Red Lion, Porthmadog
To consider the above application
Decision:
To approve the application subject
to the inclusion of the conditions of the Operating Schedule
Minutes:
APPLICATION FOR
PREMISES LICENCE – Red Lion, Porthmadog
On behalf of the premises: Darren Kelly (Applicant – Admiral Taverns Ltd)
Peter
Ashcroft (Solicitor on behalf of Admiral Taverns Ltd)
Others
invited: Ffion Muscroft -
Environmental Health Officer
Cllr Nia Jeffreys
- Local Member
The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
The
Chair highlighted that each party had the right to up to ten minutes to present
their observations
a)
The Licensing Department's Report
Submitted – the
report of the Licensing Manager giving details of the application to vary the
premises licence for Red Lion, Porthmadog. The application was made in relation
to changes to the interior plans of the public house, and to include an
external area as a licensed area. It was
reported that although the beer garden was already licensed, the application
was made to extend the licensed area of the premises to include structures in
the form of beach huts with alcohol ordered and served via a window in the rear
of the premises.
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. It was noted that a recent planning
application (C20/0076/44/LL) to provide five beach huts and a 'hatch' door to
the main building had been approved in accordance with conditions that
included:
·
The
use of the wooden huts hereby permitted (with the exception of the smoking
shelters shown on the exisiting site plans) shall not be open to customers
outside the following times 9:00 am to 21:00 pm in any one day.
·
The new bar servery hatch shall be closed outside
the following times 9:00 am to 21:00 pm in any one day.
Reference was made
to the measures that had been recommended by the applicant to promote the
licensing objectives, and it was highlighted that these measures would be
included on the licence.
Attention was
drawn to the responses received during the consultation period. It was noted
that one objection had been received from a member of the public expressing
concern regarding anti-social matters in terms of noise, public nuisance,
sanitary issues and crime and disorder. The objection was supported with
relevant up-to-date evidence which included short video clips, as well as
screenshots showing the time and date. The Local Member expressed concerns
about noise and public nuisance on behalf of neighbouring residents and the
Environmental Health Service noted the need for the alcohol sales outside and
the use of beach huts to cease at 21:00. The Town Council, the Police and the
Fire and Rescue Service had no objections.
It was recommended
that the Committee considered whether any additional precautions needed to be
imposed on the licence's conditions, if it determined to approve the
application in accordance with the observations of Public Protection and the
requirements of the 2003 Licensing Act.
In considering the application, the following procedure was adhered to:-
· Members of the Sub-committee and the applicant were given the opportunity
of ask questions of 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
· Members of the Sub-committee were given an opportunity to ask questions of
the consultee
b)
In expanding on the application, the applicant
noted that he was happy with what had been presented. In response to questions
from Sub-committee about the management of the rear door, the gate to the beer
garden and the maximum number using the huts (need to anticipate safe numbers),
it was noted that the gate was a fire exit - it was not used as a public
entrance / exit. There was uncertainty about the maximum numbers allowed in the
huts, but he highlighted that the situation would be regularly monitored, with
a Covid-19 assessment implemented during the period of the crisis. He suggested
that the use of the huts was a response to social distancing regulations during
the Covid-19 crisis. He added that he would discuss the video evidence with the
tenant of the public house.
The solicitor on
behalf of Admiral Taverns noted that the external area would be managed by
CCTV, with staff walking around the area and using the serving hatch to keep an
eye on the situation. He added that the company operated responsibly, and that
it would consider the safety of customers by mitigating any possible risks. It
was noted that the sub-committee had the right to propose a maximum number that
could use the huts, or a practical agreement could be considered. He suggested
that there was no valid reason for refusing the application.
c)
In response, the Sub-committee noted that it wished
to see a risk assessment completed after the lockdown period ended, and encouraged
the tenant to make good use of the CCTV, and to retain the recordings for a
six-month period.
ch) The
consultee in attendance took the opportunity to expand on the observations that
were submitted by letter.
Environmental
Health Officer,
·
That it was not possible to
investigate the noise concerns by installing a monitor on the site due to
Covid-19 restrictions.
·
Effective management was
required – close doors and windows to minimise noise
·
A suggestion to close the beer garden at 21.00
Councillor Nia Jeffreys (Local Member)
·
The public house's location
was surrounded by streets of terraced houses - consequently any noise would
travel far
·
The Covid-19 period had been challenging for local
businesses - she stated her support for local businesses that were overcoming
an extremely difficult period
·
Admired an innovative scheme for providing a
service through the use of beach huts
·
She was duty-bound as a Local Member to highlight
the concerns of nearby residents about complaints relating to noise and public
nuisance.
