Agenda item

Applicant for Review: Mr Kenneth Jones

Other Parties: Cllr Liz Richardson and Mr Stephen Thier

License Holder: Joanna Drury, accompanied by her husband Mike Radford

The parties confirmed that they had received and understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Public Protection Officer summarised the report. The Sub-Committee noted that the grounds for the review were the alleged undermining of the licensing objectives of the Prevention of Public Nuisance and the Prevention of Crime and Disorder. Two representations in support of the review and 102 representations in support of the premises had been received from Other Persons. There had been no representations from the Responsible Authorities. The Sub-Committee was invited to determine the application.

The Applicant for Review stated his case. He said that he was speaking on behalf of his wife and himself. Contrary to remarks made on social media by misinformed people, he did not wish the premises to lose its licence and be closed. However, the Rising Sun was a source of noise nuisance, which was impacting adversely on his wife and himself. People had moved away or had been deterred from purchasing property in the vicinity of the premises because of the noise. For three years he had requested the license holder and her husband in person and by telephone to close windows and doors when noisy events were taking place, or when amplified music was played. They had either ignored his requests, or had only closed doors and windows for a short period before reverting to the previous practice. New sash windows had been installed in about 2014, which had resulted in an increase in noise nuisance. The license holder appeared to have no regard or respect for those living in nearby properties. The volume of amplified music should be monitored and controlled. On one occasion the license holder told residents that the Environmental Health Team had advised that they should keep their own doors and windows shut, rather than the Rising Sun. This was unacceptable. Not even the application for a review had caused any change of behaviour at the Rising Sun; the previous day all the windows of the Rising Sun had been open. A wide variety of noise nuisance emanated from the premises. Some events, such as quiz nights, were accompanied by loud shouting and cheering. Sometimes he and his wife had to wear ear plugs in order to be able to sleep. They were also often woken by early-morning deliveries and waste collection vehicles, sometimes as early as 5.30am. These vehicles sometimes parked immediately outside his property and blocked the road, so that other vehicles had to mount the pavement causing damage to his property. On occasions customers coming from the pub had used his garden wall and front window sills as a table for their drinks. Because he had no response to his requests to the licence holder, he had had no option but to apply for a review of the licence. He did not wish to affect the profitability of the business, but requested that conditions be imposed that mitigated the impact of activities at the premises on the health and wellbeing of wife and himself and on other residents.

The applicant for review was questioned by members.

Q: What activities had been taking place the previous day when the windows had been open?

A: Just ordinary pub activities, which were producing noise. People raising their voices. A loud general hum.

Q: You object to that kind of noise?

A: Yes, when it comes right into my front room, because the doors and windows of the Rising Sun are open. Activities like quiz nights give rise to noise nuisance.

Q: What kind of damage occurs to your property?

A: It’s not the pub’s fault. It’s the result of the dray vehicle parking in the road. This forces other vehicles to mount the pavement right next to our bedroom window. Fire tenders have been stuck on the pavement near my property.

Other Persons stated their cases.

Cllr Liz Richardson made a statement on behalf of Cllr Paul May, the Ward Councillor for Publow and Whitchurch. Cllr May wished to support the continuance of the premises licence. He had received many expressions of support for the premises from members of the public. He believed that it is well-run establishment. It is recognised as being part of the community it serves. This review application had been discussed at the most recent parish council meeting of the 10^th July, at which both the applicant for review and the licence holder had been present. The Parish Council agreed that the pub is now a great asset to the village and support its position in the cmmunity. It was suggested that the Parish Council support individually as residents of the Parish.

Cllr Richardson then made her own statement. She said that had resided within walking distance of the premises for just under six years. At the time she had moved in, the premises had been under different ownership and had been a very different establishment from what it is now. It had previously been rather grotty, to understate the situation. Jo Drury and her husband had really turned it round. It was now a thriving local rural business. As can be seen from the representations, it enjoys a high level of support from the local community. Many of the representations make very positive comments about the licence holders. The business had grown hugely under Jo and Mike’s management, which shows the level of support from the community. When they took over, Jo worked in the kitchen and Mike served at the bar. Now the Rising Sun employs seventeen local people, not all full time. They have done this without impacting on the other three pubs in the area. She had never heard a bad word about the licence holder. She believed that it is a well-run pub. It is very friendly and offers excellent food, which they aim to source sustainably from the local area. It is not just a business; Jo and Mike are involved in the wider community. The Rising Sun is their family home, the place where they have chosen to live and raise their children. Events held at the premises are focussed on families having a nice time. They hold a monthly supper club, to which people come from far and wide. There are two grounds for this review. As for public nuisance, pubs are made or lost by their licence holders. When they thrive they attract more customers, when they don’t customers drift away and they can ultimately close and change use. This is a thriving pub and has many customers, mostly happy people enjoying recreation. Surely public nuisance only occurs if noise levels are excessive and there appears to be no evidence that that is the case. The pub is no different from others in having deliveries and waste collections. Like many other rural pubs it is in the centre of a village with cottages all around it. As in many villages there are activities in the pub garden. As far as crime and disorder is concerned, the Responsible Authorities have made no representations to this application. She concluded by requesting that no change be made to the premises licence.

Steve Thier stated his case. He said that he had been a customer of the premises for over thirty years. He said he wished to pay tribute to the value and enrichment that Jo and Mike had brought to the pub. The previous owner of the Rising Sun had been past pension age, and had not been particularly interested in continuing to invest in it. The Rising Sun had always been important as a community centre. It was now very family friendly, and he and his partner took their children there. He had never seen any unreasonable behaviour at the premises, or heard threatening language or anything loud or outrageous. He had attended a quiz night about a month ago, at which there were a total of about twenty people. It had been run by the local tennis club, with all proceeds going to charity, as was the usually the case with quiz nights. Several times he had to ask the quiz master, who was sat a few feet away, to repeat the question, as he could not hear him. He was unable to understand the assertions made about unreasonable disturbance from the premises. There were wide benefits to the community from the operation of the premises. Locally-sourced food products were used in the kitchen. Local breweries were used to supply beer. Jo and others had invested a lot of time in tidying up the footpath by the river to improve access in the village. He urged the Sub-Committee not to change the premises licence.

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr Thier said that twenty people was a typical attendance at a quiz night.

The Applicant for Review asked about amplified sound at the quiz night. Mr Thier said that a small microphone was used. In reply to a further question he said that he had never witnessed an event at which the windows and doors had been fully open.

The License Holder stated her case. With the agreement of the applicant for review and permission of Members she submitted a petition on behalf of the premises and a map of Pensford showing the location of the Rising Sign and of the homes of the applicant for review and other residents copies of which are attached as appendices to these minutes. She was not permitted to submit a number of photographs in evidence. She then read from a prepared statement, which addressed each of the points made in the application for review.

1. Loud Music in Garden and Inside the Premises

We have four types of music. There is background music inside the premises played during opening hours, which is kept at a low level. Generally there is no music in the garden. Secondly, we have music for one-off social events, such as wedding receptions. The first wedding reception was in 2013, when the music finished at 00:30 and at 00:00 for the next two. A neighbour complained about noise from the first event, so we agreed to finish earlier in future. No complaints were received about the next two wedding receptions. Thirdly, we have music at community events, which are free to attend and are generally held on a Bank Holiday weekend. Live music was played at this year’s New Year’s Eve event until 01:00, despite which Mr Jones informed me at mediation that none of our music events this year had disturbed him. Finally, we have a late afternoon music session on the last Sunday of each month. This is often acoustic music.  These sessions take place in the pub usually between 17:00 till 19:00 and we have not had any complaints about them. It is difficult to comment further on the allegations without specific examples. The Council advises Applicants for Review to complete and submit a log report, but none has been provided.

2. Loud Voices shouting, jeering and swearing

I strongly reject this allegation. I have two young children and we live directly above the pub and I would not allow such behaviour. Occasionally customers do shout and swear, but either I or my staff address this directly with the customer at the time. We give a warning the first time, and if the behaviour continues or recurs, the customer is asked to leave the premises. Again no specific examples have been provided by the Applicant for Review.

3 Delivery Vehicles arriving as early as 06:30

Delivery vehicles do sometimes arrive early, typically to supply fresh fish and fruit, which are delivered 3-4 times a week. We have asked suppliers if they can change the delivery time, but they cannot do so, because we are the first drop on their routes. We also ask that drops be made to rear of the premises, but this is often impossible because of the difficult access. The Post Office/village shop and a café are not far from the Applicant for Review’s home, and they also have deliveries outside of usual business hours. There is also a main road to the rear of the Applicant for Review’s home, which starts to get busy at this time of day.

4. Waste Collection and recycling Vehicles picking up as early as 05:30

When I set up the contract with the waste removal company, I asked them not to remove waste before 09:00. I have emails in which I subsequently repeated this request. Early morning collections are also sometimes made from the Miners Coffee Shop. I was awoken at 06:15 on 14^th August 2017 by a waste collection from the Coffee Shop.

5. Dray Deliveries can block the Road forcing Vehicles to mount the pavement, causing damage to the Applicant for Review’s Property

I have photos showing that vehicles are able to pass the dray delivery without mounting the pavement. The road directly outside the Rising Sun is the widest part of Church Street. I have accepted Amazon deliveries for the Applicant for Review, and the delivery vehicles can park in the same way as the dray deliveries, so I am puzzled that he singles out the dray deliveries for comment. I am not aware of damage to his property and no evidence has been provided of this. Any decisions to drive on pavements are made by the driver of the vehicle.

6. We have not responded to requests from the Applicant for Review to close windows to contain noise

The Applicant for Review has spoken to my husband and myself on various occasions, but it is not true that we have not taken action in response to his requests. While he has sometimes been somewhat aggressive, it is important to us to try to keep our neighbours as happy as possible. We want to be comfortable in our own home, and we want our neighbours to be our customers. I have asked him how we could address his complaints, and he has asked us to have our windows and doors shut when music is being played. We did this for the next event, and yet he still complained about loud music. We kept our windows shut, but he had his open. At no time before this review had he or his wife approached us about their suffering discomfort on a ‘near daily basis’.

7. The Mediation Meeting

I do not understand how his statement about this is related to any of the licensing objectives. I requested my husband to attend this meeting as he is a fellow director of the business. Mr Jones said at the meeting that on Christmas Eve he had been woken by someone knocking at the door and swearing, and, assuming it was my husband, he had called the Police. In fact it was Mr Jones’ son-in-law who had been swearing. At the meeting Mr Jones said that at the review he would ask for restrictions on delivery and waste collection times, for a noise limiter to be put on for all outdoor music events, and for doors and windows to be kept closed when the pub is busy. But then Mr Jones explained that it is the “general noise” emitted when the pub is busy which is actually the subject of his grievance. We asked when he was last disturbed by our outdoor music, and he said this had been August Bank Holiday 2016. Since then we have four more events, none of which have disturbed him.

8. Applicant for Review said he would draft some conditions to be proposed at the Review

I have received no suggested conditions from him. He said he would propose conditions that would not have a serious impact on the pub’s profitability. I submit that the profitability of the Rising Sun has no relevance to the Review or the licensing objectives. Mr Jones told me that he thought that stopping music earlier than midnight would not affect trade. I do not agree; we would be uncompetitive if we could not hold events at times that other venues do.

In reply to a question from the Applicant for Review the Licence Holder stated that, unlike most pubs, the Rising Sun does not have a beer cellar. This was filled in with concrete in about 1968. The beer storage area, which generates a lot of heat, is directly behind the bar room. The premises are also bordered by a stream, so there are no windows at the back of the public area. It gets very warm in the pub, so windows have to be opened to keep customers cool. They had examined the possibility of air conditioning, but the expense would be huge. It would have to be installed at the front of the pub and planning permission for this would be unlikely in a Conservation Area. The restored sash windows have been provided for the comfort of customers.

Members put questions to the License Holder.

Q: What type of background music is played at the premises?

A: Mostly folk and pop.

Q: What kind of music do you have in the garden?

A: For special events we have one or two bands playing pop music, not rock music.  The bands would be amplified.

Q: What restrictions do you put on wedding events?

A: We have a wedding a week next Saturday. They are an older couple and they were happy to book it knowing that the music would finish at 22:00.

Q: How about a young couple?

A: We would stop the music at 00:00 (midnight).

Q: Would that be a disco?

A: The first one we held had a disco. We received complaints and have not had a disco since. The two after that were bands, which ceased at 00:00. Bands don’t blare it out like a DJ. All music in the garden is provided by folk bands, and might be acoustic or amplified.

Q: How often has music been performed till 01:00 as permitted by the licence?

A: Never.

Q: Have you ever been contacted by Environmental Health about noise?

A: We did receive a letter from an Environmental Health Officer about an event which went on into the early hours of a Sunday morning, but this did not take place at the Rising Sun. We had been mistakenly blamed for a 21^st birthday celebration taking place in a neighbour’s garden.

Q: When are windows opened and when are they kept closed?

A: July was a lot cooler than May and June. When we had the conciliation meeting, it was admitted that no disturbance had been heard in the last couple of weeks. This was because it had been cooler and the windows had not been open so much. It can get very warm when twenty people are inside the pub. We open the windows a little, and the customers open them fully to get comfortable. We open the windows in the morning to allow fresh air, and perhaps the noise of the vacuum cleaner can be heard from outside. In September and October the windows are not open half so much.

The Licence Holder summed up. She submitted that the Applicant for Review had failed to supply details about specific examples of disturbance, which made it difficult for her to respond. A number of the points he had made could not be linked to the licensing objectives. She was not aware that he had made any specific proposals to address his concerns. She was extremely grateful for the many expressions of support she had received from the community. She drew attention to a representation of support from a neighbour with which the Rising Sun shared a party wall. She also submitted that the claim by one of the Other Persons that he had left the village because of noise from the premises was untrue, as he visited the premises daily until his departure. She also drew attention to the representation from Mr Gardner, the former licensee of the Rising Sun, which states that no complaints about disturbance at the premises had been received until the Applicant for Review took up residence in the village. She requested the Sub-Committee to note the absence of representations from the Responsible Authorities. She said that she took her responsibilities as a licence holder very seriously. The Rising Sun was not just a livelihood, it was also a home. She requested that her premises licence be left as it was.

The Other persons did not wish to sum up their cases.

The Applicant for Review said that the opening of the sash windows at the premises was having a serious effect on his wife’s and his own health. Noise was sometimes constant from 14:00 until the windows and doors were shut. Sometimes he and his wife stayed elsewhere when an event was to be held. He requested that the volume of music at the premises be reduced a little and doors and windows kept shut.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to take no action in respect of this application.

Reasons

Members have had to determine an application by Mr Kenneth Jones for a review of The Rising Sun, Church Street, Pensford’s premises licence. In doing so they took account of the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Human Rights Act 1998.

Members are aware that the proper approach under Licensing is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of information that the Licensing Objectives raised are being undermined. Further, that they must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the Objectives.

The Applicant

Mr Jones applied for the review of the premises licence on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. Reasons cited included, very loud music being played in the gardens and inside the premises beyond midnight, loud voices shouting, jeering and swearing emanating from the premises on a near daily basis. Delivery vehicles arriving as early at 6.30am and waste and recycling collections picking up as early at 5.30am. Dray deliveries blocking the road forcing vehicles to mount the pavement to pass which is causing damage to his property.

Mr Jones stated however, that he was not suggesting a revocation of the licence and did not wish to affect the profitability of the premises.

The Other Persons

Councillor Liz Richardson and Mr Thier spoke in support of the premises. Councillor Richardson described the premises as very well run and said that the licence holders should be applauded. She expressed the view that she could not see how public nuisance was made out, and noted that there had been no representations from Responsible Authorities in relation to crime and disorder. Mr Thier described how he takes his family and children to the pub and what a valued community asset it is.

The Licensee

Ms Drury as Licence Holder responded to each of the 8 points made in Mr Jones’ application for the review. She asserted that as Licence Holders they act to promote the licensing objectives and do not breach the terms of their licence. She noted that Mr Jones does not provide clear evidence of specific examples of how the premises are undermining the licensing objectives of prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder. Ms Drury explained that as premises Licence Holders they do all they can to be considerate to their neighbours and have made arrangements so as to cause the least disruption possible with deliveries and waste collections. Ms Drury asserted that a number of alleged incidents referred to by Mr Jones could not be linked to her premises and that there are a number of other businesses in close proximity to the pub. Ms Drury did not accept that there was anti-social behaviour as described by Mr Jones and questioned how she could run a successful business if such behaviour was allowed to take place.

Ms Drury asked Members not to make any changes to their licence.

Members

Members were careful to take into account only relevant representations and to disregard irrelevant representations. With the consent of Mr Jones they allowed the petition in support of the premises and a location plan to be introduced as additional information at the hearing. Mr Jones had sight of the petition in advance of the hearing. Ms Drury sought to introduce photographs as additional information however Mr Jones did not consent to their introduction and they were not therefore, taken into account.

Members carefully balanced the representations made by the Applicant Mr Jones, the representations in support of the review application, the representations of the Licence Holder and Other Persons.

Members noted that there were no representations from Responsible Authorities.

Members noted that following changes made to the Licensing Act 2003 by deregulation legislation, no licence is required for live music and amplified music up until 2300 hours, in certain circumstances.

Members noted that there were 102 written representations from Other Persons in support of the premises. Within these representations the landlady and landlord were stated to be professional, conscientious and highly regarded. They were noted to be intolerant of drunken, loud and abusive behaviour. The premises were described as well run; not noisy or troublesome but instead a valued and a vibrant community asset. Other Persons stated that any music is concluded at times within the terms of the licence and often, well before the time permitted by the licence.

Having weighed in the balance the written and oral representations before them Members found that the Licensing Objectives of Prevention of Public Nuisance and Prevention of Crime and Disorder were not being undermined. Accordingly members have decided to take no steps on the review.