Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chairman explained the procedure to be followed and asked all parties to introduce themselves. The Hearing Regulations 2005 stated that the Authority must allow parties an equal period of time in which to present the evidence. It was agreed that the maximum time for each presentation be 10 minutes.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report and highlighted background information and the grounds for the review. In response to a question from Members, the Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that the game that was usually played in the car park was football and that the premises licence holder had been at the premises for six years.

There were no questions from the other parties.

Mr T Cawthorne then presented the application from the Environmental Protection Department as detailed within the report.

A Member asked if the noise from the road was contributing to the disturbance. Mr Cawthorne stated that officers had visited the area and recorded the noise level inside a neighbouring property, the road was busy and did contribute, but the noise from the public house could be clearly heard over the road. Mr Cawthorne also stated that the noise levels were unacceptable whether a live band were playing or not, from the number of complaints it was possible to see that when the noise level recordings were taken it was not an isolated occasion.

In response to a question from a Member, Mr Cawthorne stated that when there was not live music playing, the noise was mainly from the customers in the beer garden after 11.00pm.

A Member stated that there was also a footpath and a rugby club in the proximity and asked if they contributed to the level of noise. Mr Cawthorne stated that the rugby club was set back a considerable distance from the road and no complaints had been received. With regards to the footpath, it was set in the centre of a residential area and was surrounded by houses; this also did not raise any concerns.

A Member asked if the problem with the noise was a management issue or a building issue. Mr Cawthorne stated that the building could easily be improved by making the windows and ventilation points soundproof. The situation could also be improved if restrictions on the times that alcohol could be consumed in the beer garden were introduced.

Mr Michie, an interested party, explained that the beer garden was very comfortable with shelter, furniture and heaters which meant customers sat outside for their entire stay. He asked that if restrictions on the consumption of alcohol outside were introduced, how it would be enforced. Mr Cawthorne explained that if it was a condition on the licence, the premises licence holder would have to adhere to it and would be responsible for enforcing it.

There were no questions from the premises licence holder.

Mr Michie, then presented his representation as detailed within the agenda papers. He explained that the public house was now a detriment to the area and his personal life, especially since the longer drinking hours were introduced.

In response to a question from a Member, Mr Michie stated that he was aware that a meeting had been arranged between the residents, the licence holders and Council Officers but unfortunately he could not attend.

In response to a question from a Member, Mr Michie stated that the recent changes to the public house were that the car park was always very full which indicated the customers were not local. The public house was now more of a 'city pub' than a 'local pub' and it was not appropriate for late night drinking in that area.

Mr Michie stated that he only had contact with the premises licence holder once in the last two years and it was not a pleasant experience.

There were no questions from the Environmental Protection Department or the Premises Licence Holder.

Mrs Ray, an interested party, then presented her family's representation as detailed within the agenda papers. She explained that the family did not want the public house to fail as it was very popular and they had visited it on many occasions, but the constant noise was disrupting her family life and she asked for some respect for the residents.

Miss Ray stated that she was currently studying for her GCSE's and the disruption from the public house was keeping her awake and causing her to be extremely tired, this was affecting her studies.

A Member asked if the smoking shelter was in breach of the Planning Regulations as it seemed to be more than 50 percent enclosed. The Licensing Enforcement Officer explained that currently the shelter was not compliant but she had been dealing with it in previous weeks.

There were no further questions for the interested parties.

Mrs K Hughes, representing the premises licence holder, addressed the panel. With regards to the children playing outside the public house, she explained that there had been no representations received from the police or other interested parties, which indicated they had no concerns for the children being put at risk. She also stated that Children were very welcome at the premises and were supervised whilst there. Mrs Hughes stated that secondary glazing had been installed in the large bay window where the live music was played and temporary blocks had been placed in the ventilation systems to block the noise. Mrs Hughes also stated that he premises was a community public house and informed the panel that the licence holder walked around the premises nightly to ensure the level of noise was not too high. Mr Ball felt that he was being targeted by some of the residents, with posters being erected with regards to drumming up support for this meeting.

Mrs Hughes stated that currently the premises was licensed to hold live entertainment until 2.00am, Mr Ball would be happy to reduce that to 1.00am. With regards to the smoking shelter, Mrs Hughes stated that it had now been altered to make it compliant and Mr Ball was happy to restrict the consumption of alcohol in the beer garden after 12 midnight. Mrs Hughes stated that the children playing in the car park did not always come with the customers in the premises and Mrs Ball has moved the children away from the premises in the past.

A Member asked Mr Cawthorne if he had taken a noise level reading since the secondary glazing had been installed. Mr Cawthorne stated that he had not been made aware of the installation and had therefore not arranged another test. He explained that although one of the windows had been secondary glazed it would not make a huge difference as the others windows were not. He also explained the importance of the most appropriate forms of glass to use for the secondary glazing.

A Member asked Mr Ball if the events that occurred at the premises were logged. Mr Ball stated that they were and it showed that on the occasion that Mr Michie had filmed children playing football in the car park, there had been an event with the local football team, this explained why they were there. The log book was circulated to Members.

In response to a question from a Member, Mr Ball stated that he had not intentionally changed the direction of the public house; it had just become very popular. Mr Ball stated that live music was played each Friday and Saturday night between 9.00pm and 11.30pm, recorded music was played at other times.

In response to a question from Mr Cawthorne regarding the secondary glazing, Mr Ball stated that it had been installed professionally and that eventually the other windows would be addressed.

All parties gave a brief closing statement.

The Licensing Sub Committee adjourned to consider the application at 8.12pm and re-convened at 9.37pm.