conditions, members were advised that the windows could be covered with some form of acoustic/soundproofing curtains and as previously mentioned a lobby door system on the inside depending on the layout of the premises. It was also confirmed that the Public Protection team had not been required to visit the premises. APPLICANT’S FINAL STATEMENT In his final statement, the Applicant explained there was minimal seating outside the premises at night for use by a number of disabled patrons who smoked. He added that he was unaware of the potential for acoustic curtains and would investigate the viability of those which may be permitted under the terms of his lease. With the Chair’s consent, Mr. Adams addressed members. He highlighted that mediation had failed but if the Sub Committee were minded to grant the application then it should include additional conditions requiring the installation of a lobby door system and soundproof curtains to protect the quality of life and nature of the area. In response to a final question the Senior Technical Officer confirmed a previous noise complaint which had been referred to in his written representations and there was also a recent complaint which was currently being investigated. ADJOURNMENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION At this juncture (3.00 pm) the Chair closed the meeting to all other parties and the Licensing Sub Committee retired to consider the application in private session. DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION RESOLVED that the application for a Variation of Premises Licence be granted subject to the following – · ‘When licensable activities are taking place after 21.00, sound checks will be undertaken on the outside of the venue on at least an hourly basis beginning no later than 22.00 to ensure that any noise emanating from the premises does not give rise to a public nuisance’. This condition replaces the existing condition of ‘Recorded music will be kept to background level’ · the Applicant must investigate the feasibility of installing a lobby door system at the premises on all main/smoking exits on the inside of the venue. The Applicant must make his findings available to the Licensing Authority and if he considers it feasible and cost effective to install a lobby door system on the inside of the venue then he must do so · the Applicant must investigate the feasibility of installing soundproof curtains at the premises. The Applicant must make his findings available to the Licensing Authority and if he considers that it is feasible and cost effective to install soundproof curtains at the premises then he must do so · the part of the application which requested provision of live music Monday – Sunday from 23.00 – 00.00 be rejected. The Legal Advisor conveyed the Sub Committee’s decision to all parties present and outlined the conditions to be imposed adding that the full decision and detailed reasons therefore, together with the right of appeal, would be issued in writing. The reasons for the decision were as follows – The Sub Committee, having regard to the representations, found that the Licensing Objective of ‘prevention of public nuisance’ was engaged by the application. Although the Sub Committee considered the licensing objective of ‘prevention of public nuisance’ was engaged, they found the risks of a public nuisance arising out of noise nuisance could be mitigated with the additional conditions detailed above and by refusing the part of the application that requested live music Monday – Sunday from 23:00 – 00.00. The Sub Committee considered it was appropriate to grant the requested alteration to the existing condition of ‘Recorded music will be kept to background level’ because this was no longer enforceable due to deregulation. Although the Sub Committee expected the Applicant to monitor noise emanating from the premises to ensure it did not cause a public nuisance as a matter of good practice, the Sub Committee still considered it was proportionate for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives to add this condition as the Applicant had initially proposed it and the hours proposed to carry out the sound checks were when local residents might consider loud noise emanating from the premises to constitute a public nuisance. The Sub Committee granted the variation in respect of the bringing forward of the hours of licensable activities to 08.00 as this aspect of the application did not appear to concern local residents and therefore, they were satisfied that the licensing objectives could be upheld in this respect. Although the Sub Committee allowed the Applicant to rely on the petition notwithstanding its late submission, they did not place weight on this as it was not provided during the statutory consultation process. The Sub Committee placed weight on the representation and oral submissions of the Environmental Health Officer given his experience in that regard. Therefore, the Sub Committee considered it was appropriate to direct that the Applicant investigate the feasibility and cost effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures suggested given that ordinarily such measures were requested for applications requesting regulated activity until 02.00. The Sub Committee considered it would be disproportionate to require the Applicant to undertake measures that were unfeasible for reasons such as not being permitted under Planning Law or measures which were unduly costly and note that such circumstances could be raised in defence of enforcement action such as prosecution. However, if such measures were feasible and cost effective then the Sub Committee considered it to be appropriate that these be put in place for the promotion of the licensing objectives given the Environmental Health Officer’s submissions. The Sub Committee refused part of the application that requested live music Monday – Sunday from 23.00 – 00.00 as the Applicant had requested to amend his application to withdraw this part. The Sub Committee granted the part of the application requesting late night refreshment as there did not appear to be any objection to this aspect and the Sub Committee considered the proposed use of it, namely selling hot drinks, would not breach the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee carefully considered the representations opposing the grant of the application. The Sub Committee noted that complaints had been made against the premises in the past, they also noted that no formal action had been taken in respect of these. Therefore, the Sub Committee considered that refusing the application outright would have been disproportionate on the strength of the evidence. The Sub Committee considered that the Applicant would take steps to ensure the noise emanating from his premises did not give rise to a public nuisance. In the circumstances the Sub Committee was satisfied that the licensing objectives, in particular ‘the prevention of public nuisance’ would be upheld in granting the application as described above. The meeting concluded at 3.30 pm.
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.