Connect to us on social media and join in the conversation
Agenda item
APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE IN RESPECT OF (SUNSET LODGE WEDDINGS LTD - LODGE AND MARQUEE AT TY CAE BRITH FARM, TROED Y RHIW ROAD, MYNYDDISLWYN, NP11 7BB)
Minutes:
The
Chairman opened the meeting and introductions were made.
The Legal Advisor to the
Sub-Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting and reported that Members
had previously familiarised themselves with the report of the Licensing
Officer, the application and plan of the premises together with the written
submissions from the responsible authorities and local residents who were
objecting to the application.
Mr L. Morgan (Licensing Manger) presented
the report and outlined the application submitted for a new premises licence for
Lodge and Marquee at Ty Cae Brith
Farm, Troed y Rhiw Road, Mynyddislwyn, NP11 7BB with the proposed
operating hours for the supply of alcohol (on and off sales), Provision of
Recorded Music (indoors only) and Late Night Refreshment as follows:-
·
Supply of Alcohol (on and off sales)
Sunday to Thursday 12.00 to 23.00
Friday and Saturday 12.00 to 00.00
Boxing Day and New Years Eve 12.00 to 02.00
Sunday preceding Bank Holiday Monday 12.00 to 00.00
·
Provision of Recorded Music (Indoors)
Saturday 23.00 to 23.30
New Years Eve until
01.00
Sunday preceding Bank Holiday Monday –
non amplified music until 23.45 within the lodge.
·
Late Night Refreshment
Friday and Saturday
23.00 to 00.00
Boxing day, New Years
Eve until 02.00
Sunday preceding Bank
Holiday Monday until 00.00
All licensable
activities for the marquee to take place between 1st May to 30th
September.
However,
the applicant has subsequently amended his application in relation to the Marquee
area only, to reflect the following position namely, to
provide licensable activities on Saturdays’ only between 1st of
May and the end of September.
The Licensing Officer then
referred to representations received in relation to the application from
interested parties/responsible authorities that were set out in paragraph 1.7
of the report, copies of which were attached to the report circulated with the
agenda. There were no objections listed
by the Fire Officer, Trading Standards, Health and Safety, Environmental Health
or Police.
Attention
was then drawn to the local policy considerations as set out in paragraph 1.10
of the report and to the way in which the Sub-Committee would deal with the
application. It was explained that the
Sub-Committee must have regard to all the representations made and to the
evidence heard. It must take such steps
as is considered necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives and
could:-
·
Grant
the application as requested to include, where appropriate, mandatory
conditions
·
Modify the conditions specified in the operating
schedule by altering, omitting or adding to them
·
Reject the whole or part of the application
All
parties present were afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A Member
sought clarification that where the application referred to Friday and
Saturday, this had now been amended to the marquee, Saturdays only between 1st
May to 30th September. All parties were advised that this was
correct.
There were no further questions for Licensing
and representations were then invited from the applicant.
Mr Hobbs
addressed the Sub-Committee and outlined his application. There had been a
temporary change to one of their fields to have a marquee and it was proposed
to have 10 events per year for a maximum of 150 people. Mr Hobbs advised that
he was fully aware of the noise issues and had worked with a noise management
company to ensure minimum levels of noise to local residents.
All
parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A
resident noted the 4316 licensed hours already held by the applicant and
queried why there was a need for additional hours. They also questioned the
number of events proposed for each year. Mr Hobbs clarified that ‘the lodge’ is
only currently used for personal use but remains a licensed premises and noted
that the application is for the marquee, Saturdays only, and is separate to the
hours licensed by the lodge, which is not open to the public.
The Legal
Advisor to the Sub-Committee clarified with the Applicant that it is the
intention to run a ‘tilled bar’ for customers to purchase alcohol at weddings
and parties in the marquee.
A Member
noted the maximum number of persons permitted in the marquee was 150 and
clarified that when the marquee is hired out, the hirer understands that they
cannot invite more than 150 persons to their event.
A Member
sought clarification on the lodge which was licensed but only used for personal
use, noting that this premises could accommodate 70 people, and queried whether
the building had been fire risk assessed to determine the maximum numbers for
standing and sitting. Members were advised that the fire service had
recommended that an external assessor carry out the fire risk assessment. The
Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee clarified with the Applicant that the ‘dog
house/the lodge’ had not been fire risk assessed.
A Member
queried whether the dog house/lodge had previously been used for commercial
purposes and referred to the adverts for ‘bottomless brunch’. Members were
advised that this was advertised in the public domain by mistake and confirmed
that the premises is not currently used commercially and would require planning
permission and building regulations in order to do so.
Discussion
followed in relation to the lodge and its use by family and friends of the
directors of the applicant, and whether the premises required a licence.
Members were advised by the applicant that the premises licence was in place to
cover all private parties held at the premises, in order to sell alcohol to
family and friends at these events.
A local ward
member sought clarification on the nature of the advert for bottomless brunch
and queried why the event would be advertised to family and friends with
specific times for attendance at the event. The applicant advised that this was
normally only advertised on their ‘family group’ and that his son had
advertised it in error. The event has
been held for family and friends on bank holidays for the last 7 to 8 years.
A local
ward member proposed that if the licence were granted, subject to conditions
limiting use of the outside area after 10pm, whether this would continue on
summer evenings and be monitored by the applicant to ensure the condition is
adhered to. Mr Hobbs advised all parties that the external lights are currently
turned off at 10pm and family and friends are requested to remain indoors after
this time. Further clarification was sought on whether this would also occur
with the marquee and questioned the control of up to 200 persons on the site.
The applicant advised that the outdoor seating area at the marquee would
accommodate 25 persons and would be managed by SIA door staff, together with
the bar staff.
Discussion
followed in relation to customer lifts from the premises at the end of the
events, taxi pick up points at the premises, and maximum times specified for
taxis to allow some flexibility for lateness and still be vacated before 12
midnight.
A Member
sought clarification on the proposed use of the marquee for events on alternate
Saturdays, and noted if the licence were granted, the marquee could be used
every Saturday if the licence allowed. Mr Hobbs confirmed that they had held 3
events this year under Temporary Event Notices, which had been managed well by
security and bar staff, and also confirmed that any drunken customers who
insisted on leaving the premises via the lanes, would be dealt with by staff
and Police called if necessary. A Member noted that the times advertised in the
brochure for the marquee, needed to be amended to be in line with the
licensable hours, as applied for. Mr Hobbs recognised that there would be an
impact on local people when customers are leaving the premises.
Discussion
followed with regards to the sale of alcohol from the lodge, and Mr Hobbs
clarified that planning permission was not required as the premises was only
used for family and friends. The Legal Advisor to the Sub Committee clarified
with the applicant that the proposal to limit the marquee availability between
May to September, was an attempt to reduce the impact on residents. Mr Hobbs proposed to hold only 10 wedding
events per year, however this could be increased if extra dates were requested
by customers.
The Legal
Advisor to the Sub-Committee sought clarification on the application times for
recorded music between 11.00pm and 11.30pm. Mr Hobbs advised that this allowed
flexibility at events where it was deemed more appropriate to finish the event
at 11pm or allow it to continue to 11.30pm at their discretion.
Clarification
was sought on the ‘irresponsible’ drinks’ promotion with a hog roast. Mr Hobbs
explained that the event was for 30 people, family and friends only, and the
bottomless brunch included ‘weaker’ alcohol drinks, and drinks would be managed
with no ‘queuing’ of drinks allowed on the table.
