Agenda item

Applicant:  Punch Taverns, represented by TLT Counsel and Punch Taverns representative

Responsible Authority: Environmental Health Officer Jeremy Lockley

The Interested Parties were not present and were not represented.

The parties present confirmed that they had received and understood the licensing procedure.

The Licensing Officer summarised the application, which sought to extend the existing activities, hours and conditions to the first floor of the premises. Representations had been received from local residents in relation to the licensing objectives of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children from harm. A representation had also been received from an Environmental Health Officer (EHO)  in relation to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance proposing that the first floor area should be used for dining only and that regulated entertainment should not take place there.

Counsel stated the case for the applicant. He apologised that no employee of the applicant had been able to be present at the meeting. He said that there was no application to extend hours, even though some representations had been based on a misconception that this was the case. The use of the term “extension of hours” in the application was a statutory requirement. He said that regulated entertainment took place on the premises only about twelve times a year. The upstairs area was small and was intended to be used for dining. The applicant was now prepared to withdraw that part of the application relating to the provision of regulated entertainment there. He noted that the representations contained a few references to incidents of noise nuisance. The applicant had had discussion with the Licensing Officer and the EHO and had responded to the EHO’s concerns by withdrawing that part of the application relating to the provision of regulated entertainment on the first floor of the premises. He noted the references in representations to noise from taxis calling at the premises and said that, while this was not under the control of the premises supervisor, the applicant would, through the licensing officers, request the taxi firms to give their drivers appropriate advice.

In reply to questions from a Member, Counsel stated that

·   the premises were not listed, but subject to a conservation order. If it were suggested that noise insulation should be fitted, the applicant would consider this

·  a representation had been made about customers being present in the beer garden after the terminal hour of 23.00; the applicant would give more attention to enforcing the terminal hour in future

The Environmental Health Officer Jeremy Lockley stated his case. He highlighted that the premises was in a terrace and had residential properties immediately adjacent on both sides. The first floor would be on the same level as neighbours’ bedrooms. Mr Lockley stated that, in his professional opinion, any provision of regulated entertainment on the first floor would cause a noise nuisance. He confirmed that, whilst he was not withdrawing his representation, his concerns would be addressed if a condition were to be imposed on the licence that regulated entertainment should not take place on the first floor.

Following an adjournment, the Sub-Committee resolved to grant the application as applied for, subject to the following additional  amended condition proposed by the Environmental Health Officer and agreed to by the

applicant:

“The First Floor area is not to be used for regulated entertainment.”

and subject to the mandatory conditions relating to the sale of alcohol and those contained within the Licensing Act (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2010 and with conditions consistent with the operating schedule.

Authority is delegated to the Licensing Officer to issue the licence accordingly.

REASONS

Members have determined an application for a new premises licence for The Richmond Arms. In doing so they have taken account of the Licensing Act, Human Rights Act, the Council’s Policy and the Statutory Guidance.

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act is only to do what is necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.

Members considered the relevant representations and took account of the evidence put before them.

Members were careful to balance the competing interests of the applicant and those of the Responsible Authority and the Interested Parties in reaching a decision. Accordingly, Members have done only that which is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.