·
She accepted the suggestion to consider controlling
the numbers using the beer garden
·
Need to ensure that the gate to the beer garden was
kept closed so that the public could wander back and forth
·
In response to an
observation that there was no need for a place to facilitate the sale of drugs,
it was noted that the Police did not object to the application.
d)
In summarising his case and in response to the
observations, the applicant noted that
·
Managing and supervising
beer gardens was difficult, but he was confident that Admiral Taverns could
address the matters that were raised
·
The Police would have
submitted observations if they had any concerns
·
CCTV would be used
effectively
·
Music would not be played
outside
·
The doors and windows would
be closed after 21:00
·
The gate would only be used
as a fire exit
dd) The applicant and
the company's legal representative, the consultees, the Licensing Manager and
the Environment Officer withdrew from the meeting whilst the members of the
Sub-committee discussed the application
e) In reaching its
decision, the Sub-committee considered the application form, written comments
submitted by interested parties, the Licensing Officer's report (including
video and photographic evidence), and verbal comments from the applicant 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.
Prevention
of crime and disorder
ii.
Prevention
of public nuisance
iii.
Ensuring
public safety
iv.
Protection
of children from harm
RESOLVED to approve the application to vary the licence, subject to the
inclusion of the conditions in the Schedule of
Operation below;
In section (b) the
following were added:
·
"The property will run
and maintain a CCTV system to observe the internal and external areas. The
premises will retain the recordings on the system for up to 28 days. The
premises will provide copies of the recordings upon request to the Licensing
Authority or the Police.
·
The premises will keep a
sensor on the rear fire door located in the outdoor area, that will sound an
alarm inside the public house if the door is opened without permission.
·
A zero tolerance approach
will be taken towards drugs.”
In section (d) the
following were added:
·
“The bar ‘hatch’ outside
will close at 21:00
·
The beach huts outside will
not be used by customers after 21:00
·
The premises will install
appropriate signage requesting customers to respect nearby property by not
causing any noise nuisance when leaving the premises.
·
The property will hold
undertake regular site inspections to ensure compliance with the licence
conditions.”
In section (e) the following
was added:
·
“Each child must be
accompanied by an adult at all times.”
It was noted that the expansion of the licensed
area to include the outside area was not part of the plan included with the application
form, as this area was already part of the licensed area under the existing
licence.
All interested
parties were thanked for submitting observations on the application. The
Sub-committee gave appropriate consideration to all the observations.
It was noted that
the Environmental Health Service, Porthmadog Town Council, the Fire Service and
the Police had not objected to the application.
Given the concerns
regarding anti-social behaviour in relation to noise, sanitary issues and crime
and disorder, reference was made to incidents when customers using the beach
huts were noisy and drinking until 22:00, alleging that this was contrary to a
planning condition. It was noted that this had happened on five occasions,
(evenings of Friday 20/11/20, Saturday 21/11/20, Friday 27/11/20, Saturday
28/11/20, Thursday 03/12/20). Evidence was submitted in the form of mobile
phone video recordings and photographs to support the observations.
Additionally, observations were received from the Local Member, voicing concern
on behalf of nearby residents in relation to the outside use of the beer
garden.
While the
Sub-committee appreciated that these were genuine concerns, they referred to
concerns regarding the use of the beach huts in the beer garden until 22:00 and
later. However, the application requested restricting the use of the cabins
until 21:00. If the application was approved, it was not considered that there
would be future problems due to noise late at night as the huts would not be in
use after 21:00. Consequently, the observations objecting on the grounds of
noise were not really relevant to the application.
Video clips of
approximately 30 seconds in length were viewed. The quality of the videos were
not sufficiently clear to show distances, and it was not clear on which dates
the videos were filmed. The Sub-committee did not have an opportunity to
question the people who recorded them as they were not present in the hearing.
Consequently, the Sub-committee felt that the videos were of limited value as evidence.
It was accepted
that there was a possibility that noise originating from the premises could
lead to public nuisance, but even with relevant observations, "public
nuisance" was a technical term with a specific meaning in case law. Having
received legal advice, the Sub-committee came to understand that a few hours of
noise no more frequently than twice a week, in a densely populated residential
area, with only one direct objection having been submitted, was not likely to
cross the necessary threshold to be considered as a “public nuisance”.
In relation to
concern about crime and disorder and sanitary issues, no evidence had been
received of specific incidents to support these observations.
Under the
circumstances, the Sub-committee was satisfied that the application was in
accordance with the licensing objectives, and the application to vary the
licence was approved.
The Solicitor reported that the decision would
be confirmed formally by letter and sent to all present. He added that all
parties to the application had the right to submit an appeal to Caernarfon
Magistrates' Court against the Sub-committee's decision. Any such appeal should
be lodged by giving notice of appeal to the Chief Executive, Llandudno
Magistrates’ Court, Llandudno within 21 days of the date that the appellant
received the letter (or a copy of the letter) confirming the decision.
Supporting documents: