Agenda item

Clwb Llyn Bach, Heol yr Wyddfa, Porthmadog, LL49 9DF

 

To consider the application

RESOVLVED:  In accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, and considering the observations received, the application was REFUSED.

 

Reasons -   

 

None of the measures recommended in part M have convinced either the Licensing Authority or the Public Protection Service that it was possible to have measures in place to manage noise impact at this location which is  surrounded by residential properties.

 

A complaint had been received recently regarding music noise and the noise of customers at the licensed premises

 

Although the Public Protection Officer had informed the applicant of the intention to object the application based on the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance; no response was received from the applicant, or any suggestion of compromise.

 

It would be more appropriate for the applicant to submit temporary event notices in order to attempt to identify means of managing the noise when using the beer garden for licensed activities.  

 

Clwb Llyn Bach, Heol yr Wyddfa, Porthmadog LL49 9DF

 

Others invited: 

 

·        Mr John Lewis Roberts (applicant)

·        Mared Llwyd (Public Protection Manager - Pollution and Licensing Control)

 

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

 

a)    The Licensing Department's Report

 

Submitted - the report of the Licensing Manager detailing an application to vary the licence of Clwb Llyn Bach, Heol yr Wyddfa, Porthmadog, to add the sale of alcohol from a small building located outside (to the rear of the main building) for licensable activities when events are held at busy times. It was noted that the Club was mainly for members; which included a bar and patio area / beer garden; with a premises licence instead of a club certificate.

 

A request was made for permission to play live and recorded music until 01:00 every day as well as dance performances, and any similar activity such as stand-up comedians, indoors and outdoors, 7 days a week, but that regulated entertainment, including music and dance, finishes outdoors at 23:00. Although there is no increase in the hours of licensable activities compared to the current licence, the applicant requests the right to hold licensable activities outside the premises until 23:00. It was intended to sell alcohol from the hatch in the external bar until 23:30, and close the beer garden at 00:00, asking the customers to move inside the building. The applicant requested permission for a comedian to perform indoors as well as outdoors until 01:00, despite noting in part M of the application that the outdoor area would close at 00:00.

 

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.

 

Attention was drawn to the responses received during the consultation period. It was noted that neither North Wales Police nor the Fire Service had an objection to the application and an observation was received from Porthmadog Town Council stating that they had no objection provided that the activities were restricted to inside the building, and not outdoors. An objection to the application was received from the Public Protection Service based on concerns that the licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance is undermined due to the proposal to hold licensable activities outside the premises with regulated entertainment to be approved in the outdoors until 23:00, and the outdoor bar until 23:30.

 

It was highlighted that applicants were expected to provide detailed information with the application to allow the Licensing Authority to determine whether the measures proposed are sufficient to promote the licensing objectives in the local area. It was reported that no details of the proposed steps intended to take to mitigate the impact of noise on nearby residents during events where entertainment is held, had been submitted by the applicant in this case.  

 

As a result, the Licensing Authority recommended refusing the application.

 

b)       In considering the application, the following procedure was followed:-

·        Members of the Sub-committee were given an opportunity to ask questions of the Council’s representative.

·        At the Chair’s discretion, the applicant or his representative to ask questions to the Council’s representative.

·        The applicant and / or his representative were invited to expand on the application and to call witnesses.

·        Members of the Sub-committee were given the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and/or his representative.

·        At the Chair's discretion, the Council’s representative to ask questions to the applicant or his representative.

·        Every Consultee was invited to support any written representations.

·        The Council’s representative and the applicant or his representative were given the opportunity to summarise their case.  

 

c)     Elaborating on the application, the applicant noted:

·        That the garden was open in any case until midnight

·        That selling alcohol in the garden took some pressure off the indoor bar

·        That the indoor area tended to become overfull when other pubs in the town closed

·        No intention to have pumps - alcohol to be sold in bottles and cans

·        One complaint had been received in four-and-a-half years and that due to the noise of bottles being emptied at 22:15.

 

In response to a question about the size of the garden, the applicant noted that there was room for approximately 80 people in the garden.

 

In response to a question regarding the requirements of the application, the Licensing Manager noted that although this application was for the sale of alcohol in the garden, that the licence application asked for a licence to hold entertainment / play music outdoors also.

