Agenda item
The Sandbar Restaurant, The Warren, Lôn Port Morgan, Abersoch LL53 7AA
To consider the above application
Minutes:
1.
The Sandbar Restaurant, The Warren, Abersoch
Councillors Elfed
Williams and Jason W Parry had undertaken a site visit, organised and
supervised by Heilyn Williams, Licensing Officer 04.11.19.
The panel and the officers were introduced to
everyone present and it was announced that all had up to 10 minutes to present
their observations on the application.
On behalf of the premises: Julian King, Haulfryn
Group Ltd
Bobby
McGee, Haulfryn Group Ltd
David
John, Haulfryn Group Ltd
Matt
Pressman, Haulfryn Group Ltd
Simon Conway, Haulfryn Group Ltd
Others invited: Mr Ian
Williams, North Wales Police
Local
consultee - Mr Nigel Jackson
a)
The Licensing Department's Report
Submitted – the report of the Licensing Manager
giving details of the application for a premises licence for the supply of
alcohol off the premises, live music, recorded music indoors and outdoors and
the provision of late night refreshments, seven days a week.
Attention was drawn to the
details of the licensed activities and the proposed hours in the report. It was noted that the Licensing Authority officers had
sufficient evidence that the application had been submitted in accordance with
the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003 and the relevant regulations.
Reference was made to the
measures recommended by the applicant to promote the licensing objectives along
with the responses received during the consultation period. It was highlighted that these objectives would be included on
the licence.
It was noted that an observation
had been received by North Wales Police recommending that the applicant
installed a CCTV system on the premises. Seven e-mails were received from
owners of holiday units on the site objecting to the application on the basis of the four licensing objectives - crime and
disorder prevention, public nuisance prevention, ensuring public protection and
the protection of children from harm.
It
was reported that the Licensing Authority had not been
convinced that the application offered sufficient details in relation to the
intended measures to alleviate the respondents' concerns and to ensure that the
Licensing Objectives would not be undermined.
In considering the
application, the following procedure was adhered to:
·
Members of the Sub-committee and the applicant were given the opportunity to ask questions to the Licensing
Manager.
·
The applicant was invited
to expand on the application.
·
Consultees were given an
opportunity to present their observations.
·
The licensee, or his/her representative, was invited to respond to the observations.
·
Members of the Sub-committee were
given an opportunity to ask questions of the licensee.
b)
In expanding
on the application, the applicant's representative noted that he was happy with
what had been presented. Photographs of the park were circulated to the Sub-committee and consultees to
assist with the elements in question.
He added the
following observations:
·
The site visit had been beneficial.
·
Abersoch Community Council
had no objection to the application.
·
They accepted the conditions of the Police to
install a CCTV system on the premises.
·
The conditions and rules of
a restaurant were different to the rules and standards of the park.
·
Access to the site was managed 24 hours a
day by two security officers who were qualified with the Security Industry
Authority.
·
Minor offences and disorder were
dealt with appropriately.
·
The car park was
sufficient.
·
More lighting had been installed on the site.
·
Staff would
be trained in order to implement the Challenge 25 policy.
·
Accepted the observation
that communicating with residents about changes needed to improve.
·
The restaurant would be effectively managed by focusing on providing users
with a good experience.
·
There was no intention to use the restaurant to
hold music events only - specific events would be held,
e.g. weddings, New Year's Eve party.
·
The restaurant would be open to the public.
·
There was planning permission for the purpose of
restaurant use.
·
He was willing to consider the objections and
welcomed an open dialogue in a
attempt to alleviate the concerns.
In response to a
question regarding concerns by residents about noise from the restaurant, the
applicant proposed noise control conditions (should the
licence be granted).
·
Noise or vibration
causing an unreasonable disturbance to people in the vicinity could not derive
from the property.
·
The level of amplified noise
used in relation to the entertainment provided would always be under the
control of the licensee / managers and the control system would
be operated in a part of the property that was not accessible to the
public.
The conditions were welcomed as proactive steps to promote the objective of
preventing public nuisance.
The Licensing
Manager reiterated that Public Protection - Environmental Health Unit had not
provided observations as it had not received complaints / evidence, but it
supported the proposed noise conditions.
c)
The consultees present at
the meeting took advantage of the opportunity to elaborate on their objections
to the licence’s approval and they reiterated the observations that had been presented by letter. Photographs of the park were
circulated to the Sub-committee and the applicant to assist with the
elements in question.
Mr Nigel Jackson
·
There was no objection to
the applicant being granted a licence, but rather an
objection to the hours of the licensable activities of the application.
·
Photographs that had been submitted were misleading. Although the car park
was large in size, it was being used as an area to
store residential units or caravans.
·
Consistency was required
between park rules and restaurant rules.
·
The size of the restaurant
was substantially larger than the previous kiosk that was
used as a bar.
·
Nine speakers had been installed on the external walls of the restaurant.
·
Minor offences and disorder
occurred on site and it could increase with access to the public.
·
The licensed hours would
encourage a drinking environment which could lead to
problems of creating public nuisance. A concern that it would be easy to run a
bar with music only on the site should the restaurant not succeed.
·
The main concern was the
increase in non-residents which could lead to an
increase in public nuisance, environmental impact and public use of the site.
ch) Exercising his right to speak, an officer
from the Police confirmed that the Police had no evidence to object to the
application as it was a new application. He highlighted that 11 events had been recorded for The Warren but they were not
associated with the property in question. He added that he had visited the site
and had discussed CCTV conditions with the applicant.
d)
In summarising their application, the applicants
noted the following observations:
·
It would be possible to
arrange for the car park not to be used as a storage
area.
·
The previous kiosk had a
licence until midnight.
·
There was no intention of running the site as a drinking
site.
·
There would be no access
after 11pm to purchase or sell alcohol.
·
The intention was to run a restaurant.
·
The company had been established
since 1935 with a healthy relationship with the local community - it was
intended to continue to collaborate responsibly with the local community.
·
A substantial investment was being made to maintain and improve the luxury holiday
park.
·
It was
hoped to extend the season to 12 months.
·
The restaurant would employ
up to 24 people during the busiest periods.
·
There was an intention to
offer a good experience in a special location.
·
The company had a good
reputation to protect.
In response to the
observation regarding collaborating reasonably, the objector noted that the
company had increased annual fees in order to construct the restaurant with an
understanding that there would be a discount after the construction period.
This was now inaccurate and, therefore, an example of irresponsible action. It was also reported that four cases of temporary licences had
been granted and that one of those events had been held without a licence. If
the company could not comply with the rules of temporary licences
it was argued whether or not they deserved a full licence.
In response to the
observations, the applicant noted that there had been no breach or lack of
compliance with the conditions of a temporary licence. It was
added that there was no evidence to support the allegation and that the
observation had therefore been refuted. The Licensing Manager noted that no
complaints had been received and that she would seek
assurance that the applicant complied with the requirements of the licence.
The applicant
withdrew from the room while members of the Sub-committee discussed the
application.
dd) In reaching its decision,
the Sub-committee considered the application form along with written
observations submitted by interested parties, the Licensing Officer's report,
and verbal observations from the applicant's representative at the hearing. The
Council's Licensing Policy and the Home Office guidelines were
also considered. All considerations were weighed
up against the licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003, namely:
i.
Crime and disorder prevention
ii.
Public nuisance prevention
iii.
Ensuring public safety
iv.
Protection of children from harm
RESOLVED to approve
the application
It was considered that the observations by the Police were not
in objection to the application, but they recommended that standard conditions
be imposed in relation to CCTV. This condition was proposed
in order to promote the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder
and it was confirmed that the applicant agreed to them.
The Sub-committee
did not deny the possibility that granting the licence could lead to an
increase in customers, including customers from outside the Warren site. The
possibility that some customers could offend and behave in an antisocial
manner, which would undermine the objective of preventing crime and disorder, could not be denied either. Similarly, the possibility that
granting the licence could lead to noise and loud music problems, which would
undermine the objective of preventing public nuisance, could
not be denied.
However, should
the licence be granted, no robust evidence of the number, density, frequency of
potential incidents of offending or noise complaints had been submitted. As a result, it was difficult for the
Sub-committee to anticipate whether problems were likely to reach the threshold
of accounting as a crime and disorder problem or "public nuisance"
under law. On the basis of evidence that had been received, the Sub-committee
did not believe that granting the licence would be likely to undermine the
objectives of preventing crime and disorder and preventing public nuisance. It was added that noise control conditions proposed by the
applicant would reduce any risk of noise emanating from the property.
Among the
objections, it was noted that rules bound the
residences and the Warren site. These rules included prohibiting noise between
23:00 and 08:00 (rule 19), and prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in public
(rule 20). While the Sub-committee accepted the existence of these rules, it
was not a reason to refuse the licence. The decision of the Sub-committee was
to ensure that the hours and licensable activities of the licence were in
accordance with the licensing objectives. It was highlighted that consideration
could not be given to rules determined by a third party and rules where the
Sub-committee was unaware of what objective consideration had been given to
licensing objectives when they had been introduced. It was
added that no evidence had been received that it was intended for these
rules to bind the property itself and as noted by the applicant's
representative, the restaurant in question was of completely different nature
to the residences.
In the context of
undermining the objective of ensuring public safety, the Sub-committee had not
received any evidence beyond speculation that granting the licence would
undermine the objective. It was reported that the
property had planning permission for its intended use as a restaurant and that
access safety would be addressed as part of the planning process. It was noted that any public safety concerns would have been
discussed with the Highways Department, the Planning Department or the Police
and the lack of observations from those bodies strongly suggested that there
would be no serious implications to public safety. Members were reminded that
the applicant's representative had highlighted the intention of increasing the
car park’s capacity which, in the opinion of the
Sub-committee, would alleviate any concerns.
Similarly, no
reliable evidence had been received to support the
argument that granting the licence would put children at risk of harm. Again,
it was explained that it was not the work of the
Sub-committee to speculate on the impact - conditions could be measured when
the property was in operation. If complaints were received
that conditions were ineffective, then the licence could be brought before the
Sub-committee under an application to vary or review the licence. The
Sub-committee was of the opinion that the property’s proposed conditions were
sufficient to safeguard the objective of preventing children from harm. In
addition, any attempt to purchase alcohol by under-age persons would be addressed by the property by implementing the
Challenge 25 Scheme in accordance with the operating schedule submitted with
the application.
Under the circumstances, the Sub-committee
was satisfied that the application, with the noise control conditions proposed
by the applicant at the hearing, along with the conditions recommended by the Police,
were in accordance with the four licensing objectives.
The Solicitor reported that the decision would
be formally confirmed to everyone present by letter along with the right to
submit an appeal at Caernarfon Magistrates' Court within a 21
day period from receiving the solicitor's letter.
Supporting documents: