Connect to us on social media and join in the conversation
Agenda item
DETERMINATION OF PREMISES LICENCE APPLICATION - BREW MONSTER BREWING COMPANY LTD, UNIT 1, LON Y TWYN, CAERPHILLY, CF83 1NW
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 to vary the premises licence at Brew Monster Brewing Company Ltd, Unit 1, Lon y Twyn,
Caerphilly, which sought to extend the hours for the following Licensable Activities:-
Supply of Alcohol (on and off sales)
Saturday 09:00 to 12:00
Sunday 09:00 to 23:00
Mr
Morgan outlined the permissions and conditions for the existing licence as set
out in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 of the report and asked Members to note an
error in the listing for the existing Supply of Alcohol (on and off sales) on
Saturdays, explaining that this should state 12:00 to 23:00
and not 16:00 to 23:00.
Members were advised that the original
premises licence was granted in September 2020 and that the variation was
seeking to increase trade by three hours on Saturday mornings (9:00 to 12:00) and
open all day on Sundays (09:00 to 23:00).
During the consultation process, responses were received from Fire Safety, the
Local Health Board, Heddlu Gwent Police, and the
Environmental Health Pollution Team, who all stated they had no representations or
objections to make in respect of the variation application submitted. Representations were also received from 8
residents who objected to the granting of the variation, and full details were
summarised in the report and attached as appendices. It was noted that the applicant has acknowledged
receipt of the resident representations and has indicated that he would respond
to these at the hearing.
The Sub Committee were asked to note that
three residents who had submitted representations but were not in attendance
had asked Dr Brown to represent them at the hearing.
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. Reference was made to the Officer
observations set out in Section 1.9 of the report which sought to address many
of the concerns raised by local residents.
The Sub Committee were referred to the
recommendation set out in the Licensing Manager’s report, which recommended
that having
had regard to comments received from residents but noting the absence of
comments from Responsible Authorities, the variation to
permit the additional retail sale of alcohol hours sought (namely Saturday
09.00 to 12.00 and Sunday 09.00 to 23.00) be approved.
All parties present were afforded the opportunity to ask questions of
the Licensing Manager. A Member made
reference to several representations in the report which stated the premises
had not yet opened, and was advised that the applicant would be able to confirm
the position when he made his representation.
Representations were then invited from the applicant, Mr Glenn White.
Mr White explained that the original intention had been for the premises
to open earlier in 2021, but that these plans had been put on hold as a result
of the second lockdown arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent
impact on businesses in general. Therefore
the premises had not started trading yet, but installation work on the bar was
proceeding and it was intended to open at the end of January 2022. Mr White explained that he had applied for
the extra opening hours on the weekend in order to align these with the other
drinking establishments in the area. He
explained that the premises was already restricted in relation to its
competitors as it could only open from 16:00 on weekdays, and that the
variation would create additional trade which would enable the premises to
increase their staffing levels.
Mr White explained that many of the concerns raised by residents did not
relate to the running of the premises itself, although he appreciated these
concerns and had worked hard to address many of the issues raised. He explained that complaints had been
received around problem parking by contractors who were undertaking building
work at the premises. Mr White had
spoken to the workers to address this issue and remind them to park
appropriately. He also emphasised that
this was a short-term issue and that builders would be leaving in the next
month once these works had been completed.
Mr White then addressed each of the residents’ representations in turn
and responded to the main areas of concern.
These included concerns around noise and disturbance as a result of
building works at the premises, concerns around an increase in traffic and
parking issues, general concern around the impact of the additional hours
applied for, and reference made to the location of waste bins and an overturned
bin at the premises. Concerns had been
raised around the potential for noise from outside drinking, the existing
anti-social behaviour caused by customers from neighbouring licensed
establishments, noise emanating from air conditioning units and chiller units,
and concerns around odours coming from the premises. One resident had also stated that the
premises had previously indicated that they would not open on Sundays.
Mr White explained that he had already addressed the issues around
inappropriate parking by contractors.