The local
ward member queried the planning investigation previously referred to in the
meeting and questioned whether if any conditions were imposed by planning or
licensing, would these be ignored. Mr Hobbs clarified that as the area in
question, the lodge, was only used for personal use, no planning permission was
required.
A local
ward member queried the absence of the Planning department at the meeting. The
Licensing Manager advised that the application being considered at the meeting
was for licensing and not planning, and that planning is a separate matter to
be dealt with under separate legislation.
A
resident queried how the number of persons would be monitored in the marquee.
Mr Hobbs advised that it would be the responsibility of the person hiring the
venue to ensure that invited guests do not exceed maximum numbers, and that the
tables and seating would be in place for the invited guests only. Mr Hobbs also
advised that the marquee had the capacity to hold more than the maximum number
of 150, but that they had chosen to limit the maximum to 150 persons, taking
into consideration space for guests and the volume of traffic going to and from
the premises at any one time.
Clarification
was sought on the bottomless brunch event in July, and all parties were advised
that the ‘unlimited’ drinking was only between the hours of 3 pm to 5pm,
however alcohol was still served until 11.30 pm. Bar staff monitored and managed the situation
well and anyone behaving irresponsibly would have been removed from the site.
Clarification
was sought on the health and safety requirements of the ‘team’ erecting the
marquee, as it is a commercial building. Mr Hobbs confirmed that all those
involved were qualified professionals and erect marquees for various events
elsewhere.
The
meeting was then adjourned for a 15-minute comfort break.
The Chair
then invited comments from the Responsible Authorities.
Gwent Police
confirmed they were not objecting to the application, however they did advocate
some re-wording and the addition of conditions on the licence, if granted.
All
parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A
resident queried whether checks had been made for incidents of crime and
disorder on Mynyddislwyn Mountain and Gwent Police advised that no crime or
disorder had been recorded.
Environmental
Health confirmed they were not objecting to the application, however they
proposed conditions to the licence, if granted. Reference was made to a
multi-agency meeting which took place on 16th August 2023, and noise
management was discussed. The Environmental Health Officer noted that the
applicant had engaged with the recommendations and their conduct was
acceptable.
All
parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A Member
clarified that there had been no noise complaints received in relation to the 4
Temporary Event Notices that had taken place weekly through July 2023. The
Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee clarified with the Environmental Health
Officer that there was a noise management plan, with no current issues, unless
the measures are not adhered to.
A local
ward member sought clarification on the multi-agency meeting and suggested that
some of the local residents may not have wished to make a complaint as they
would have possibly been known to the applicant due to the proximity of the
farms in the area. All parties were advised that the multi-agency meeting was
not a public meeting and confirmed that no complaints had been received by
Environmental Health.
The
Commercial Safety Officer outlined their representations and confirmed that
they had visited the premises and the issue with the safety of the power cables
had been resolved. All parties were advised that the access track from the road
remains in good condition and rubbish receptacles would be placed outside of
the marquee, if the licence were granted, together with a required risk
assessment to cover the whole site.
All parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask
questions.
A Member
queried the ‘slope’ outside the marquee with a temporary fence, and all parties
were advised that lighting would be required on the track from the tarmacked
area of the farm, up to the marquee, and to be in place for all events. It was
suggested that this could be a condition on the licence, if granted.
A
resident sought clarification on the relocation of the electricity wires and
whether this had been necessary. All parties were advised that this was
necessary and had been done since 1st September and confirmed that
the nearby location of the alpacas was also safe. Mr Hobbs also confirmed that
the electricity wires were clear of the marquee, and this had been approved by
the electricity company.
The
Senior Trading Standards Officer outlined their representations and confirmed
they had no objections to the application.
All
parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
The Chair
then invited comments from the Other Persons.
A local
ward member confirmed their objections were due to excess traffic travelling
through the area, which would be going through their ward, although noted the
premises wasn’t in their ward. It wasn’t thought that the highway access to the
premises was suitable for the proposed events due to the additional volume of
traffic these would cause. There were also concerns noted over possible
drink/driving incidents in rural areas, and the excessive noise that would be
caused from the events, disturbing local residents.
All
parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A
resident confirmed their objections and stated that the highway access was very
important in rural areas, and referred to an incident where a static caravan
was taken up to the premises which took up to 3 hours. The laybys and passing
places are for the benefit of residents accessing their own premises and should
not be used for additional vehicles attending the events. It was noted that the
farmers have assisted vehicles which have become stuck in ditches and hedgerows
and that the traffic assessment data provided by the applicant does not take
into consideration the times when haymaking or lambing take place when farming
traffic would be much busier in the area.
All
parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A local
ward member confirmed their objections and referred to the existing licence and
noted that residents were not aware of the original application. Reference was
also made to the ongoing rights of way issues, planning issues, and maximum
numbers that could attend the premises if the licence were granted. It was
noted that this had affected animal welfare in the area due to the issues of
noise, together with an incident where children who were attending an event at
the premises, gained access to a field occupied by alpacas, which caused a lot
of distress to the animals. Reference
was also made to public safety issues and the disturbance of residents when
people are leaving the premises after events have taken place.
All
parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A member
queried whether any complaints had been made to the applicant in relation to
noise, and all parties were advised that one complaint had been received. It
was also clarified that the application had been amended to ‘Saturdays only’
from 1st May to 30th September.
A local
ward member clarified that the licence could be extended in the future, to
include other days during the week, if the licence were granted for Saturdays
only.
A
resident outlined their representation and noted that the 11 passing places in
the area, referred to earlier by the applicant as a benefit to the extra
traffic, were all owned by the local farmers. It was also noted that these
areas were to assist the farmers with their vehicles and not to assist extra
traffic caused by events.
All
parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A
resident speaking on behalf of other residents outlined their representation
and noted noise complaints, swearing and loud music, together with the number
of customers at the premises causing traffic issues. Clarification was sought
on the original application and it was suggested that the correct application
process had not been followed. Discussion followed in relation to the
difference between minor variations, variations and new premises licence
applications. Reference was also made to a meeting held with residents, and
incidents where drunken customers had knocked on residents’ doors and windows
after leaving the premises.
All
parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A Member
queried whether the noise issues and subsequent meetings with the applicant had
mitigated the current situation. All parties were advised that the residents
were still very concerned about the current situation and the pending
application.
The Licensing
Manager clarified that the application was for a new premises licence as it is
for a substantially different premises to that already licensed, being the
marquee in addition to the lodge /
Doghouse.
A
resident referred to the electricity cables above the marquee and noted these
were 11,000 volts. Reference was also made to decibels and technical points
regarding noise, including issues with elevated noise.
A Member
queried the marquee and the alteration of the overhead cables. It was confirmed that the electricity company
had altered the poles and were due to move the cables.
A
resident outlined their representation and noted that their property is a
listed building and cannot have double glazed windows. Reference was made to
the highways in the area and noted that every road goes up to the church. It
was also noted that there are 60 alpacas located next to her property, who
breed once a year and experience levels of anxiety due to the noise issues.
All parties were then
afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
Due to
their absence from the meeting, the Senior Trading Standards Officer outlined
the representation made by the Licensing Authority and confirmed that whilst no
objections had been made, there were suggested conditions to be added to the
licence if granted.
All
parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A Member
referred to the suggestion that a vehicle could be used by the applicant to
transport customers from the venue, and it was confirmed that this vehicle
would need to be licensed.
All
parties present were given the opportunity to sum up before the Sub-Committee
retired to make its decision.
The
Licensing Manager noted that the correct application procedures had been
followed.
