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 from the Meeting for consideration of the current item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under Schedule 12A to the Act. The Sub-Committee then resumed in open session. DECISION The Sub-Committee has considered carefully all of the representations which have been made, which includes those documents contained in the agenda pack, and the additional representations it has heard during the hearing. The Sub-Committee has made its decision based on the representations it considers relevant to the issues before the Sub-Committee, which are whether effectively all 4 of the licensing objectives are being promoted through the proposed operation of the premises licence requested. The Sub-Committee has considered the representations by the residents who have made representations. These representations are based on apprehension of issues, some of which are not within the ambit of the licensing regime to control, for example traffic issues, over which the Licensing Sub-Committee also has no remit. The Sub-Committee considers that the applicant has dealt with the concerns raised in its representations before the Sub-Committee. Apart from the Police, none of the Responsible Authorities has made representations. The Sub-Committee finds that this is in effect an endorsement of the application. The Sub-Committee also notes the additional conditions agreed between the applicant and the Police that has led to the Police’s representations being withdrawn. Subject to the additional conditions being imposed, on balance the Sub-Committee considers that the application as made and as clarified by the applicant comprehensively promotes the licensing objectives and the application be granted. RESOLVED That the application be granted.
RESOLVED That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the Meeting for consideration of the current item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under Schedule 12A to the Act. The Sub-Committee then resumed in open session. DECISION The Sub-Committee must decide whether to vary the premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003. In deciding whether to vary a licence, the Sub-Committee has regard to the Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State, together with the 4 Licensing Objectives. The Sub-Committee has considered this application on its merits, in accordance with its own Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub-Committee has carefully considered the written and spoken representations made before it. The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant as to the reasons behind the application, and that the application is basically to include the additional room as part of the licensed area. The Sub-Committee states for clarification that the application is being treated using the area limited to that edged in red on the plan that is part of the application. The Sub-Committee is also treating the application as being effectively approved by all Responsible Authorities, no representations having been made by any apart from Pollution Control. The Sub-Committee considers that the application has effectively been mediated as between Pollution Control and the applicant, and those representations are considered to have been withdrawn by the conditions agreed with the applicant. The absence of Responsible Authority representations is also considered to be effective in dealing with the representations made against the application by the other persons. The Sub-Committee considers that this addresses all the issues raised by the persons who have made representations. There is no formal evidence produced in support of the representations by those other persons that provide any basis to refuse or limit the application. The Sub-Committee recognises and understands the concerns of the objectors but these are not evidenced. The Sub-Committee is satisfied on balance that that the application promotes the licensing objectives and as such can be granted subject to the following clarification. The grant of the application for variation is limited to the extension in the licensed area as contained in the plan forming part of the application. Apart from this allowed variation, the current premises conditions remain in place and none of the other variations in conditions sought in the application is granted. This includes any proposed changes to the hours of operation of the various licensable activities. That the application, as modified, is therefore granted. This decision is based on licensing considerations alone. Its grant will not have any impact on the planning process and the applicant should be aware of this and that it should not be relied upon in that process. The grant does not mean that the applicant will not be breaching planning legislation if the applicant operates the premises under this decision. The applicant will still be in breach of planning legislation until that position is regularised and, even if planning permission is granted, the applicant will be subject to any limitations placed upon the premises by the planning authority. Licensing permission does not override panning obligations, in the same way that a grant of planning permission does not mean that licensing conditions are no being breached. The licensing and planning regimes operate separately and distinctly.
There were no Declarations of Interest made.
The Minutes of the previous meeting had not been finalised and would be approved at the next meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the Meeting for consideration of the current item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under Schedule 12A to the Act. The Sub-Committee then resumed in open session. DECISION The Sub-Committee has considered carefully all of the representations which have been made, which includes those documents contained in the agenda pack, and the additional representations it has heard during the hearing. The Sub-Committee has made its decision based on the representations it considers relevant to the issues before the Sub-Committee, which are whether effectively all 4 of the licensing objectives are being promoted through the proposed operation of the premises licence requested. The Sub-Committee has considered the representations by the residents who have made representations. These representations are based on apprehension of issues, some of which are not within the ambit of the licensing regime to control, for example traffic issues, over which the Licensing Sub-Committee also has no remit. The Sub-Committee considers that the applicant has dealt with the concerns raised in its representations before the Sub-Committee. Apart from the Police, none of the Responsible Authorities has made representations. The Sub-Committee finds that this is in effect an endorsement of the application. The Sub-Committee also notes the additional conditions agreed between the applicant and the Police that has led to the Police’s representations being withdrawn. Subject to the additional conditions being imposed, on balance the Sub-Committee considers that the application as made and as clarified by the applicant comprehensively promotes the licensing objectives and the application be granted. RESOLVED That the application be granted.
The Sub-Committee considered a report by the Licensing Lead Officer regarding an application for a new premises licence at McDonalds Restaurant, Unit G Havens Head Business Park, Milford Haven SA73 3AU. The Licensing Lead Officer then presented the application to the Sub-Committee noting that planning permission had been granted in July 2022 and the old building had been demolished to make way for a new restaurant. In response to a question from Councillor Cole regarding the licence application, the Solicitor advised that the application was for late night refreshment between 2300 and 0500 and not for alcohol. The Licensing Lead Officer clarified that the premises were proposing 24 hour opening and that a number of conditions had been offered including cctv, shift manager training, no open alcohol policy, litter patrols and self closing doors to limit noise. Additional conditions had been agreed with Dyfed Powys Police that the premises would operate a ‘drive through’ service only during late night hours only for three months with a review of training and risk assessment to be conducted prior to opening of the restaurant. The Licensing Lead Officer advised the Sub-Committee that a variation would be required if the restriction on drive through only operation were to be lifted. The Officer further advised that one objection had been received and the Town Council had recommended approval. The Solicitor advised the Sub-Committee of the options that were available to it in determining the application. The Chair welcomed the applicants representatives Mr Mark Gallant, Licensing Officer for McDonalds UK and Mr Leo Charalambides, Barrister to the hearing and invited them to address the Sub-Committee. The Barrister advised the Sub-Committee that the application had been amended to reflect 23:00 – 05:00 drive through service only and confirmed that, should the application be amended from this, a new application would be submitted. He advised the Sub-Committee that the CCTV was monitored and that staff were able to press an alarm that would notify a central unit based in Scotland where the CCTV was accessed with instructions given over the tannoy however, he advised that public would not have access inside the premises during the licensable hours. The Barrister further stated that full training including conflict training and dynamic risk assessments would be provided however, orders are now placed by the customer via the app or in-store boards which had reduced conflict as it was the responsibility of the customer. Of further note was that, whilst the law had changed so that the litter was the responsibility of the customer, McDonalds would provide extended litter picking. In response to a question from the Chair regarding the franchisee, the McDonalds Licensing Officer advised the Sub[1]Committee that the franchisee had a number of local franchises for McDonalds within Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire. In response to a question from Councillor John Cole regarding the conditions from Dyfed-Powys Police, the Barrister advised that there were similar conditions with other sites depending on their vicinity to other licensed premises. The Barrister further noted that during the licensed hours, the lights would be dimmed to show it was closed. In response to a question from the Chair regarding the number of seats in the restaurant, the McDonalds Licensing Officer advised that there would be a maximum of 100 covers and that they envisaged opening on 28 February 2024. Councillor Chris Williams sought clarification on the litter picking and the Barrister responded that franchisees are encouraged to engage and invest in the local community including sponsoring local sports teams, working with the Police and providing defib units. The litter pick rota was not by voluntary staffing, they were paid employees. In response to further questions from the Chair regarding recycling, the Barrister advised that McDonalds were looking to develop recycling and to reduce their carbon footprint across all stores noting that 24/7 opening was more sustainable. He further advised the Sub-Committee that McDonalds provides a full kit to each franchisee for each site which includes signage, policies etc. and they would ensure a notice to respect the neighbours at the site would be displayed. The Sub-Committee then retired into private session to undertake its consideration of the matter and the representations submitted. RESOLVED That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the Meeting for consideration of the current item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under Schedule 12A to the Act. The Sub-Committee then resumed in open session. DECISION The Sub-Committee has considered carefully all of the representations which have been made, which includes those documents contained in the agenda pack, and the additional representations it has heard during the hearing. The Sub-Committee has made its decision based on the representations it considers relevant to the issues before the Sub-Committee, which are whether effectively all 4 of the licensing objectives are being promoted through the proposed operation of the premises licence requested. The Sub-Committee has considered the representations by the residents who have made representations. These representations are based on apprehension of issues, some of which are not within the ambit of the licensing regime to control, for example traffic issues, over which the Licensing Sub-Committee also has no remit. The Sub-Committee considers that the applicant has dealt with the concerns raised in its representations before the Sub-Committee. Apart from the Police, none of the Responsible Authorities has made representations. The Sub-Committee finds that this is in effect an endorsement of the application. The Sub-Committee also notes the additional conditions agreed between the applicant and the Police that has led to the Police’s representations being withdrawn. Subject to the additional conditions being imposed, on balance the Sub-Committee considers that the application as made and as clarified by the applicant comprehensively promotes the licensing objectives and the application be granted. RESOLVED That the application be granted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the Meeting for consideration of the current item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under Schedule 12A to the Act. The Sub-Committee then resumed in open session. DECISION The Sub-Committee must decide whether to vary the premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003. In deciding whether to vary a licence, the Sub-Committee has regard to the Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State, together with the 4 Licensing Objectives. The Sub-Committee has considered this application on its merits, in accordance with its own Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub-Committee has carefully considered the written and spoken representations made before it. The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant as to the reasons behind the application, and that the application is basically to include the additional room as part of the licensed area. The Sub-Committee states for clarification that the application is being treated using the area limited to that edged in red on the plan that is part of the application. The Sub-Committee is also treating the application as being effectively approved by all Responsible Authorities, no representations having been made by any apart from Pollution Control. The Sub-Committee considers that the application has effectively been mediated as between Pollution Control and the applicant, and those representations are considered to have been withdrawn by the conditions agreed with the applicant. The absence of Responsible Authority representations is also considered to be effective in dealing with the representations made against the application by the other persons. The Sub-Committee considers that this addresses all the issues raised by the persons who have made representations. There is no formal evidence produced in support of the representations by those other persons that provide any basis to refuse or limit the application. The Sub-Committee recognises and understands the concerns of the objectors but these are not evidenced. The Sub-Committee is satisfied on balance that that the application promotes the licensing objectives and as such can be granted subject to the following clarification. The grant of the application for variation is limited to the extension in the licensed area as contained in the plan forming part of the application. Apart from this allowed variation, the current premises conditions remain in place and none of the other variations in conditions sought in the application is granted. This includes any proposed changes to the hours of operation of the various licensable activities. That the application, as modified, is therefore granted. This decision is based on licensing considerations alone. Its grant will not have any impact on the planning process and the applicant should be aware of this and that it should not be relied upon in that process. The grant does not mean that the applicant will not be breaching planning legislation if the applicant operates the premises under this decision. The applicant will still be in breach of planning legislation until that position is regularised and, even if planning permission is granted, the applicant will be subject to any limitations placed upon the premises by the planning authority. Licensing permission does not override panning obligations, in the same way that a grant of planning permission does not mean that licensing conditions are no being breached. The licensing and planning regimes operate separately and distinctly.
The Sub-Committee considered a report by the Licensing Lead Officer regarding an application for a variation to a premises licence for the Foresters Arms, Kensington Road, Neyland. The Licensing Lead Officer then presented the report noting an amendment to the report that was submitted for the variation as 16 November and not 21 November. She outlined the current licence to the Sub-Committee advising that this variation was to extend the licence to include the function room, to allow live music and to remove the seasonal restrictions. The location plan, internal and external photographs of the function room had been provided noting that the previous structure had been partly enclosed and was now fully enclosed. The Licensing Lead Officer informed the Sub-Committee that the variation was required to update the licence and that the consultation had run until 14 November 2023. Following an objection by a member of the public regarding the statutory notice not being displayed at the premises, two unannounced visits had been conducted and it had been confirmed that the notice was displayed. The Licensing Lead Officer informed the Sub-Committee that four representations objecting to the application had been received from other persons, all of whom had been invited to attend the meeting but none was present. She presented an overview of the representations that noted potential for underage drinking, noise disturbance, increase in litter and rubbish and an increase in anti-social behaviour. One representation supporting the application had been received and that person was in attendance at the meeting. The Officer further confirmed that a retrospective planning application had been submitted and the Solicitor outlined the options that were available to the Sub-Committee. The Chair then invited the applicant to address the Sub-[1]Committee. The applicant advised that the building had always been in situ with an outside bar area. It had not been used for the last six years and the premises had been very busy, providing a lot of food. It had been decided to modernise and extend to the rear to be able to increase the number of covers that could be provided. As it had been an existing building, the applicant stated that he did not realise that planning permission was required due to not altering any walls or windows. In response to a question from the Chair regarding seeking advice from the Licensing Authority, the applicant advised that he believed the existing premises licence covered the full ground floor. In response to a question from Councillor Chris Williams regarding insurance, the applicant advised that the insurance covers the entire ground floor of the building and that all changes had been discussed with a Planning Officer who had attended. The applicant confirmed that the insurance broker was fully aware of all works that had been undertaken. In response to a question raised by Councillor John