The premises had invested in insulation and soundproofing measures and
there were existing conditions in place around the control of unpleasant
odours. Mr White felt that the
additional hours applied for would not have an impact on the surrounding
area. In regards to the waste bins, Mr
White explained that this involved a specific incident where someone had
overturned a brewery bin during the night, and it was flagged to staff the next
morning. The bins have now been
relocated to the rear of the premises to prevent further reoccurrences,
although Mr White emphasised that this was unrelated to the application
itself.
In regards to the concerns around the potential for increased traffic
and noise, Mr White was of the view there would not be a significant increase
in traffic, as most customers were likely to walk or use public transport or
park in the town itself. There was also
no outdoor seating at the premises and so customers would not be drinking
outside. It was emphasised that any
anti-social behaviour had been caused by patrons of other establishments and so
was unconnected to this premises. Mr
White stated that the concerns around noise from air conditioning units and
chiller units related to brewery equipment, not the premises itself, and there
had been some noise whilst the enclosure for these units was being built but
this had only been during the daytime.
He had since checked and there was minimal noise being emitted from this
equipment. In regards to Sunday opening, Mr White
explained that he had originally sought this on the initial premises
application in September 2020, and it was since felt that there is more of a
need for the business to trade on a Sunday.
Mr White reiterated that the premises had worked exceptionally hard to
produce the conditions, processes and controls that are in place to minimise
the impact on residents. He emphasised
his wish to be a good neighbour and felt that the premises had striven to build
better relationships with local residents over the last 7-8 months.
All parties present were afforded the
opportunity to ask questions of the applicant.
A Member asked whether the bins referenced
in the representations belonged to the brewery or licensable area. Mr White confirmed that the brewery and
premises are one and the same company and it was anticipated that the same bins
would be used for both operations. He
explained that there had not yet been an opportunity to locate the bins inside
the perimeter of the premises but that these will eventually be located in the
premises’ yard once this is cleared.
Dr P. Brown (local resident) stated that the
bins had been permanently left on the street for the last 8-9 months. He also referred to Mr White’s claim that
better relations had been built with residents and stated he was not aware of
anything in this regard. Mr White
explained that he had spoken with the resident who lived next door on multiple
occasions and was making great efforts to work with her to minimise any impact
from the premises, with these measures including the building of a wall to
enclose the gap between her house and the premises.
Mrs C. Newbury (local resident) claimed that
she had received abuse from Mr White and the workmen on site, and so questioned
how residents would be able to approach him in the future, given that they were
now afraid of raising any issues with the premises. Mr White stated he was unaware of any abuse
and that discussions with residents had only ever been good-natured. Mrs Newbury reiterated that she did not feel
safe and was unable to see how she could raise any issues with the premises
face to face. Mr White maintained that
he had only ever been approachable to residents and welcomed the opportunity to
talk to them about any issues, explaining that he had numerous examples of
this.
A Member asked Mrs Newbury if she could
provide any specific examples of the abusive behaviour that she had
referenced. Mrs Newbury explained that
her garden is overlooked by the rear end of the premises and that the workmen
have continually called down into her garden, made comments and aggravated her
dog. She also referenced an alleged
physical assault on one resident when they had challenged the builders. Mr White emphasised that he was not aware of
any such incidents, and that although he had spent a lot of time of site with
the workmen, such behaviour would be concerning to him. He reminded all parties that the building
work would be completed very soon and emphasised that he would never condone
such behaviour.
There were no further questions for the applicant and representations
were then invited from Other Persons (Local Residents).
Dr P. Brown (local resident) was then invited to make his representation
and spoke on behalf of Mrs Newbury and several other residents who had
submitted representations in objection to the variation application. Dr Brown appreciated that many of the
residents’ concerns were not related to licensing matters but emphasised that
these issues were still causing a public nuisance. He explained that the main concerns related
to the extension of hours applied for over the weekends. He added that other licensed premises in the
area are not near residential areas or have been there for hundreds of
years. However, Brew Monster is a new
facility and the previous business at the site only operated for 5 hours on
Saturdays. The variation if granted
would see an increase in trading by 3 hours on Saturday and 14 hours on Sunday
and therefore in principle, the premises would effectively be open 365 days a year. This would create continual movement around
the site, with no respite for residents arising from the increase in hours.
