Connect to us on social media and join in the conversation
Agenda item
Determination of Premises Licence Application - Valley Tavern, 15 High Street, Fleur de Lys, Blackwood, NP12 3UD.
Minutes:
The Legal Advisor to the Sub Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting, including
the order of representations and the opportunities for all parties to ask
questions.
Mr Lee Morgan (Licensing Manager) presented
the report and outlined the application submitted for the variation of a
premises licence located at Valley Tavern, 15 High Street, Fleur de Lys,
Blackwood, NP12 3UD
Members were advised that the application
sought to vary the premises licence for the establishment by revising the plan of
the property that is included on the current premises licence. The previous café area has been converted
into one large bar area and the front entrance to the property has also
changed. The opening times of the premises will be 08.00am to serve food but there
will be no change to alcohol hours before 11.00am. The current premises licence permits the sale
of alcohol, exhibition of film, live and recorded music, performance of dance,
late night refreshment and boxing/wrestling entertainment.
An updated plan of the premises was provided
as part of the application and attached to the report at Appendix 2. A number of steps had also been volunteered by the
applicant as part of the Operating Schedule as per the existing licence, to
promote the Licensing Objectives, and a redacted copy of the existing licence
was included at Appendix 3.
During the consultation process, the Local Health Board,
Environmental Health (Pollution Team), Child Protection Officer, Licensing
Authority in their role as Responsible Authority and Police all responded to
indicate they had no representations, objections or proposed conditions in
respect of the application.
Representations were also received from two
local residents in objection to the variation application with full details
appended to the Officer’s report. One
local resident had written to the Licensing Department to state that she would
not be attending the subsequent hearing but asked for the other local resident
(Mr Gough) to speak on her behalf.
Attention was
drawn to the local policy considerations as set out in the report and to the
way in which the Sub-Committee would deal with the application. Members were referred to
the recommendation set out in the Licensing Manager’s report, which recommended
that given the nature of the variation application, and in the absence of any concerns to the
application from Responsible Authorities, the variation of the premises licence
be approved.
All parties present were afforded the opportunity to ask questions of
the Licensing Manager. Mr Gough (Local
Resident) made reference to the installation of air conditioning on site that
had been mentioned by the applicant at the previous Sub Committee hearing, and
in referring to windows being opened at the premises in Summer 2020, asked if
this matter had since been resolved.
Mr Morgan confirmed that the conditions of licence requires windows and
doors to be kept closed and summarised these to the Sub Committee, although it
was noted that this condition should not prejudice the minimum ventilation
levels required for health and safety.
Mr Gareth Morris added that the premises had made significant investment
in air conditioning equipment over a year ago, but that there were occasions
where the premises windows had been opened to allow ventilation due to Covid-19
regulations.
Representations were then invited from the applicant, Valley Tavern Limited.
Mr Nathan Jenkins from Valley Tavern addressed the
Sub Committee and outlined the reasons for the variation application. He explained that they had taken away a
walkway around the building and removed two internal walls to create more space,
which had been signed off by Building Control, and so Valley Tavern were confused
by the objections as there would be no impact to residents. On the contrary, this would help as there is
now only one entrance to the premises and patrons can walk up to the side
rather than congregating on the highway, particularly when they wish to smoke.
Mr Gareth Morris from Valley Tavern added to the
representation and explained that there had been some changes to the outside
area as a result of Covid-19 restrictions but did not form part of the
variation, and all processes had been put in place to minimise disruption.
Mr Morris then addressed the concerns set out in
Mr Gough’s written representation and responded to each of these in turn. He explained that in regards to complaints
around public urination in the side alley, security staff monitor this area but
they are limited in what they can do.
The number of security cameras at the premises have now increased to 30,
fighting that takes place off the premises is outside the control of the
establishment, and broken glass is in the area is not from the premises as
patrons are not allowed to leave with drinking glasses. The police have attended several times but
this is mainly to request CCTV footage for matters inside and outside of the premises. Mr Morris also emphasised that the premises
deters drug use and is able to search patrons on the premises but that
drug-taking off the property is outside of their control.
Representations were then invited from the local
resident, Mr Gough.
Mr Gough summarised his concerns and raised a
number of questions for the applicant.
He expressed concerns about the change in layout due to the number of
front exits being reduced from three to two doors, and the additional noise
being created as a result of one door being permanently open. Mr Gough commented that air conditioning at
the premises would be ineffective if doors are left open. He asked if the door between the exterior and
bar area would be open on a regular basis due to security being positioned at
that door. Reference was made to staff
smoking and dropping cigarette litter in that area. Mr Gough also referred to the existing Condition
1 at Annex 3 of the report relating to windows and doors to be kept closed and
claimed this was added following the decision reached at the previous premises
hearing in 2019. He referenced the placement of the indoor stage
area facing the windows and stated that this did not meet Condition 2 of the
licence. He also referred to the car
park being used as an extension of the outside area and asked if this would
continue.
Mr Jenkins
responded to the points raised by Mr Gough.
He explained that the air conditioning was not operational when the
windows were first opened; they had been installed but there were several
issues with the functioning of the equipment and that staff would open the
windows if it was particularly hot in the premises due to health and safety
considerations. Mr Jenkins outlined the
setup of the stage in the premises and explained that the performers and sound
systems used to face the windows; these have now been re-positioned so they
have their backs to the windows and are facing inwards. The premises also made enquiries about
installing an “acoustic film” for windows to reduce decibels but did not feel
the reduction in noise levels would be significant.
