Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report, and highlighted background information and representations received.

Mr Carter (objector) stated that he had written to the Licensing Enforcement Officer regarding a number of issues and had asked her to raise them with Greene King Brewing and Retailing Ltd. Mr Carter asked the Licensing Enforcement Officer if this had been done and what the response had been. The Licensing Enforcement Officer confirmed that it had been done but no correspondence had been received.

Mr Lucas then presented the application as detailed within the report. He explained that Mr and Mrs Baker were tenants at the premises, not the Licence Holders. This meant that Greene King Brewing and Retailing Ltd had applied for the licence variation but the activities would be provided by Mr and Mrs Baker. Mr Lucas stated that the purpose of the application was to tidy up the existing old licence as it had been converted under the new licensing regime and not varied at the time.

Mr Lucas addressed the following concerns raised in the representations:

Anti-social behaviour - Mr Lucas could understand the resident's fear of what may happen but it was not grounds for refusal.

Parking - Mr Lucas stated that there was currently a problem with parking in the village which would still continue if the application was granted or not. He pointed out that the photographs within the report were taken whilst the pub was closed.

Noise - Mr Lucas stated that there had only been one complaint received regarding noise and that efforts had already been made to improve this. The tenants were working with environmental health on this issue.

Litter - Mr Lucas stated that the litter reported was off the premises and was unfortunately out of the tenant's control, plus no complaints had been received. It was pointed out that a particular representation mentions drinking cans being littered around the premises, Mr Lucas stated that the premises do not sell cans and therefore it was not responsible.

Sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises - Mr Lucas stated that the premises had been doing this for many years and had received no complaints or caused any issues.

Mr Lucas stated that the premises had held four temporary event notices since Mr and Mrs Baker took over in November last year and was regularly used by local residents and Parish Councillors.

Professor Hope (Objector) asked Mr Lucas what would happen to the customer's safety in the premises in summer time when all windows had to be closed during regulated entertainment. Mr Lucas stated that it was a common condition placed on a large number of licences and as far as he was aware, no incidents had been reported. He also stated that the condition had been agreed with Environmental Health.

In response from a question from Mr Lim (Objector), Mr Lucas stated that residents had been approached with regards to checking the noise levels, this included Mr Carter.

In response to a question from Mr Carter (Objector), Mr Lucas stated that notices advising customers to leave the premises quietly were addressed in the Statutory Guidance and was a method used to success. He stated that there would be times when certain customers may need to be approached regarding their behaviour when leaving the premises but that Mr and Mrs Baker would be monitoring this very thoroughly.

Mr Carter asked that if the application for regulated entertainment was granted, how frequently would it be provided in the premises. Mr Lucas stated that the intention was once per month but there would be occasions when it could be more, such as for St George's day events or birthday parties. He pointed out that any regulated entertainment would cease at 11.00pm.

Mr Carter asked Mrs Baker how she was planning to encourage customers to arrive by foot and not by car. Mrs Baker stated that the majority of customers arrived by foot because they were local residents. She stated that before she took over the premises, it had been kept open after hours illegally for the local residents and all she wanted to do was to do this legally so that the licence would not be put at risk.

In response to a question from a Member, Mrs Baker stated that the type of entertainment they provided would be for birthday parties, theme nights such as 'Italian' and live music.

The residents in objection to the application were then invited to address the Sub-Committee.

Mrs Swift presented her representation as detailed within the report. She explained that after the most recent night of entertainment two of the tyres on her car had been slashed and expressed her concerns regarding future anti-social behaviour in the village. She also stated that she had a young son whom was disturbed due to the noise and she did not feel the extended hours were necessary.

Mr Lucas explained that the damage to the car could have been caused by anyone in the area and asked Mrs Swift if she thought it was specifically caused by someone who attended the 80th birthday party at the premises. Mrs Swift stated that she could not specifically say who caused the damage to her car. Mr Lucas informed Mrs Swift and the other residents of the review process that could be used if the application was granted and the tenants were found not upholding the licence.

There were no further questions for Mrs Swift.

