Agenda item

PREMISES:    The Halfway House, 65 Church Street, Donisthorpe, Swadlincote, Derby DE12 7PX

APPLICANT:  Peter Riley and Paul Aldred

To determine an application for a variation of a premises licence in respect of the above.

A representation has been received from a local resident.  A Notice of Hearing inviting them to attend has been sent to them.  If they fail to attend, the hearing can be held in their absence or adjourned.

The following documents are attached: -

a)     Report of the Licensing Enforcement Officer

At the beginning of the Hearing, the authority shall explain to the parties the procedure it is proposed to follow.  The Hearing shall take the form of a discussion led by the authority and cross-examination shall not be permitted unless it is required to consider the representations.

The Legal Advisor explained that the objector to the application was not able to be present at the hearing.  He advised that, as a representation had been submitted by the objector in writing, as well as a further update which had subsequently been circulated, he felt that there was no reason why the hearing could not proceed in their absence as their views had been adequately represented.

Before inviting the Licensing Enforcement Officer to present the report, the Chairman sought clarification on what was being requested by the applicants as some points in the application form had been marked with a tick and others with a cross.  The applicants confirmed that the points marked with a cross should be considered to indicate their preferences in the same manner as ticks.

The Chairman introduced the parties and explained the procedure to be followed.  As there were no other parties present it was not necessary to agree a maximum time limit for presentations.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report to Members, highlighting background information and the representations received.

Councillor J Ruff expressed concern that the beer garden would be open until 1.00am on Fridays and Saturdays and asked if the premises itself already had a licence until 1.00am.

Mr P Riley responded that the premises was currently licensed until 1.00am.

The Legal Advisor explained that questions should be directed to the Licensing Enforcement Officer at this point in the hearing.

Councillor J Ruff asked why it was necessary for the beer garden to be open until 1.00am if the premises was licensed until that time.  She commented that most beer gardens shut earlier than this.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer advised that she had undertaken some research into local beer gardens and some premises had restrictions, however there were many without.  She advised that the closest premises to the Halfway House was the Masons Arms and they had no restrictions imposed on the use of the beer garden.

Councillor J Cotterill commented that as a smoker he could understand why you would want the beer garden to be open for the same hours as the premises.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer explained that the consumption of alcohol in itself was not a licensable activity, and therefore there was nothing to prevent patrons purchasing a drink at the bar and consuming it outside.  She clarified that what the applicant was seeking was the ability to install a temporary structure from which alcohol could be served outside if a large event was taking place.

Mr P Riley addressed the Sub Committee and presented his case.  He explained that he and Mr Aldred had refurbished the pub to a very high standard and had been seeking to buy the land for the beer garden for three years as it was the only thing missing from the pub.  He stated that the play area had been installed at a large cost and commented on the high quality of the play equipment.  He added that the play area was fenced off and separate to the beer garden, and no drinking, smoking or food was allowed in that area.  He referred to the complaint from the Whitehouses and stated that a 10m buffer zone had been agreed and no tables or chairs would be placed near their property.  He added that the buffer zone would be fully landscaped by September.  He stated that theirs was the only complaint that had been received and added that they had moved out of the village now.  He pointed out that the Whitehouses had also put in an application for a 5 bedroom dwelling on their land which had been granted on appeal.  He felt that the complaint was more to do with protecting their interests.  He commented that he and Mr Aldred had bent over backwards to appease the Whitehouses.  He stated that the pub had the support of residents in the village and referred to the letters of support which had been circulated.  He added that there were no other facilities in the village for children to play.

Councillor J Cotterill asked how high the acoustic fencing would be.  Mr P Riley advised that it would be 2m high and was the best quality available. 

Mr P Riley said that Parish Councillor John Hair had been asked to open the beer garden and read out his speech.  He added that there would be a plaque dedicating the play area to a local primary school teacher who had passed away.

The Chairman commented that he had read that there were concerns that the 10m buffer zone had been superceded by the acoustic fencing.

Mr P Riley advised that when the car park was extended, it had been necessary to take down the hedgerow.  He added that this would need to be replanted in September and would be replaced.  He commented that the amount of hedgerow would be doubled to what was previously there.  He explained that there would be no tables or chairs placed in the 10m buffer zone, however it could be utilised.

The Legal Advisor stated that in the absence of the interested party, it was only right that the concerns raised be addressed at this point in the hearing.  He highlighted the reference in the representation to human rights and the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.  He explained that this was not an unqualified right, and if Members were minded to approve the application, this would not interfere with a person’s private or family life as action was not being taken against that person.  He added that approving the application would have an impact however, as it may change the manner in which their family life was enjoyed.  He added that the applicants also had the same right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property, and therefore it was a matter for Members to balance the overall impact of the application and consider whether granting the application would undermine the licensing objectives, particularly in respect of public nuisance.

The Legal Advisor explained that in reaching a decision, the interested party would have the right to appeal to the Magistrates Court and could request a review of the licence should the premises cause a public nuisance in future. He added that there were other statutory regimes they could seek protection from, for example, failure to install the acoustic fencing would constitute a breach of the planning conditions.

The Legal Advisor reiterated that it had not been considered appropriate to adjourn the hearing in the absence of the interested party and they had been advised of the statutory timescales relating to the application and the date of the hearing.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer commented that she had contacted the interested party on a number of occasions and had received no response.

The Legal Advisor reminded the Sub Committee that they had heard that the nearest beer garden to the premises had no restrictions imposed upon it, and more importantly, that the consumption of alcohol was not a licensable activity, and as such there was nothing to prevent patrons from purchasing alcohol inside the premises and consuming it in the beer garden in any case.  He concluded that if Members were minded to refuse the application, they needed to be satisfied that granting it would undermine the licensing objectives, particularly in respect of noise and public nuisance.

Mr P Riley made a brief closing speech reiterating points made earlier in the hearing.  He stated that the premises had never had any problems with the Police and himself and Mr P Aldred had 70 year’s experience of being a licensee between them.

At 7.10pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and reconvened at 7.48pm.

The Legal Advisor explained that at the request of Members, during the adjournment he had discussed and agreed an amendment to the application with the applicants in the following terms:

·        The performance of all types of music outside the premises to cease at 11.30pm

·        The licensed hours be amended on New Year’s Eve from 11.00am until 2.00am the following day (New Year’s Day)

·        The provision of late night refreshment to take place indoors only

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be approved subject to the above amendments.