Mr Lee Morgan
(Licensing Manager) clarified that Condition 1 at Annex 3 referenced by Mr
Gough was added at the original premises hearing in 2019. Regarding the use of the outside area, he
explained that due to the Covid-19 situation, the government has permitted any
premises with an on-sales facility to enjoy an automatic off-sales provision
but that this arrangement will come to an end when restrictions ease. He also confirmed that the applicant is
permitted to provide alcohol on an on or off sales basis within the confines of
the land it owns but if it does not own the premises then they should not be
using the area concerned.
Mr Gough sought
reassurance from the applicant that the problems with the air conditioning
system had been resolved and windows would not be opened in future. He referred to the considerations around
health and safety and stated there was no maximum upper temperature level.
Mr Jenkins
confirmed that the premises had been closed for nearly a year but that the
problems with the air conditioning system had now been rectified. He added that he would be happy to remove the
gazebo to the rear of the premises now that Covid-19 restrictions on indoor use
had been lifted. He stated that if the
licence states the premises can open windows, he will continue to do so and
also that he has no control over patrons who choose to open windows.
Mr Gough confirmed
that he was happy with the offer to remove the gazebo and the increased use of
the beer garden. He sought clarification
on the condition which he believed were added after the original hearing and
stated his belief that the premises did not own all the land on which it
operates.
Mr Jenkins
explained that the question of ownership relates to a piece of land at the rear
of the property for which the premises is in the process of purchasing and that
this has been brought to the Council’s attention. Mr Gough suggested that this was previously
used as a cemetery and could be considered to be consecrated ground.
Mr Lee Morgan
explained that he was unable to comment on the position in respect of this land
and reiterated that Condition 1 was added at the last premises hearing on 19th
February 2019. He further explained that
the Licensing Sub Committee may impose any conditions they feel are relevant to
the grant of a licence, and this would have formed part of the decision notice
which would have been disseminated to all parties as part of Licensing
procedure. Mr Gough indicated he was
satisfied with this explanation.
Mr Gough
reiterated his concerns regarding the sole door between the bar and exterior of
the premises and that the air conditioning would not work if this door was kept
open, explaining that previously there were two doors which would have formed
an airlock-type scenario. He remained
concerned that this door would now be kept open more or less permanently.
Mr Jenkins pointed
out that the air conditioning system would only be used on rare occasions
during hot weather and that to keep noise to a minimum, the door would be kept
shut. He suggested that he could ensure
that security stand outside this closed door and confirmed that he would also
address the issues raised around staff smoking and cigarette litter.
All parties were then afforded the opportunity to sum up before the
Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee retired to make its decision.
The Licensing Manager referred Members to the information and guidance
in the report and to the representations heard at the meeting, together with
the recommendation at Section 1.10 of the report.
Mr Gough confirmed that he had nothing further to add. He thanked the applicants for their responses
and hoped that there would be positive progression and no need for further
complaints.
Mr Morris referred to the extensive discussion around air conditioning
and reiterated that this system is rarely used.
He confirmed that he would raise the issues around the door being left
open and staff smoking in his weekly meeting with security staff. He emphasised that he was open to discussion
with residents and if they had any concerns, these could be raised directly with
him and would be addressed. In addition,
Mr Jenkins thanked Mr Gough for his comments, reiterated the willingness of the
premises to deal with complaints in-house and offered to pass his contact
details to Mr Gough following the meeting.
The
Legal Advisor informed all parties present that the Sub Committee would retire
to consider the representations made at the meeting and they would be informed
in writing of the decision in the next 5 days.
The Sub Committee retired at 10.53 a.m. to make its decision and all
other parties left the meeting.
Following consideration of the application for the variation of a
premises licence for Valley Tavern Limited, 15 High Street, Fleur de Lys,
Blackwood, NP12 3UD, and having regard to the Licensing
Manager’s report and all the representations made, the Licensing and Gambling
Sub Committee unanimously
RESOLVED that the
application for the variation of a premises licence, to alter the layout plan
of the premises, be GRANTED as per the variation application.
In making their decision, the Sub Committee
considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, revised Home
Office Guidance and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing
Policy.
The
Sub Committee took into account that the internal variation to the layout of
the premises was relatively minor. They
took into account that the residents’ concerns regarding excess noise had not
been corroborated by any evidence of prior complaints made to or received by any
of the Responsible Authorities. The Sub Committee
were not satisfied on the evidence before it that there had been any breaches
of the existing licence conditions that would weigh against granting the
variation as sought by the Applicant.
Whilst the Sub Committee heard submissions in regards to the efficacy of
the air conditioning at the premises, this was not given much weight by the Sub
Committee given the lack of evidence of noise nuisance complaints from members
of the public.
The
Sub Committee were satisfied that the prior record of the Applicant and its
recognition and awareness of its responsibilities in this regard within the
hearing, satisfied the Sub Committee that the granting of the application would
not detract from the promotion of any of the 4 licensing objectives, in
particular the promotion of public nuisance.
The Sub Committee took into account the other factors, such as purported
urination in the alleyway, but the evidence was not clear whether the problem
originated from patrons or members of the public. The Sub Committee gave consideration whether
the variation sought would derogate from the 4 licensing objectives in
connection with the possible acts of public nuisance. The Sub Committee concluded that the
variation would not effect the same.
The decision notice advised that any person
aggrieved by the decision had the right to appeal to the local Magistrates
Court within 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision.
The meeting closed at 11.27 a.m.
Supporting documents:
- Report- Valley Tavern, item 3. PDF 327 KB
- Appendix 1, item 3. PDF 258 KB
- Appendix 1a, item 3. PDF 239 KB
- Appendix 2, item 3. PDF 174 KB
- Appendix 3, item 3. PDF 464 KB
- Appendix 4, item 3. PDF 279 KB
- Appendix 5, item 3. PDF 386 KB
- Appendix 6, item 3. PDF 143 KB
- Appendix 7, item 3. PDF 143 KB