Cole regarding the litter and underage drinking, the applicant advised the Sub-Committee that visits had been undertaken from both Licensing and the Police and no underage drinkers had been identified on the premises. He advised that, on New Years Eve approximately 20-30 underage drinkers had been refused service and asked to leave when they could not produce identification or proof of age. He informed the Sub-Committee that it was a family run business and, currently he was the sole licence holder but that his son was preparing to become a personal licence holder. In response to a question from the Chair regarding CCTV, the applicant advised that both bar areas were covered by CCTV. In response to a question from the Chair regarding underage drinkers, the Licensing Lead Officer advised that any complaints that had been received had been checked all had been unsubstantiated advising that age verification would be discussed at any inspections as a matter of routine. Councillor Williams sought clarification on the refurbishment that had taken place and the applicant advised that the bedsit and flat above the premises could not be rented out as the only access had been through the pub. This had now been rectified with the refurbishment providing separate access although they were not ready to be let due to the work that had been required. It was recognised by the Chair that the red line on the plan that highlighted the licensable area had not included the bar area in the function room. The applicant stated that customers would not be drinking behind the bar but the Solicitor advised that the red line was to include all licensable activities which would include the bar area. He further advised that it was not the Licensing Teams remit to provide advice to applicants. The Chair then invited the supporter to address the Sub-Committee applicant who highlighted the work that was undertaken by the applicant within the community. He further stated that, living on John Street, he had not witnessed any litter problems or seen anyone underage being served. Councillor John Cole sought clarification regarding the licensed area and the Licensing Lead Officer advised that to include the bar area would require a further variation application. The Chair invited the applicant to sum up before the Sub-Committee moved to deliberations. The applicant highlighted that the premises used to be used mainly for alcohol however, this had greatly reduced and he provided 30-40 lunches on a Sunday as and providing food was now a priority. The function room had been utilised to provide Christmas Day lunches with a large take up. The Sub-Committee then resolved to undertake its consideration of the matter and the representations submitted. RESOLVED That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the Meeting for consideration of the current item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under Schedule 12A to the Act. The Sub-Committee then resumed in open session. DECISION The Sub-Committee must decide whether to vary the premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003. In deciding whether to vary a licence, the Sub-Committee has regard to the Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State, together with the 4 Licensing Objectives. The Sub-Committee has considered this application on its merits, in accordance with its own Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub-Committee has carefully considered the written and spoken representations made before it. The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant as to the reasons behind the application, and that the application is basically to include the additional room as part of the licensed area. The Sub-Committee states for clarification that the application is being treated using the area limited to that edged in red on the plan that is part of the application. The Sub-Committee is also treating the application as being effectively approved by all Responsible Authorities, no representations having been made by any apart from Pollution Control. The Sub-Committee considers that the application has effectively been mediated as between Pollution Control and the applicant, and those representations are considered to have been withdrawn by the conditions agreed with the applicant. The absence of Responsible Authority representations is also considered to be effective in dealing with the representations made against the application by the other persons. The Sub-Committee considers that this addresses all the issues raised by the persons who have made representations. There is no formal evidence produced in support of the representations by those other persons that provide any basis to refuse or limit the application. The Sub-Committee recognises and understands the concerns of the objectors but these are not evidenced. The Sub-Committee is satisfied on balance that that the application promotes the licensing objectives and as such can be granted subject to the following clarification. The grant of the application for variation is limited to the extension in the licensed area as contained in the plan forming part of the application. Apart from this allowed variation, the current premises conditions remain in place and none of the other variations in conditions sought in the application is granted. This includes any proposed changes to the hours of operation of the various licensable activities. That the application, as modified, is therefore granted. This decision is based on licensing considerations alone. Its grant will not have any impact on the planning process and the applicant should be aware of this and that it should not be relied upon in that process. The grant does not mean that the applicant will not be breaching planning legislation if the applicant operates the premises under this decision. The applicant will still be in breach of planning legislation until that position is regularised and, even if planning permission is granted, the applicant will be subject to any limitations placed upon the premises by the planning authority. Licensing permission does not override panning obligations, in the same way that a grant of planning permission does not mean that licensing conditions are no being breached. The licensing and planning regimes operate separately and distinctly.
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.