Black Sheep, Lon Pont Forgan , Abersoch
To consider the above application
Decision:
To grant the application
Minutes:
Representing
the premises:
Ms Heidi McKinnell (applicant)
Mr Dylan Evans
(applicant’s representative)
Others
invited:
Neighbouring Residents:
Margot Jones
Martin Turtle
Mike Parry on
behalf of Grahame and Les Oddy
Robert Kennedy
Einir Wyn -
Community Council Clerk
Wyn Williams
Mark McClure
Local Member: Councillor Dewi Roberts
Public Protection Department: Moira Duell Parry (Environmental Health
Officer)
The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Chair highlighted that all parties
would be allowed up to 5 minutes to make their representations.
a)
The Licensing Department's Report
Submitted – the
report of the Licensing Manager giving details of the application for a
premises licence for Black Sheep, 1 Lôn Pont Morgan, Abersoch. The application was made
in relation to the sale of alcohol, provision of late night refreshments and
recorded music, and all provided on and off 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.
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 that had been received during the
consultation period. It was noted that several
objections had been received from nearby residents and concerns had been
submitted from Llanengan Community Council and the
Local Member.
The objections
referred to each of the licensing objectives. It was suggested that crime and
disorder matters derived from anti-social behaviour; an increase in litter and
noise as a result of the proposed hours; the premises was near a busy road,
lack of pavement and the lack of parking disregarded public safety.
It was reported that no agreement had been reached between the
applicant and the Public Protection Department, in terms of a compromise to
reduce the external use hours of the premises regarding recorded music and
alcohol provision, in line with other similar premises in the village. It was highlighted that the applicant had amended the
application to address concerns regarding use of the external area of the
premises for customers, with alcohol and recorded music up to 21:00 rather than
23:00. However, the Department continued to object the application on the grounds that this was a residential area and similar
businesses with outdoor areas had limited their hours in other parts of the
village.
It was recommended that the Committee refused the application
in accordance with what had been highlighted in the consultation, and in
accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003.
In considering the application, the following procedure was
followed:
· Members of the Sub-committee and the applicant were given the opportunity
to ask questions of the Licensing Manager
· The Police were invited to expand on the application
· Members of the
Sub-committee were given an opportunity to ask questions of the Police
· The licence holder, or their representative, was invited to respond to the
observations
· Consultees were
given an opportunity to present their observations
· Members of the Sub-committee were given an opportunity to ask questions of
the licence holder and consultees
b)
Elaborating on the application, the applicant's
representative noted:
· That the building
had been used as a restaurant in the past - this was a licence application for
a location that had been granted a licence in the past
·
Planning permission was not required to place 4 - 5
tables outside
· That the Crwst restaurant next door had a licence and tables outside
- the applicant wanted the same thing
·
It was intended to close the external area at 21:00
·
An intention to have background music playing only
- no live music
· That an
application for a licence to sell alcohol was for the business as a restaurant
and not as a public house
·
The restaurant would employ local people
·
Parking problems were common in Abersoch
·
They were ready to cooperate with the community and
relevant officers
In response to a question, it was confirmed that
there was an intention to place 4 - 5 picnic tables outside the premises
c)
The consultees in
attendance took the opportunity to expand on the observations they had
submitted by letter.
Margot Jones and Martin Turtle
·
The location of the
restaurant was directly underneath their home
·
They were very concerned
about the impact of noise pollution - this would interrupt their usual
enjoyment of being at home and in their garden
·
The intended location of
the outside seating area caused a concern - a potential for noise in the
evenings and the early hours
·
Caused distress to their
health - thinking about living above the development was unbearable
·
A reference to the restaurant in a magazine
referred to it as a location for ‘Alfresco Dining area with fire pit’, and
proposed a different name to what was on the licence
·
The proposal was an over development of the
site
·
They were local people who wanted peace and quiet -
they did not want more noise interrupting their lives
Mike Parry (on behalf of Grahame and Les Oddy)
·
The proposal undermined the
four licensing objectives
·
The public needed to be
protected
·
Objectors had clearly voiced and listed their
reasons for refusal
·
Extending the provision to the outskirts of the
village would move the centre-point of the village and disrupt quieter areas of
the village
Robert Kennedy
·
There was no need for another restaurant in the
village selling alcohol
·
The size and proposal of
the restaurant was unsuitable for the site
·
The boundary of the premises was very close to
residential homes
·
Concern about noise
pollution - the noise created a detrimental impact on the peace and quiet of sitting
outside in the garden
·
That opening hours until 21:00 were still late - a
suggestion to shorten the opening hours to 18:00
·
A suggestion to move the
outside dining area to the front of the premises
·
The proposal undermined the
four licensing objectives
·
It was likely that visitors would use the tables in
the evenings to chat and drink after the closing times of local public houses -
this would create additional noise problems
·
Litter concerns
Einir Wyn (Community Council Clerk)
·
Highlighted noise concerns
·
Parking concerns - by using
the parking area for dining, this would mean that scarce parking spaces would
be lost
·
No response had been received from the Council
regarding the change of use
·
There were 4 small tables
placed outside the previous restaurant at the front of the building
·
No objection to the restaurant - concerns about the
sale of alcohol and late night music
·
The four licensing
objectives had to be considered
Wyn Williams
·
That there were approximately 70 houses within a
hundred yards of the site
·
The area was historically
recognised as a residential area
·
An appeal for a nearby site licence had been
refused as three of the licensing objectives had been undermined - did not want
to return to a period of receiving complaints about crime and disorder, public
safety and public nuisance
·
That the provision extended outwards from the
centre of the village
·
That the tourism business
was important and an increase had recently been seen in the number of families
visiting the area - this was to be welcomed - families respected the
environment and generated fewer complaints
·
Needed to respect a
residential area - this had to be considered
·
There was a lack of respect
for the Welsh language - why select the 'Black Sheep' name?