The Gwent
Police representative noted they were satisfied and had nothing further to add.
The
Environmental Health Officer noted they were satisfied, subject to conditions
proposed.
The
Commercial Safety Officer noted they had no objections, subject to a risk
assessment.
The
Senior Trading Standards Officer noted they had no objections and nothing
further to add.
The local
ward member in summing up, requested the Sub-Committee refuse the application.
The
resident in summing up, noted that all vehicles arrive and leave the events at
the same time. Reference was also made to video footage that had been submitted
with their original representations, that had not yet been requested to be
shown. All parties were then shown the video footage that had been submitted by
the residents.
Mr Hobbs
in summing up, referenced the noise issues, with lessons learnt and changes
being made as and when complaints had been received. It was noted that there
had been 4 events held this year and noted that no ‘light’ lanterns or
balloons, as referred to earlier in the meeting, had ever come from his
premises. Mr Hobbs invited the community to communicate with them and noted
that they were working with residents with regards to the noise issues.
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 3.15 pm to make its decision and all other parties left the meeting.
Following
consideration of the application and having regard to the Licensing Officer’s
report and all the representations made, the Licensing and Gambling Sub
Committee unanimously
RESOLVED that the
application for a new premises licence as set out in the Licensing and Gambling
Sub Committee Decision Notice be GRANTED subject to conditions annexed to such
decision notice.
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 reasons for the Sub Committees’ decision are set out
below.
The decision of
the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee in regards to the hearing held on 26
September 2023 in respect of an application for a new premises licence at
Sunset Lodge, Ty Cae Brith Farm, Troed y Rhiw Road, Mynyddislwyn, NP11 7BB is
that the licence is granted permitting the following Licensable Actives:
·
Supply of Alcohol
(on and off sales)
In regard to “The Lodge”
Sunday to Saturday 12.00 to 23.00
New Years Eve 12.00 to 1.00
In regard to “The Marquee”
Between and
including the last Saturday within May until and including the last Saturday of
September of the same year, that is limited:
(a) to only a total of 10 Saturday’s within such period; and
(b) not on consecutive Saturday’s.
Saturday 12.00 to 23.00
·
Provision of
Recorded Music (Indoors)
In regard to “The Lodge” only
New Years Eve until 00.30
·
Late Night
Refreshment
New Years Eve 23.00 to 00.00
The Premises Licence will be subject to the
Conditions of Licence as annexed to this decision notice and all applicable
mandatory licence conditions.
The Sub Committee have listened very carefully
to all representations made today and read very carefully all the written
representations received. The
Sub-Committee had regard to the 33 A4-sized colour photographs and 2 A4 sized
maps submitted at the hearing on behalf of some objecting residents – the
admission of which was consented to by all parties. The Sub-Committee also had regard to the
video footage submitted on behalf of some of the objecting residents.
The Sub Committee have considered all four
Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, the revised Home Office Guidance,
and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy.
The reasons for the Sub Committee’s decision are as follows.
Fundamental Issues
The Sub-Committee firstly determined a series
of aspects of the application and challenges to it raised by various
residents.
The Sub-Committee was always aware that the
part of the premises comprising “The Lodge” (premises plan on Page 1 of
Appendix 1 of the report) is already a licensed premises pursuant to a
delegated grant in 2021. The 2021
premises licence was granted under delegated powers to Mr Marcus Hobbs and Mrs
Lisa Hobbs, rather than the current applicant (Sunset Lodge Weddings
Limited). The Sub-Committee determined
that there was no express limitation within the Licensing Act 2003 that
prevents the same premises being subject to more than one premises licence at
the same time. The Sub-Committee are
unaware, and were not referred to, any case law that has interpreted the
relevant provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 that would prevent the
same.
Various local residents objected to the
application being treated by the licensing authority as an application for a
new premises licence application rather than as a variation application. The residents submitted that it was open to
the Sub-Committee to refuse the variation application and in turn revoke the
2021 premises licence for the part of the premises comprising “The Lodge”. The submission was reliant on the statutory guidance
issued by the Home Office pursuant to section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.
The Sub-Committee were not persuaded by the
residents’ submissions in the above respect for several reasons. The submissions did not deal with the
difference in legal entity between the current holder of the 2021 premises
licence and the legal entity, Sunset Lodge Weddings Limited, that had made the
application currently being determined by the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee are of the view that
section 34(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 is clear, in that only “the holder of a
premises licence may apply to the relevant licensing authority for variation of
the licence”. In this case, section
34(1) had not been engaged as the licence holder of the 2021 premises licence
had not made the application currently before the Sub-Committee. The current application was entirely separate
from the existing 2021 premises licence.
Mr Marcus Hobbs and Mrs Lisa Hobbs have not sought to transfer the
existing 2021 premises licence to Sunset Lodge Weddings Limited.
The Sub-Committee concluded that even if it
was wrong in this respect, section 36(6) was engaged in this instance and that
a variation application cannot be made so as “to vary substantially the
premises to which it relates”. This is
reflected at paragraph 8.26 of the 2 most recent editions of the Revised
Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003. The Sub-Committee considered that the addition
of “The Marquee” part of the premises, effectively increased the existing
premises (“The Doghouse” aka “The Lodge”) by 270 m2. This was a substantial increase to the
premises, supported further by the fact that it is not a physical extension of
the existing “The Lodge” building but comprising a separate marque structure in
a nearby field. The addition of “The
Marquee” was also adding an additional tilled bar at which the sale of alcohol
would take place within that part of the premises. The Sub-Committee were of the view that these
aspects, if section 36(6) were to be engaged by section 35, via section 34(1)
of the Licensing Act 2003, would amount to a substantial variation to
the premises.
An objecting resident had provided prior
written representations that the existing 2021 premises licence was not/or
should not be a premises licence, but rather a Club Premises Certificate. The Sub-Committee did not find that such
submissions were relevant for two principal reasons. Firstly, such submission relates to the
existing 2021 premises licence which is not held by the current applicant. Secondly, the Licensing Act 2003 makes
separate provision for an application for a premises licence (Part 3 of the
Act) or a Club Premises Certificate (Part 4 of the Act). The Mr and Mrs Hobbs in 2021 applied for a
Premises Licence pursuant to Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003, not a
Club Premises Certificate. There is no
provision within the Licensing Act 2003 for the Licensing Authority to
unilaterally decide to treat an application made under Part 3 of the Act as one
being made under Part 4 of the Act, or vice versa.
A local resident raised an issue within their
written submissions regarding the address the Applicant had placed within its
required notices and advertisement pursuant to the relevant parts of the Licensing
Act 2003 (Premises Licence and Club Premises Certificates) Regulation 2005. This principally rested on the inclusion
within the address details “Troed y Rhiw Road”.
The local resident indicated that there is no such road contained within
the Unique Property Reference Number (“UPRN”) register of Caerphilly County
Borough Council and that this had caused confusion to local residents that had
adversely affected local residents’ ability to make objections to the
application within the consultation period.
This written representation was not significantly expanded upon during
oral submissions.
The Sub-Committee considered the details of Licensing
Act 2003 (Premises Licence and Club Premises Certificates) Regulation 2005
in terms of the address. It specifically
considered regulation 26(4)(b) which provides that the advertisement/notice
must contain the postal address of the premises, if any, or if there is no
postal address for the premises a description of those premises sufficient to
enable the location and extent of the premises or club premises to be
identified. The address on the
advertisement/notice contained the farm name (Ty Cae Brith Farm), it contained
a reference to Mynyddislwyn, and to the post code NP11 7BB. No reference is made to a local authorities
UPRN register within such regulations.