There were no questions for Dr Brown and representations were then
invited from Mrs K. Jordan (local resident).
Mrs Jordan confirmed that she was representing her mother (Resident G)
who lived adjacent to the Brew Monster premises. Mrs Jordan acknowledged that Mr White had
built up a good relationship with her mother, but felt that the extra hours
applied for would be incredibly disruptive to her, as there would be an
increase in traffic, the smoking area is located next to her garden wall, and
that she would not be able to fully enjoy her garden on the weekends as
customers would be able to see into her garden from next door. Mrs Jordan also relayed a message from her
mother which stated that although she would not wish for the hours to be
increased, she wished to highlight that Mr White had been approachable and fair to her.
Mr White confirmed
that he was happy to work with Mrs Jordan’s mother to address any concerns, but
emphasised that the bar is located on the other side of the building and is
completely enclosed. He took on board the
concerns around the smoking shelter being close to the neighbouring garden, and
explained that he had already discussed these concerns with Mrs Jordan’s
mother, who had asked that that the premises raise the height of the wall
adjacent to her garden to increase the level of privacy.
A Member sought clarification on the location and use of the smoking
area. Mr White explained that this would
be used by brewery and bar customers. He
explained that this is located in the front part of the yard and is approximately
10 metres from the neighbouring garden, which would be shielded by existing
trees and the increased height of the boundary wall. He added that customers would not be
permitted to take their drinks out with them to the smoking area.
Dr Brown expressed concern that customers would need to exit the front
of the premises to travel along the pavement and access the designated smoking
area. He felt that customers would use
the front of the premises on the main street as a smoking area, instead of the designated
area to the rear. He was also concerned
that noise from the smoking area would be amplified due to the acoustic layout
of neighbouring streets.
Mr White explained that the use of the smoking area had been discussed
at length at the previous premises hearing and referred to the noise assessment
carried out by his consultant at that time.
He explained that he had carried out extensive testing via sound meters
over the past few months to determine that there was no noise pollution being
generated from the brewery equipment. Mr
White emphasised that his business is doing everything they can to ensure there
are no noise complaints and felt that the existing conditions imposed on the
premises licence would cover the extended Saturday and Sunday hours applied
for.
In response to queries from a Member, Mr
White confirmed that the premises were not intending to employ security staff
as they did not anticipate any problems from the type of clientele that they
were looking to attract, and it was also expected that there would be less
customers later in the evening compared to other establishments.
There were no more questions received and it was confirmed that there
were no other persons in attendance who wished to make representations. The Legal Advisor suggested a short
adjournment at this point to give attendees the opportunity to participate in
the two-minute silence to mark Armistice Day.
The meeting was adjourned at 10.58 a.m. and reconvened at 11.04 a.m.
All parties were afforded the opportunity to sum up before the Licensing
and Gambling Sub Committee retired to make its decision.
Mr Lee Morgan (Licensing Manager) referred to the representations in the
agenda pack from those residents not in attendance and reminded the Sub
Committee to take these into consideration when determining the
application. He asked Members to
consider all the information heard today and to take into account all relevant
licensing guidance. He referred to the
recommendation in the report and reminded all present that ultimately the decision
rested with the Sub Committee.
Mrs C. Newbury (local resident) expressed concerns that the noise
arising from the increased hours would have a disruptive effect on the
enjoyment of her home and garden, and called for the variation application to
be refused.
Dr P. Brown (local resident) reiterated his concerns around the
significant increase in hours which would result in the premises being open 365
days a year.
Mrs K. Jordan (local resident) reiterated her mother’s concerns about
the smoking area and hoped that, if the hours were to be extended, then the
proposed measures would be put in place to lessen the impact on privacy.
Mr White (applicant) emphasised that he was more than happy to work
together with Mrs Jordan, her mother, and other residents in order to resolve
any issues. He referenced the
significant investment in the business and his commitment to making sure the
premises is run in a proper manner.
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 11.11 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
located at Brew Monster Brewing Company Ltd, Unit 1, Lon y Twyn,
Caerphilly, 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 as set out in Section 1.3 of the Licensing Manager’s report be
GRANTED to extend the licence to supply alcohol (on and off sales) on Saturdays
from 09:00 to 12:00 and Sundays from 09:00 to 23:00.