·
In an emergency, how would
the emergency services reach the Lifeboat site?
·
The amendments did not
respond to the concerns
·
The site itself was
dangerous - no pavement
·
No double glazed windows in
the building - noise pollution concerns
·
Not enough police officers or security officers to
keep an eye and keep order
·
Encouraged the Sub-committee to accept the
recommendation of the Licensing Officer
Mark McClure
·
He lived near the site
·
There had been improvements to the village but the
proposed development would not be an improvement
·
Since the nearby nightclub had closed, the area had
quietened - noise pollution in the area would return with the development
·
Why was an outside seating
area required?
·
The restaurant next door did not play music -
therefore, why allow background music to affect the restaurant next door and
neighbouring residents?
·
The proposal was not
suitable - no benefits
·
Concern regarding the lack
of parking spaces
·
The proposal would cause a public nuisance to a
residential area with many families
·
A sufficient number of restaurants in the village -
no need for more
·
The property was on a
dangerous site - people would gather on a busy road
Councillor Dewi Roberts (Local Member)
·
An open discussion between
the applicant and the officers would be beneficial
·
Reiterated the concerns of
neighbouring residents
·
The site was unsuitable to sell alcohol - it was
located on the outskirts of the village - a restaurant was acceptable but not a
bar - this would encourage difficulties
·
Disappointed that the
Police had not highlighted traffic concerns
·
No pavement - a dangerous
location to cross the road
·
The number of tables seemed
excessive - 6 picnic tables would seat up to 24
individuals
·
Suitability of the building
needed to be questioned
·
Supported the
recommendation to refuse
Moira Duell Parry
(Environmental Health Officer)
·
The licensing objective of preventing public
nuisance had been considered - the site was within a residential area - concerns
had been highlighted about the external area
·
Discussions had been held with the applicant - a
request for more details in response to the concerns
·
With Covid-19 restrictions, it had not been
possible to visit the site and, therefore, no monitoring details had been
implemented - a noise management plan would usually be identified as well as
equipment suggestions and crowd control plan
·
Voices would raise naturally with alcohol and
likely to create disturbance
·
Lack of clarification on the use of the development
- this was likely to lead to complaints
·
A request for the applicant to provide more
evidence on how the proposal would be managed
Reference
was made to the other observations received during the
public consultation
ch) Taking advantage of the right to conclude
their case, the applicant's representative noted the following points:
·
They accepted the concerns of the neighbouring
residents
·
They were willing to consider a licence for inside the
premises only
·
Permission had not been granted for the contents of
the magazine
·
A ‘bar and grill’ was not the intention - it would
be a café by day and a steakhouse by night
·
Willing to consider closing at 18:00
·
That the restaurant next door had an alcohol
licence and picnic tables - why grant a licence to one and not the other?
·
Covid-19 guidance allowed flexibility with outdoor
dining
·
That the applicant was a local person - already ran
another restaurant in the village
·
The Police had not stated any objections
·
That compromising would be an option - possible to
discuss the use of the external dining area
·
There was an intention to close on Mondays and
Tuesdays - the applicant had a young family and wanted to spend time with the
family
The Licensing
Manager reiterated that there were genuine concerns about the external use of
the site.
d) The
applicant, the consultees, the Licensing Manager and the Environment Officer
withdrew from the meeting whilst the members of the Sub-committee discussed the
application
dd) In reaching its decision,
the Sub-committee considered the application form, written comments submitted
by interested parties, the Licensing Officer's report, 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 amended application.