The combination of the farm name, Mynyddislwyn, and post code appears to
comprise the postal address for the premises and in this respect the
Sub-Committee did not find the submission persuasive.
The Sub-Committee were not persuaded that the
inclusion of “Troed y Rhiw Road” created the adverse effect alleged. Appendix 12 of the report clearly showed a
significant number of local residents were aware of the new premises
application and had provided representations opposing the grant. Further residents provided representations
who were not included in the joint representation within Appendix 12. Troed y Rhiw Road emanates from an
intersection with the B44521 Nine Mile Point Road within the nearby village of
Wattsville. It forms the “murder mile”
referred to in other representations made by residents. It appeared to be the main access road
between the Mynyddislwyn church and the village of Wattsville. The Sub-Committee were of the view that the
reference of Troed y Rhiw Road, in combination with the name of the farm and
post code was very unlikely to cause any confusion to local residents. This aspect did not undermine the process for
which the advertisement serves within the above regulations and Licensing
Act 2003.
The Sub-Committee determined that there was no
persuasive evidence before it to place into doubt the Licensing Managers
assertion that the Applicant had met all applicable requirements pursuant to
the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises Licence and Club Premises Certificates)
Regulation 2005. The Sub-Committee
accepted that an A4 size notice was place in a prominent position in the
appropriate place.
Licensing Objectives
The Sub-Committee considered the application
and all of the evidence against the promotion of the four licensing objectives,
namely: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of
public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. It was of the view that the most pertinent of
the four licensing objectives in this instance was public safety and the
prevention of public nuisance.
Crime and Disorder
Gwent Police, the responsible authority with
the greatest degree of awareness regarding the prevention of crime and disorder
had not raised an objection to the application in light of proposed conditions
of licence. Gwent Police indicated at
the hearing that it did not believe that there was an existing issue with crime
and disorder within Mynyddislwyn and had researched this prior to making its
earlier written representation in regard to the application.
The Sub-Committee heard evidence regarding a
hen’s party that had been hosted within the Doghouse (being “The Lodge” part of
the premises being applied for) that resulted in a group of women who were
intoxicated walking down the highway from the venue making their way back to
Pontllanfraith. They were alleged to
have been loud and had knocked the door at an unsocial hour of at least one
resident seeking directions. The Sub-Committee
accepted that this incident appeared to be a form of lower-level disorder
(anti-social behaviour).
The directors of the Applicant accepted that
in retrospect hosting the hen party was an error and a mistake they have not
repeated. The Sub-Committee took into
account that the incident complained of appeared to have been a one off. There was very little, if any, evidence that
other events in, or patrons of, the Doghouse had resulted in similar behaviour
notwithstanding the operation of the licensed premises since 2021.
The Sub-Committee gave consideration to
paragraph 2.1-2.5 of the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the
Licensing Act 2003 (August 2023) (“Statutory Guidance”) and paragraphs
10.1-10.4 of the council’s licensing policy.
The Sub-Committee took into account the proposed conditions of licence
as set out within Appendix 27 of the report.
Various conditions had been agreed by the Applicant that are addressed
at avoiding crime and disorder arising from the licensable activities at the
premises. The installation of CCTV and
management of the same had been agreed with Gwent Police. Patron transport has received focused
attention at proposed condition 21.
Patron behaviour on the premises has been considered in the proposed
conditions surrounding SIA door staff from 7pm, prescribed minimum bar staff,
and obligations to risk assess the use of glass as opposed to polycarbonate
receptacles.
The Sub-Committee was guided by paragraph 2.26
of the Statutory Guidance, that states: “Beyond the immediate area
surrounding the premises, these are matters for the personal responsibility of
individuals under the law. An individual who engages in antisocial behaviour is
accountable in their own right….”.
The Sub-Committee were aware that this aspect of the guidance is
principally aimed at the prevention of public nuisance but reached the view
that the same rationale would apply to instances of low-level disorder.
The Sub-Committee in this instance, had
sufficient confidence that the prevention of crime and disorder would be
promoted by the conditions of licence imposed within the annex to this decision
notice. The Sub-Committee did not reach the view that the risk of failure to
promote the licensing objective to prevent crime and disorder was sufficiently
high to warrant refusing the application.
The Protection of Children from Harm
The Sub-committee noted that the only aspect
relevant to this licensing objective within the Responsible Authorities
representations was from Trading Standards regarding proxy sales of alcohol to
minor within the premises. An agreed
condition of licence regarding the same had been included within Appendix
27.
Residents made submissions as to the safety of
children from physical harm due to the premises (in particular “The Marquee”
part of the premises) being in relatively close proximity to farm animals
housed in neighbouring fields to Ty Cae Brith Farm. A representative on behalf of a neighbouring
resident recounted an alleged incursion by a small group of children into their
field housing Alpaca’s during an event hosted at Ty Cae Brith Farm. The children were placed at physical risk of
harm due to the risk of being injured by the Alpacas due to the situation. Details of the alleged incident were scant,
and no direct evidence of this incident was provided via written
representations or in oral submissions at the hearing. No details were provided as to how the
children had managed to gain access to the field (presumed to be by climbing
the stock fence), whether this had occurred in the afternoon or evening
hours. There was no evidence that the
alleged incident had occurred repeatedly.
The Sub-Committee noted that the Environmental Health – Health and Safety
Officer had not flagged this issue as a concern within his written
representations or orally at the hearing.
The Sub-Committee considered the above in the
context of the proposed licence conditions.
During the evening hours for wedding receptions in “The Marquee” there
would be as a minimum, two door staff and three bar staff. Persons within this group would be
responsible for checking the external areas of the premises and also for
monitoring noise in fields further away from the premises at regular intervals
during the reception. This would reduce
the risk of children wandering away from the immediate area of the premises
(primarily “The Marquee”).
Significantly, there would be a positive obligation under the conditions
of licence for all children to be supervised by a responsible adult during the
licensable activity and the designate premises supervisor and personal licence
holder will be obliged to take steps to ensure that this condition is not
breached.
The Sub-Committee reached the view that the
risk to the promotion of the protection of children from harm in this regard
could be managed by the suggested conditions of licence The Sub-Committee did
not reach the view that the risk of physical harm to children caused by their
entry onto neighbouring farms was sufficiently high, or inherently
unmanageable, as to warrant refusing the application.
Public safety
The application was opposed by many, if not
all, local residents and local members (who spoke at the hearing) due to the
risk to public safety due to the increase of traffic upon the narrow country
lane(s) that patrons of the premises, particularly guests attending wedding
receptions within “The Marquee”, would cause getting to and from the
premises. Clear evidence was submitted
and shown to the Sub-Committee as to the nature and condition of the public
highway.
The Applicant had provided a partial copy of
traffic report compiled by Asbritransport – Transport Planning Consultants
regarding the effect of the intended operation of the premises on local road
conditions. The report appeared to be
produced in respect of a planning application.
The Sub-Committee found this report helpful but not determinative on
this issue. The Sub-Committee took into account
the resident’s criticisms of the report methodology (for instance only tracking
traffic on the highway to the south of the Mynyddislwyn church – which was not
reflective of potential interference with usual traffic patterns on the highway
on the northern side of the church). The
Sub-Committee noted that the report not extensively, if at all, deal with farm
related traffic on the highway such as tractors and other machinery using the
highway to gain access to various fields for various tasks throughout the
farming calendar (this aspect also being highlighted by a local resident at the
hearing in terms of hay production).
The Sub-committee did not give significant
weight to the evidence/submissions provided by objecting residents as to
problems with articulated lorries within the lanes, particularly around the
church horse-shoe dry walled blind bend.
This was not intended with any disrespect to the local community for
which the concern as to articulated lorries (and like vehicles) damaging walls,
vehicles, and hedges was prescient and understandable. However, the Sub-Committee did not take the
view that traffic to the premises in relation to the licensable activities
thereon would be using such large articulated vehicles.
The Sub-Committee did take the collision data
within the Asbritransport into account, affording this some weight within its
decision making. The Sub-Committee
accepted that it was likely that the traffic level on the rural lane would
increase, should the licence be granted, than the traffic level during the
period the data is collected from (2017-2021). The data on pages 21-22 of
Appendix 26 indicated that collisions over the last several years did not occur
within the country lane itself, but principally occurred at the intersection of
the lane with the larger volume highways.
The collision sites noted for the relevant roundabout on the northern
entrance of the lane are spread across all four points of the roundabout and do
not clearly indicate a causal connection to the use of the lane itself. Whilst the Sub-Committee accepts the evidence
provided by residents as to the accident involving an unoccupied and stationary
vehicle with a reversing lorry in close proximity to the church, this seems to
not have meet the definition of traffic collision adopted by
Asbrtransport. Whilst driving conditions
on the highway across Mynyddislwyn are challenging, there does not appear to be
a current issue with vehicle collisions upon the lane.
Whilst the Sub-Committee took account of the
60 mph speed limit applicable to the relevant highway (lane) it was difficult
for it to accept that drivers, even those unfamiliar with the road, would seek
to drive that road at such speed. A
common-sense assumption is that the vast majority of drivers tend to drive to
the conditions around them, trying to ensure that they remain safe. There was no obvious reason for the
assumption to be made that guests, driving to a wedding reception at “The
Marquee,”, would not behave in this usual manner. It was a common-sense assumption to make that
local couples, with a connection to the area, would be the most likely to hire
“The Marquee” for their wedding reception.
As such, it would be common sense to expect that a number of guests
attending would be familiar with the general area, if not with the specific
road itself, and the prevalence of narrow country lanes into rural areas of the
borough. Guests arriving from outside
the borough may also be familiar with the prevalence of country lanes within
the highway network and the tendency for these to arise when traveling across
rural parts of the highway network.
It was difficult for the Sub-Committee to get
a sense of the volume of traffic that would be generated from an event held at
“The Marquee” for 150 people. The
Asbitransport report includes a breakdown of their assumptions as to the number
of passengers per vehicle. A proportion
of the objecting residents were critical of the Asbitransport assumptions in
this regard. The Sub-Committee did accept
that clusters of arriving traffic would occur within a relatively short time
window to arrive in time for the commencement of the wedding reception and,
later, but perhaps to a lesser degree, further guests arriving later to the
evening party which normally follows the afternoon’s proceedings. However, the Sub-Committee gave significant
weight to the applicant directors running similar sized events under recent
Temporary Event Notices – of which there was no evidence that the promotion of
public safety had been undermined due to traffic conditions on the rural lane
arising from such events.
Ultimately, the Sub-Committee had to take a
view as to whether the concerns regarding highway safety due to traffic
concerns upon a public highway was sufficiently connected to the remit of the Licensing
Act 2003. It decided that it was
not. The Sub-Committee reached the view
that the proper determination of issues raised by the resident objectors and
elected members in regard to their concerns as to the effect of the use of Ty
Cae Brith Farm as a venue for events within “The Marquee” on the public highway
rests with the local authority’s planning section. In reaching this view the Sub-Committee took
account that this area of dispute would require a level of specialist knowledge
and experience of traffic management and highway issues – which is generally
beyond the scope and expertise of the Sub-Committee for licensing. The Sub-Committee gave weight to a local
authority’s highway section/officer is not listed as a responsible authority
pursuant to section 13(4) of the Licensing Act 2003. The Sub-Committee noted that the local
planning authority is a responsible authority and in this instance it was made
aware of the application but provided no representations in respect of the
application. The Sub-Committee gave weight
to the local planning authority being able to take in a far broader range of
considerations in determining permission for the use of land – with the
Sub-Committee being limited to the narrower considerations of the promotions of
the four licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee had several written and oral
submissions placed before it regarding the planning status for the use of the
land and for the structures comprising the premises. Whilst the frustration of the residents was
clearly evident, the licensing regime and planning regime are separate, and
whilst often each touches on a number of similar issues the decision making in
each is not the same. Paragraph 14.63 of
the Statutory Guidance and paragraphs 17.6-17.12 of the council’s Statement of
Licensing Policy reinforces the principal that planning committees are not
bound by licensing committee decisions or vice versa. Representations were made on behalf of the
objecting residents that in essence licensing should not grant a licence to a
premises without planning approval – but the Sub-Committee were not persuaded
by that submission. There is no
provision in the Licensing Act 2003 that enables the Sub-Committee to
refuse on such a basis, as a contested application can only be determined by
the Sub-Committee exercising its judgement on the promotion of the four
licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee considered the
representations in regards to the increased risk of drink driving from the
premises not promoting the licensing objective of public safety. In exercising its judgement, the
Sub-Committee took into account the representations from Gwent Police did not
identify this as a current issue or whether this was a likely eventuality. The Sub-Committee decided that the additional
condition of licence at paragraph 21 of Appendix 27 would mitigate this
risk. The Applicant is obliged to
“turning the mind” of the organisers of the wedding reception/hires of “The
Marquee” venue as to the organisation of transport at a very early point in the
booking process. It is usual to expect
that the Applicant would provide contact details for local taxi/private hire
vehicles and these would inevitably be to hand should staff be asked for these
from a guest. The Sub-Committee took a
common sense view that a lot of groups attending such events organise a
designated driver and guests have a tendency to share taxis when leaving the
premises. The risk identified cannot be
entirely removed by any licence holder, but in this instance the Sub-Committee
were satisfied that the proposed licence conditions will adequately manage this
ever-present risk to the promotion of the prevention of public safety.
The Sub-Committee considered the maps provided
of Ty Brith Farm and considered the distances from the public highway to the
car park, and from the car park to both part of the Premises. It considered the representations of the
Environmental Health – Health & Safety officer and his recommendation of
license condition 16. However, given the
rural location and the land comprising farm land the Sub-Committee determined
that in order to promote the objective of public safety sufficiently the
obligation in license condition 16 should extend and include the route from the
entrance of Ty Brith Farm from the public highway, to the car park, and from
the car park to “The Lodge” and “The Marquee” whilst licensable activities are
taking place. Licence condition 16 was
accordingly varied.
Prevention of Public Nuisance
The objecting residents and elected members
submitted that the noise of the premises (which includes the noise emanating
from both parts of the premises from music, general patron noise, traffic
noise), the congestion of the rural lane by guests travelling to and from
premises, and the effect on livestock – undermine the promotion of this
licensing objective.
In terms of the effect of the noise on
livestock, the Sub-Committee considered whether this could fall within the wide
definition of public nuisance. The
Sub-Committee was mindful that what would amount to a private nuisance would
not usually amount to a public nuisance – but gave regard to paragraphs
2.20-2.21 of the Statutory Guidance and the decision within Hope & Glory
as to the threshold for public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee reached the view that if a small number of local
farmers were being caused nuisance as a result of the noise then this would
equate to a public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee considered the
representations on the effect of noise on the livestock. It determined that should an adverse effect
be experienced by the livestock – then this in and of itself would not be a
public nuisance. The adverse effect
would need to materially affect the reasonable comfort and convenience of life
for the affected person (as opposed to livestock). The Sub-Committee, in this instance were not
persuaded that the relevant objecting residents had shown this to be
likely. There was very little detail
provided on this aspect within the written representations and the oral
submissions focused on the alleged increase of miscarriages within Alpaca
breeding stock near the premises, which appeared to the panel to effect a
single local resident. The Sub-Committee
were not persuaded that the single farmer’s concerns in this specific regard
(Alpaca miscarriage) amounted to a public nuisance. The Sub-Committee felt that this would be a
possible private nuisance – and would be a further instance where the
constraints of the licensing regime can be contrasted by the far wider relevant
information that could be taken into account within the planning permission
regime. This view was not reached
without empathy to the Alpaca farmer, who inevitably devotes significant
attention and care to his/her stock.
In exercising its judgement as to the
potential for traffic noise late at night and whether this would undermine the
promotion of the licensing objective, the Sub-Committee took into account
paragraph 2.26 of the Statutory Guidance and paragraph 11.7 of the council’s
Statement of Licensing Policy. The
Applicant would not be expected to control the noise of guests’ vehicles as
they use the public highway (and the same would apply should they be on foot). The Sub-Committee was not overwhelmingly
persuaded that the traffic noise would be a public nuisance as it is very
difficult to determine whether the lawful use of the public highway by road
users would be unreasonable to the extent that persons cannot be expected to
put up with it. The fact that the
country lane is part of the national highway network was a significant factor
in the Sub-Committee’s view.
The Sub-Committee accepted that should the
public highway be used for purposes that it perhaps not intended, for instance
vehicles parked inappropriately on a public highway, blocking traffic, to
attend an illegal rave would be capable of causing a public nuisance. However, the Sub-Committee did not believe
that this premises posed a similar risk.
The Applicant is providing parking spaces within his land and no issue
as to the highway being blocked by inappropriately parked cars on the highway
was raised as a result for any activity under the 2021 current licence or
Temporary Events Notice events.
The Sub-Committee readily accepted that the
potential for nuisance emanating from the premises posed a risk to the
promotion of the prevention of public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee took into account the rural setting of the premises
and the low level of background noise.
Representations from residents varied in the respect of the degree and
effect of noise levels experienced to date by licensable activities within “The
Lodge” part of the premises (under the 2021 premises licence) and under the
Temporary Event Notice events. Some
residents accepted that the noise would not usually carry as far as their homes
but depending on the direction of wind – have previously been heard. Some residents described the noise as
horrendous.
The Sub-Committee gave weight to the
representations of the Environmental Health Officer and her lack of objection
to the application based on conditions agreed with the Applicant. Mr Waters information as to distances and
elevation of neighbouring farms was helpful.
In exercising its judgement, the Sub-Committee gave weight to the
Environmental Health Officer undertaking a site visit at the Applicant’s farm
and at the site of the premises prior to making her written
representations. She had directly experienced
the landscape surrounding the premises and would have been factored into her
report and recommendations.
The Sub-Committee found that the Applicant had
been cooperative and to an extent, proactive, in trying to minimise noise
issues. The Sub-Committee gave weight to
the type of audio equipment purchased to be used within “The Marquee” that
would lower the level of escaping noise.
The contents of the noise management plan produced by the Applicant had
currently been agreed by the Environmental Health Officer. The Applicant had sought the cooperation of
neighbouring residents in trying to address the noise issue from recorded music
within “The Marquee” and explained the master control over the audio volume
level the bar staff are able to access.
The Applicant had agreed to a series of licensing conditions in regard
to minimising the risk of noise nuisance and explained steps it had taken to
remove external speakers from the exterior parts of “The Lodge”.
Some representations on behalf of objecting
residents in relation to noise heard from Temporary Notice Events were
equivocal. The Sub-Committee considered
the series of text exchanges set out on pages 45, 46 and 50 of Appendix
13. It is likely only part of the
exchange has been provided, but within the sections provided the Applicant is
trying to establish if the noise is creating a disturbance. The resident or residents indicate that they
can hear the music, or it can be heard if a window is opened. The hearing of the music does not determine
whether or not, objectively the noise materially affects the reasonable comfort
and convenience of the resident’s life, or if the level of noise is itself
unreasonable. Neither text exchange
shows the resident insisting to the Applicant that there was a nuisance being
caused to him/her. The Sub-Committee
gave significant weight that no service requests
had been made to Environmental Health in regard to alleged noise nuisance since
licensable activities commenced at the farm.
The Sub-Committee were not persuaded that the reason for this was out of
a fear of retribution from the Applicant directors and no evidence was provided
that corroborated this assertion made on behalf of objecting residents.
The Sub-Committee gave weight to the limited
dates the Applicant was seeking to be able to use “The Marquee” and the
controls it was willing to put in place to mitigate the risk of this licensing
objective being undermined. It gave
weight to that licensing regime enabling the licence to be reviewed should the
promotion of the licensing objectives be alleged to be undermined in the
future. This affords objecting
residents, and responsible authorities, an avenue to ensure the promotion of
the licensing objectives in the future.
On balance, and subject to the amendments to
the operating times and licence conditions explained further below – the
Sub-Committee judged that the risk to the promotion of the prevention of public
nuisance could be adequately managed if the premises application was granted.
Ancillary Matters
The Sub-Committee found the explanations
provided by the Applicant directors as to their use of “The Lodge” part of the
premises under the 2021 far from convincing.
It shared the view of several residents and elected members that explanation
of the use of this premises for family and friends whilst carrying out the
licensable activity of the sale of alcohol to be highly unusual. It found the Applicant director’s position on
this lacked clarity and did not appear candid It accepted however, that simply
because a premises is licensed does not mean that a licensed activity can be
its only use for such premises and there was no obligation on a premises
licence holder to trade. Whilst not directly relevant to the application before
it, the Sub-Committee was very concerned that the existing premises under the
2021 licence had not been subject to a Fire Risk Assessment pursuant to the
obligations arising under the Fire Safety Order. There were several instances in the
documentary evidence before the Sub-Committee where representations made by the
Applicant were inconsistent. However,
the above was only of limited relevance to the determination of the current
application.
There is no separate “fitness” test for
whether the Applicant is fit to hold the premises licence. The general confidence a licensing committee
can have in an applicant’s ability to promote the four licensing objectives is
however a relevant assessment as part of the application process. The licensing objective may be undermined due
to the applicant appearing incompetent or incapable of promoting the
objectives. Given the above, the
Sub-Committee did have reservations in regard to the Applicant that it felt
warranted adjustment to the operating hours and licence conditions to
adequately safeguard the promotion of the licensing objectives.
During the consultation period it was evident
that in relation to “The Marquee” it was intended for the wedding receptions to
terminate at 23.30 (see page 8 of Appendix 7 under “Dispersal of
Customers”). Notwithstanding the sale of
alcohol for “The Marquee” was sought until 00.00. The Sub-Committee have reached the view that
for “The Marquee” the supply of alcohol (on/off sales) will only be permitted
to 23.00. This will allow guests to
finish drinks and make their way to the taxi point or their cars to travel
home. To further assist in the
termination of the reception at 23.30 the Sub-Committee has refused permission
for recorded music within “The Marquee” to continue after 23.00. On these two measures the Sub-Committee
determined that these measures were needed to bring the licence “into line”
with what the Applicant states his intention is and is required to manage the
risk of noise nuisance emanating from “The Marquee” at a late hour.
Given the above, the Sub-Committee sought to
amend licence condition 11 by requiring outdoor areas of “The Marquee” to cease
being used at 22.00. This would then be
consistent with the Applicant’s Noise Management Plan (page 7 of Appendix
7). In the Sub-Committee’s judgement
this was necessary to further ensure the adequate promotion of the prevention
of public nuisance objective.
The Sub-Committee was repeatedly told by the
Applicant that the use of The Lodge was only for family and friends of its
current directors, and it was not trading as a public house. The Sub-Committee accepted that there had
been issues connected to the use of this part of the premises, which the
Applicant appeared to accept and explain that the external speaker system had
been removed earlier in the year. The
Applicant, rightly, provided separate consideration to the noise risk from the
Lodge within the Noise Management Plan at pages 9 and 10 of Appendix 7. The Applicant had further clarified that
since making the application it had altered its original plan to conduct
smaller wedding receptions and possibly wedding ceremonies within The Lodge.
As outlined above, the Sub-Committee had some
reservations in its confidence in the Applicant directors due to the unusual
explanation of the use of the part of the premises under the existing 2021
licence and the inconsistent elements of its position across the consultation
period on various aspects of the application.
The Sub-Committee took account of the Applicant’s indication within the
Noise Management Plan for The Lodge to close its external areas at 22.00 and it
agreed that this would be appropriate and licence condition 10 at Appendix was
varied accordingly.
Given the intended use of “The Lodge” is to
sell alcohol to family and friends the Sub-Committee reached the view that the
hours for licensable activities were excessive.
The Sub-Committee have determined to shorten the on/off alcohol sales to
23.00 – being consistent with “The Marquee” hours. This will reduce the risk of patron noise
undermining the prevention of public nuisance objective within this particular
area of the borough. To further prevent
undermining the same objective, the Sub-Committee did not agree to allow
recorded music, as a licensable activity, to take place within “The Lodge”
beyond the statutory permitted time of 23.00.
In line with this position, the Sub-Committee did not agree to grant
permission to allow unamplified live music within “The Lodge” beyond the
statutory limit of 23.00.
In line with the above decisions, and to
promote the prevention of public nuisance from very late-night patron noise,
the Sub-Committee did not grant permission for Late Night Refreshments in “The
Lodge” and the sale of any hot drinks and food within could not take place
after 23.00. An exception was made for
New Years Eve until 00.00.
The Sub-Committee acknowledge that “The
Marquee” use creates a higher risk for public nuisance than “The Lodge”. Whilst it was encouraged by the Applicant’s
indication to only use this on Saturdays between May and September – the
frequency of receptions varied across the Applicants various documents. The Sub-Committee considered the Applicant’s
information on page 9 of Appendix 26 and were not persuaded that the period
open for “The Marquee” use needed to be any earlier than the last Saturday in
May. It was incredulous that the initial
weeks of May were required to sell alcohol from “The Marquee” to those who
erected it. The limitation of the period
from the final Saturday in May until the final Saturday in September was, in
the judgement of the Sub-Committee necessary to promote the prevention of
public nuisance. It would limit the
period in which any such risks would eventuate.
Similarly, the Applicant was confused as to
the number of receptions it would wish to hold in “The Marquee” during the
May-September “season”. It varied from 5
to 16 depending on which documents was being read. The Sub-Committee accepted that the Applicant
was “feeling its way” in a new business – but the Sub-Committee were of the
firm view an actual numerical limit needed to be placed within the premises
licence itself. The risk profile in
terms of undermining the licensing objectives for “The Marquee” use each
Saturday across May to the end of September was vastly different to a
limitation of 10 Saturday receptions from the end of May until the end of
September. It determined a maximum of 10
Saturday’s, not on consecutive Saturdays, was a proportionate measure to
promote the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. This would allow potential growth for the
Applicant over the coming years should the venture succeed. It would allow periods of respite for the
local community across the “season”.
Another ancillary issue arising in the hearing
was the allegation against the Applicant directors that they had breached the
mandatory licence condition of their 2021 premises licence by carrying out an
irresponsible drinks’ promotion. It was not the task of the Sub-Committee
to make any finding as to whether Mr and Mrs Hobbs had breached the relevant
mandatory licence condition of their 2021 premises licence. The purpose of the
hearing was to determine the Applicant’s application. The
Sub-Committee took the view that the allegation may have some bearing on the
current application only in as much as going to the general confidence it has
in the Applicant promoting the licensing objectives. The Applicant directors
stated that patrons at the relevant event were seated at table of around 8
people. Drinks were resupplied only when all guests at the table had
finished their current drink and no “stacking” of drinks was permitted.
Around halfway through the 2-hour event a hog roast was served to the guests.
It was claimed that the guests were largely known to each other and, it was
alleged that all were family and friends of Mr and Mrs Hobbs. However, the Sub
Committee were troubled by several aspects of this event, particularly
regarding the type of advert placed on snap chat, and the suggestion that this
was aimed only at family and friends.
The Sub-Committee were aware that issues
regarding irresponsible drink promotions would be determined on the facts of
each instance, and that it would expect the Licensing Authority to monitor this
type of promotion in the future, involving the premises.
A submission was made on behalf of some
residents that the use of tables in the “Bottomless Brunch” event made it
somehow transgress the law. The
Sub-Committee do not agree. The original
incarnation of The Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order
2010 provided that provision of unlimited or unspecified quantities of
alcohol for a fixed fee would not be a breach of such condition where this was
made available to an individual in respect of alcohol for consumption at a
table meal. In 2014 the Order was
amended and the previous the wording included within article 1(2)(b) regarding
alcohol for consumption at a table meal was removed. This does not mean the presence of a table
meal determines whether a breach has occurred or not – but rather the
assessment of all relevant surrounding circumstances need to be taken into
consideration in determining whether the mandatory licence condition was
breached by creating a significant risk of the four licensing objectives being
breached or undermined.
For the sake of completeness, there was
mention throughout the hearing documentation and within several verbal
representations about a maximum number of guests. It is noted that the Applicant has not yet
had a fire risk assessment undertaken pursuant to the Fire Safety Order, which
would indicate a maximum capacity number in line with the assessed fire
risk. The Sub-Committee is mindful that
article 43 of The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 would
render any condition of licence imposed by the Sub-Committee to have no
effect.
Any person aggrieved by this decision has 21
days from the date of written notification of the decision to appeal to the
local Magistrates Court.
Signed
Cllr
Cllr
Clerk to the
Committee Date
___2nd October
2023.
ANNEX
Conditions of Licence
- CCTV shall be in use at the premises.
(i)
Where a CCTV system is to be installed,
extended or replaced, it shall be to an appropriate standard as agreed with the
Licensing Authority in consultation with the Police. Where a CCTV system is to be installed, it
shall be fully operational by the day the licence is granted.
(ii)
The CCTV equipment shall be maintained in
good working order and continually record when licensable activity takes
place and for a period of two hours afterwards. |
(iii)
The premises licence holder shall ensure
images from the CCTV are retained for a period of 30 days. This image retention period may be reviewed
as appropriate by the Licensing Authority. (iv)
The correct time and date will be generated
onto both the recording and the real time image screen. |
(v) If the CCTV equipment
(including any mobile units in use at the premises) breaks down the Premises
Licence Holder shall ensure the designated premises supervisor, or in his/her
absence other responsible person, verbally informs the Licensing Authority and
the Police as soon as is reasonably practicable. This information shall be contemporaneously
recorded in the incident report register and shall include the time, date and
means this was done and to whom the information was reported. Equipment failures shall be repaired or
replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable and without undue delay. The Licensing Authority and the Police
shall be informed when faults are rectified. (vi) The premise licence holder shall ensure that there are trained
members of staff available during licensable hours to be able to reproduce
and download CCTV images into a removable format at the request of any
authorised officer of the Licensing Authority or a constable. (vii) The system
shall also record clear images permitting the identification of individuals
and be of evidential quality. (viii)There shall be clear signage indicating that CCTV equipment is in
use and recording at the premises during operating hours. |
CCTV
shall cover all areas the Public have access.