Mr Carter presented his representation as detailed within the report. He emphasised his three main concerns as follows:

Noise from the premises - Mr Carter stated that the noise regularly kept his young children awake and although efforts had been made to reduce this, it was not working. Mr Carter stated he had now put a complaint into the Environmental Health Department and explained that there was an extractor fan on the outside of the premises in the direction of his house which did not have a cover on it.

Disturbance from customers leaving the premises - Mr Carter stated that people would be leaving the premises much later if the application was granted and he was concerned that they would by travelling on foot past his property being noisy and causing problems.

Increase in traffic and parked cars - Mr Carter stated that there was an existing problem with parking causing issues around the entrance to his property and that it would only get worse if the application was granted.

Mr Carter stated that he was upset that the tenants had not consulted with him about the application as he was one of the premises nearest neighbours and was concerned that if the application was granted, the current tenants could move on and new tenants who could use the licence to its full potential and could destroy the village. Mr Carter finally stated that he did not want to do anything negative to the public house as it was an asset to the village but unfortunately he had his concerns with the application.

Mr Lucas assured Mr Carter that an acoustic cover would be fitted to the extractor fan and asked him if this would help with the issue of the noise. Mr Carter responded that it would help but would prefer a full review of the premises.

There were no further questions for Mr Carter.

Mr Lim presented his representation as detailed within the report. He expressed his concerns regarding noise, parking and customers being drunk and disorderly.

There were no questions for Mr Limb.

Mrs Nightingale presented her application as detailed within the report. She explained that she used the public house and had no problems with it but had some concerns regarding the noise. At a 21st Birthday party in the winter, Mrs Nightingale was woken and is now concerned about how loud events would be in the summer.

There were no questions for Mrs Nightingale.

Professor Hope presented his representation as detailed within the report. He explained that he was concerned that young people would travel down from Castle Donington not only to use the premises but to buy alcohol to take away with them and this may cause trouble. Professor Hope stated that he had enjoyed entertainment in the premises in the past but did not wish for it to be a regular occurrence. Professor Hope wished Mr and Mrs Baker well with the public house.

A Member asked Professor Hope if he agreed that there was a need for modifications in public houses such as this one so that it did not disappear like many other village public houses. Professor Hope agreed but felt that the application was to increase profits not tidy up the licence as stated earlier in the meeting.

There were no further questions for Professor Hope.

The residents in support of the application were then invited to address the Sub-Committee.

Mrs Vickers presented her representation of support as detailed within the report. She stated that having been in the area for 30 years she had seen two public houses close down already and did not want to lose the last one in the village. She stated that it was the hub of the community and was very important to the local residents. She assured the Sub-Committee that the average age of the customers were 45 years plus and that they were not rowdy as implied by some objectors.

In response to questions from Mr Lucas, Mrs Vickers stated that she was aware that the Public House held regular events to help the fund raising for the village and that she had no concerns regarding noise issues. She also stated that she did not believe that young people would come into the village from Castle Donington.

In response to a question from Dr Lim, Mrs Vickers stated that she lived approximately a quarter of a mile from the premises.

There were no further questions for Mrs Vickers.

Councillor Saffell presented Mr Blackburn's representation in support as detailed within the report, on his behalf. Councillor Saffell stated that Mr Blackburn was the closest resident to the premises and had not had any complaints to make. He stated that the premises had held entertainment on a regular basis for many years and was not a teenage pub.

In response to a question from Mr Lucas, Councillor Saffell stated that Mr Blackburn was aware of the proposed extended hours and was in favour.

In response to a number of questions from Mr Carter, Councillor Saffell stated the following:

- Mr Blackburn did not have any children living at his premises.

- If a live band were playing at the bottom section of the public house, the distance to Mr Carter's premises and Mr Blackburn's house was very similar.

- Councillor Saffell could not give exact dates of the regular entertainment he referred to in his earlier speech.

All parties gave a brief closing statement, summing up points previously made during the meeting.

The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider its decision at 9.00pm and re-convened at 9.30pm.

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