The Sub Committee were satisfied that the
current conditions of the licence were sufficient to promote the four Licensing
Objectives and no amendments to the existing conditions were made.
In reaching their decision, the Sub
Committee placed weight on Responsible Authorities having an expertise in their
various areas touching on the respective four Licensing Objectives, and took
into account paragraph 9.12 of the Home Office National Guidance. The Sub Committee came to the view that it
was significant that no representations had been made by any Responsible
Authority as to the variation sought and the promotion of the four Licensing
Objectives.
In considering the residents’ representations, the Sub Committee reached
the view that many of the areas of the representations were not relevant for
the purposes of determining the variation application pursuant to the Licensing
Act 2003. Whilst the Sub Committee could
empathise with unsympathetic behaviour/conduct of construction workers, any
nuisance alleged in this regard simply did not relate to any licensable
activity being carried out by the Applicant.
The Sub Committee reached the same view on the issues noted in regards
to the placement of the commercial bins on or immediately adjacent to the
public highway.
The Sub Committee did not find issues that arose with other licenced
premises in the locality were relevant to the determination of this variation
application, particularly in the absence of any representations from any
Responsible Authority. The Sub Committee
determined that the Applicant could not be held responsible for action of other
licensees in the locality to which he has no control or responsibility
for. Similarly, the prior commercial use
of the Applicant’s building before being redeveloped into a brewery/bar was not
relevant, and the concerns raised would be relevant to planning issues.
The Sub Committee were mindful that the hearing was not to redetermine the suitability of a licence for the premises,
which had already been determined. The
Sub Committee were mindful that some of the activity on the Applicant’s
premises would relate to licensable activities and some would not. The alleged light pollution was within the
context of no licensable activity actually being conducted as yet on the
Premises. Similarly, the alleged noise
nuisance via industrial air conditioning units, and smell from brewing
by-products were within the context of no licensable activity actually being
conducted as yet on the Premises. The
Sub-Committee took into account there being no evidence or representation made
that such issues had been reported to Environmental Health as yet – which would
have the obligation to investigate and regulate the same, should a statutory
nuisance indeed exist.
The Sub Committee did not take into account the planning permission for
the premises. It gave consideration to
its licensing policy and formed the view that the two areas of regulation are
separate. It would be a matter for the
Applicant and the Planning Authority to ensure all planning requirements are
complied with notwithstanding the grant of a licence under the Licensing Act
2003, or any subsequent variation to such a licence.
The Sub Committee took into account the evidence in regards to the
improving relationship between Resident G and the Applicant and noted that
privacy and noise concerns from the smoking area did not form a part of
Resident G’s written representations.
The Sub Committee were satisfied, at this point in time, that the
Applicant and Resident G would be able to reach an amicable accommodation in
this regard, if an actual issue does eventuate – failing which a review of the
licence conditions could be sought by Resident G. As such the Sub Committee did not find it
reasonable or proportionate to place any further condition in regards to the
smoking area given the Applicant had no prior warning that this was an issue,
and no detailed evidence on the issue was heard by the Sub Committee.
The Sub Committee
were satisfied that the current conditions of licence, as applied to the
variation of hours for the licensable activity, promoted the 4 Licensing Objectives.
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 12.05 p.m.
Supporting documents:
- Report, item 3. PDF 346 KB
- Appendix 1, item 3. PDF 389 KB
- Appendix 2, item 3. PDF 470 KB
- Appendix 3, item 3. PDF 119 KB
- Appendix 4, item 3. PDF 391 KB
- Appendix 5a, item 3. PDF 372 KB
- Appendix 5b, item 3. PDF 391 KB
- Appendix 5c, item 3. PDF 393 KB
- Appendix 5d, item 3. PDF 390 KB
- Appendix 5e, item 3. PDF 402 KB
- Appendix 5f, item 3. PDF 438 KB
- Appendix 5g, item 3. PDF 418 KB
- Appendix 5h, item 3. PDF 153 KB