- For events held in the Marquee, there will be a minimum of two SIA
registered door staff from 19:00 hrs . The premises license holder/
DPS will risk assess the need for
an earlier start time of door staff depending on the number of day guests.
If door supervisors are present then the premises licence holder shall
ensure that the following details for each door supervisor, are
contemporaneously entered into a bound register kept for that purpose:
(i) Full name;
(ii) SIA Certificate number and or badge number, or registration
number of any accreditation scheme recognised by the Licensing Authority
(including expiry date of that registration or accreditation);
(iii) The
time they began their duty;
The time they completed their duty.
(v)
This register is to be kept at the premises at all times and shall be so
maintained as to enable an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority or a
constable to establish the particulars of all door stewards engaged at the
premises during the period of not less than 31 days prior to the request and
shall be open to inspection by authorised officers of the Licensing Authority
or a constable upon request.
- A Challenge 25 scheme will be adopted in compliance with the age
verification condition: Customers who appear be under 25 years of age will
be required to prove their age when purchasing alcohol. Suitable forms of
identification will be a passport, ‘Pass’ card or other identification recognized
by the licensing authority in its statement of licensing policy.
(b)Publicity materials notifying customers of
the operation of the Challenge 25 scheme shall be displayed at the premises,
including a Challenge 25 sign of at least A5 size at the entrance to the
premises / marquee and where practicable at each point of sale.
- All staff to be trained in the prevention of
underage sales to a level commensurate with their duties. All such
training to be updated as necessary, for instances when legislation
changes, and should include training on how to deal with difficult. customers. The training should be clearly
documented and signed and dated by both the trainer and the member of
staff receiving it. The documentation shall be available for inspection on
request by an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority or a
constable. All records shall
be kept for a period of 12 months.
- The premises licence holder shall keep an ‘incident / refusals’
logbook in a bound book in which full details of all incidents are
recorded. This shall include
details of any refused sales and shall give details of the persons
involved, incident description, time and date, actions taken and final
outcome of the situation. This
shall be completed as soon as possible and, in any case, no later than the
close of business on the day of the incident. The time and date when the report was
completed, and by whom, is to form part of the entry. The logbook is to be kept on the
premises at all times and shall be produced to an authorised officer of
the Licensing Authority or a constable when required. These records shall
be kept for a minimum of 12 months.
- All children to
be supervised by a responsible adult during any licensable activity.
- The Premises License
Holder, Designated Premises Supervisor shall produce a noise management
plan to adequately control noise from the premises. This is to include
both internal and external areas and to be submitted and agreed in writing
with the Pollution Control Team in Environmental Health. The noise
management plan should include but is not limited to:
- A list of mitigation
measures implemented to reduce noise from the licensable premises,
- Regular monitoring at the boundary perimeter
during periods of amplified/unamplified entertainment, to ensure noise is
not at a level to cause a nuisance at residential receptors,
- Training of staff to undertake such observations
and implement controls to reduce noise level,
- To implement
corrective actions to control noise during licensable hours,
- Maintaining a written
record of such observations and actions taken, to be kept for review upon
request by any responsible authorities.
This document once agreed
should be enforced and updated regularly to ensure the continued compliance
with the premises license.
- The volume of amplified/unamplified live and
recorded regulated entertainment must be at a level so as not to cause a
nuisance at the nearest residential property.
- Adequate notices
shall be displayed in appropriate locations to instruct customers at each
exit to respect the needs of local residents and leave the premises
quietly.
- The use of
all outdoor areas of the “Lodge” is not permitted after 22:00. Other than
access solely for the use of a smoking area. The smoking area shall not
exceed the capacity of 10 persons at any one-time post 22:00.
- The use of
all outdoor areas relating to the “Marquee” is not permitted after 22:00.
Other than access/egress to the toilet facility or for the use of a
smoking area. The smoking area shall not exceed the capacity of 10 persons
at any one-time post 22:00.
- The Premises License
Holder shall ensure that a sufficient number of suitable receptacles are
located in appropriate locations for the depositing of waste materials
such as food wrappings, drinks containers, smoking-related litter, etc. by
customers.
|
18 The Licence Holder, designated premises
supervisor, manager or other competent person shall manage any outdoor area by
regularly patrolling these areas to ensure
that customers do not behave in a rowdy, noisy or offensive manner.
- The Licence Holder, designated premises
supervisor, manager or other competent person shall risk assess the need
for alcoholic beverages to be dispensed in polycarbonate, plastic or
non-glass containers when licensable activities are taking place.
- The premises shall be cleared of customers
within 30 minutes of the last supply of alcohol on any day.
- The premises licence holder or other
competent person shall ensure that customer transportation has been
arranged and details provided prior to the event taking place, as part of
the hiring agreement.
- In relation to events in the marquee the additional
measures will be in place:
There will be a minimum of 3 bar staff on at any one time, 1 of which
will be the bar manager as well as the DPS or licence holder. The bar staff
will make regular checks of the outside area ensuring that glasses are
collected.
- All staff with a responsibility for supplying
or selling alcohol shall be vigilant in preventing adults buying alcohol
on behalf of persons who are under 18 and will refuse such sales where
they suspect that this may be about to occur, subject to the exemptions
under Section 149 (5) of the Licensing Act 2003 which allows beer, cider
or wine to be purchased for an individual aged 16 or 17, providing the
beer, cider or wine is for consumption with a table meal and that a person
aged 18 or over is accompanying the individual.
Supporting documents:
- Report, item 3. PDF 468 KB
- Appendix 1, item 3. PDF 456 KB
- Appendix 2, item 3. PDF 601 KB
- Appendix 2A, item 3. PDF 3 MB
- Appendix 3, item 3. PDF 442 KB
- Appendix 4, item 3. PDF 287 KB
- Appendix 5, item 3. PDF 511 KB
- Appendix 6, item 3. PDF 487 KB
- Appendix 7, item 3. PDF 1 MB
- Appendix 8, item 3. PDF 271 KB
- Appendix 9, item 3. PDF 374 KB
- Appendix 10, item 3. PDF 280 KB
- Appendix 11, item 3. PDF 181 KB
- Appendix 12, item 3. PDF 1 MB
- Appendix 13, item 3. PDF 12 MB
- Appendix 14, item 3. PDF 16 KB
- Appendix 15, item 3. PDF 14 KB
- Appendix 16, item 3. PDF 18 KB
- Appendix 17, item 3. PDF 271 KB
- Appendix 18, item 3. PDF 231 KB
- Appendix 19, item 3. PDF 14 KB
- Appendix 20, item 3. PDF 233 KB
- Appendix 21, item 3. PDF 118 KB
- Appendix 22, item 3. PDF 132 KB
- Appendix 23, item 3. PDF 335 KB
- Appendix 24, item 3. PDF 465 KB
- Appendix 25, item 3. PDF 235 KB
- Appendix 26, item 3. PDF 7 MB
- Appendix 27, item 3. PDF 264 KB