 

In response to a supplementary question regarding music and the current system, the applicant noted that music was being played indoors every Saturday, Sunday night and on Bank Holidays and that a Temporary Event Notice application would be made for special outdoor events. The applicant reiterated that the garden is located further from the houses and was open at weekends only.

 

In response to a question from the Solicitor about the legal use of the outdoor hut and whether planning permission would be needed for change of use, the applicant noted that it was the Old Legion Site in question with an old cellar on the site being used to sell beer in the past.  The Licensing Manager highlighted that the cellar was a part of the premises licence, but that the activity of selling alcohol was different.

 

  ch)     The consultee in attendance took the opportunity to expand on the observations that were submitted in written form by them.

 

Mared Llwyd (Public Protection Team Leader - Licensing and Pollution Control)

·        Highlighted concern that approval would lead to the creation of public nuisance - live or recorded music 7 days a week would cause nuisance to local residents.

·        Having 80 people outdoors would create additional noise.

·        As a result of the sale of alcohol outdoors, this would encourage more to convene outdoors and consequently it would be difficult to manage noise.

·        That the location was within 15m to residential houses.

·        That noise carried and this was obvious from the complaint received in August 2023.

 

d)     Taking advantage of the right to conclude their case, the applicant noted:

·        That a complaint about emptying bottles was in question, and not a complaint of noise from the garden.

·        That beer had been sold on the site in the past.

·        Accepted not being allowed to sell alcohol from the garden, but not having outdoor entertainment could impact the business.

 

dd)    Taking advantage of the right to summarise their case, the Licensing Manager noted:

·        That the area was sensitive to noise - a number of nearby houses within 15m.

·        Continued to object to the application - the applicant had not submitted noise precautions or a noise mitigation action plan.

 

e)     All parties were thanked for making representations on the application.

 

The respondents and the Licensing Manager withdrew from the meeting while the Sub-committee members discussed the application.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-committee considered the applicant's application form along with written observations submitted by interested parties, the Licensing Officer's report, and the verbal representations from each party at the hearing. The Council's Licensing Policy and Home Office guidelines were considered. The Sub-committee gave due consideration to all the representations and weighed these 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

The observations that were received which were irrelevant to the above objectives were disregarded.

 

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, and having considered the observations received, the application was REFUSED for the following reasons -  

 

·        No measures had been recommended in part M which convinced the Licensing Authority nor the Public Protection Service that it was possible to put measures in place to manage noise impact in this location that was surrounded by residential properties.

·        That a complaint had been received about the noise of music and customers on the licensed premises recently.

·        Although the Public Protection Officer had informed the applicant of the intention to object the application based on the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance, no response was received from the applicant, or any suggestion of compromise.

·        It would be more appropriate for the applicant to be introducing temporary event notices in order to try and find out if there was a way to manage the noise from using the beer garden for licensed activities. 

 

Particular consideration was given to the following.

In the context of Preventing Crime and Disorder the Police had no objection to the application. No evidence had been submitted highlighting that there were problems relating to this principle with the premises.

In the context of Public Safety, no evidence had been submitted that related to this principle.

 

In the context of Preventing Public Nuisance the Sub-committee was of the opinion that approving the application would undermine this principle. It was considered that the Public Protection Service had objected to the application based on the fact that this principle would be undermined as a result of the proposal of holding licensable activities outside the premises. The location was considered as a very sensitive one in terms of noise as it is surrounded by residential houses and the application sought to hold activities outside the premises until 23:00. Although people already went to the beer garden, the Sub-committee was of the opinion that the sale of alcohol in the garden would attract more out to the garden and would give them a reason to stay there also. The applicant had not submitted information which persuaded the officers or the sub-committee that measures could be put in place to manage the impact of noise on the nearby residential houses. As well as the officers' professional opinion, there was evidence of a noise complaint as a result of an event held under a temporary licence recently.

 

The Sub-committee was disappointed that the applicant had not contacted the Public Protection Officer when she had informed him of her intention to object to the application. There had been no suggestion of a compromise in response to the concerns raised and no attempts were made to address the concerns.

 

In the context of Protecting Children from Harm, no evidence had been submitted that related to this principle.

 

The Solicitor reported that the decision would be formally confirmed by letter to everyone who had submitted written observations. 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 receives the letter (or a copy of the letter) confirming the decision.