The licence was given as follows:
1. Opening hours:
- Sunday-Saturday 09:00-23:30
- Final hour 00:30 on New Year's Eve
- Outside seating area to close at 21:00 every day
2. Recorded music (indoors only):
- Sunday-Saturday 09:00-23:00
- Final hour 00:00 on New Year's Eve
3. Supply of alcohol (to be consumed on and off the premises):
- Sunday-Saturday 09:00-23:00
- Final hour 00:00 on New Year's Eve
4. Incorporate the matters prescribed in the Schedule of Actions (Section
M) of the application as conditions on the licence.
All parties were thanked for making
representations on the application.
The Sub-committee gave due consideration to all the representations.
The Sub-committee
disregarded observations that were submitted on the basis that they were not
relevant to the licensing objectives, e.g. arguments that there was no need for
a licensed premises for the hours requested or at all, or a lack of relevant
planning permission. These matters are not premises licence application
considerations.
Specific
consideration was given to the following:
9 responses were
received from members of the public and neighbouring residents objecting to the
application, referring to the four licensing objectives. Concerns were expressed that granting the licence would likely lead
to an increase in anti-social behaviour, litter, noise, public safety problems
(lack of pavement and lack of parking spaces). These concerns
were reiterated by the Local Member and the Community Council.
Also, observations
were received from the Council's Public Protection Unit noting an attempt to
find a compromise with the applicant to address concerns regarding use of the
external area for customers. It was considered that
these discussions had encouraged the applicant to submit an amended application
to address concerns regarding use of the external area of the premises for
customers, with alcohol and music up to 21:00 rather than 23:00. Since amending
the application, the Unit continued to object to the application on the grounds that the site was located within a
residential area and that similar businesses with outdoor areas had limited
their hours in other parts of the village.
It was noted that the Police noted that they did not object to
the application.
The Sub-committee
highlighted that it accepted that concerns expressed regarding the application
were genuine. However, the Sub-committee was of the opinion that
insufficient evidence was submitted to prove that these problems were
likely should the licence be granted, and that it would be contrary to the
licensing objectives.
Concern was expressed that there would be an increase in anti-social
behaviour. However, no evidence was submitted to
support the allegation beyond general allegations about drinking that could be
attributed to any licensed premises. No reasons or evidence why these specific
premises were likely to cause anti-social behaviour problems were
submitted. No consideration was given to the fact that
the premises had operated as a licensed premises with different owners without
specific problems in terms of anti-social behaviour. It appeared that the
observations were submitted on the grounds of speculation and not on evidence -
this is not legal grounds for making a decision - according to the High Court
in R (on the application of Daniel Thwaites Plc) v
Wirral Borough Magistrates Court [2008] EWHC 838 (Admin).
No objection was
received from the Police: It was considered that if an increase in crime was likely, the Police would have highlighted this. Under
the circumstances, the Sub-committee was not persuaded
that granting the licence would undermine the objective of preventing crime and
disorder.
In the context of
litter and noise concerns, should the licence be granted, the observations were
considered as common concerns based again on speculation without the submission
of robust evidence. Consideration was not given to
past use of the site as a licensed premises and the lack of history of litter
and noise concerns associated with the site. As there was no evidence to
support the allegations, there was no basis to accept that granting the licence
would cause public nuisance problems.
When considering
road safety concerns, lack of pavement for pedestrians and the lack of on-site
parking spaces, the concerns were considered in the
context of the licensing objective of public safety. However, neither the
Highways Department nor the Police submitted observations on these matters. It was highlighted that it is unacceptable to accept that
everyone would drive to the location, bearing in mind that it is within walking
distance of a number of holiday sites in the village. As a
result of lack of observations from experts in the field, the
Sub-committee had was not persuaded that granting the licence was likely to
undermine public safety.
The concerns
submitted about child safety were also general concerns, based on speculation
without robust evidence. Therefore, the Sub-committee was of the opinion that
the application did not undermine the licensing objective of protecting
children from harm.
The Sub-committee
was astounded that some parties had recommended to refuse
the application in its entirety. While everyone has the right to an opinion,
the Sub-committee expected that official recommendations would
be based on an accurate understanding of licensing rules - there is no
rule that states that licensed premises cannot open in a residential area. An
assessment of the evidence against the licensing objectives should
be presented when making recommendations. The Sub-committee was also of
the opinion that the recommendation to refuse the application was heavy-handed,
which is contrary to the framework and ‘light touch’ spirit of the Licensing
Act.
Under the
circumstances, the Sub-committee was satisfied that the amended application is
in accordance with the four licensing objectives. The application was approved.
The Solicitor reported that the decision would be confirmed formally by letter to everyone who was
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: