Meeting documents

The meeting had been previously adjourned at 4.12pm on 5 October 2009 and had now been re-convened at 5.30pm on 14 October 2009.

The Legal Advisor to the panel explained that the Members had visited the premises and Mr Westby's property earlier in the day. She confirmed that no conversations were held between the Members and either party.

A Member raised concerns regarding the direction of the speakers that were situated in the beer garden as they were pointing directly at the gable end of Mr Westby's property. He asked if the speakers could be moved. The Premises Licence Holder's representative stated that the speakers are not used and therefore they would be happy to move them.

A Member asked if the gate at the side of the premises was open at all times as it was during the visit to the premises earlier in the day. The landlord of the premises stated that the gate was open whilst the premises was open as the side door to the premises was a fire exit and therefore in the case of an emergency the gate would be the way out.

A long discussion was had regarding whether Punch Taverns Limited would be prepared to install double glazed acoustic windows into Mr Westby's property to help block the noise. The outcome was that Punch Taverns were not prepared to commit to providing the windows at this point as they were conscious of setting a precedent as the company was a national organisation and if it was apparent that this had been provided, more requests could follow.

In response to a number of questions from Members, the premises licence holder's representative stated the following:

- The lengthy complaints within the agenda papers had been read and it was not accepted that the noise was coming from the premises, especially at 12.45am. It was stated that Mr and Mrs Greensmith were good landlords that stuck to the premises licence.

- Although the customers with their children in the beer garden were loud at the time of the visit to the premises earlier in the day, it was not a good representation of the premises as it was quiet in the village in the middle of the day and children were not allowed on the premises after a certain time in the evening.

- It was not accepted that the behaviour in the beer garden in the evenings would be a public nuisance.

- No correspondence had been received from the Licensing Enforcement Officer or the Environmental Protection Department. She stated that the Area Manager would be happy to meet with any local residents to discuss any issues if the company are made aware of them.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that numerous correspondences had been sent to Punch Taverns Limited but no response had been received. The Area Manager for Punch Taverns Limited confirmed that he had received correspondence stating that the case was closed, therefore he had not responded.

It was agreed that the affected party's house occupied a unique position.

All parties gave a brief closing speech.

As part of his closing speech the Environmental Protection Officer stated that his advice would be not to rely heavily on the installation of double glazed windows as once the windows are opened it has little effect. As the complaints mainly came from Mr Westby in the summer, this method may not be useful.

At 6.24pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 6.59pm.

The Legal Advisor read out the Members decision, findings of fact and the reasons for the decision.