Agenda item

Gwesty Dolbadarn, Stryd Fawr, Llanberis, Gwynedd LL55 4SU

 

To consider the above application

DECISION: REFUSE

 

Reason: Insufficient regulatory measures to comply with the licensing objectives

 

·       Sarah Hopwood          Representing the Applicant

·       Arwel Huw Thomas     Cyngor Gwynedd Planning Service

·       Louise Woodfine         Public Health

·       Moira Duell Pari          Environmental Health, Cyngor Gwynedd

·       Elizabeth Williams      North Wales Police 

 

Apologies were received from residents who had submitted observations - Lesley Wilson, Adrian Roberts, Dylan Davies and Dylan Wyn Jones.  

 

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

 

a)             The Licensing Department's Report

 

Submitted – the report of the Licensing Manager giving details of the application to vary a premises licence for Gwesty Dolbadarn, High Street, Llanberis. ⁠⁠The application was submitted to vary the premises licence to include the sale of alcohol from the garden outside the hotel, separated by an entrance junction. ⁠

 

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, and it was highlighted that these measures would be included on the licence.

 

She drew attention to the responses that had been received during the consultation period.

·       A number of nearby residents objected to the application and highlighted concerns regarding several cases of public order offences that had recently occurred in the area; concerns regarding the lack of CCTV provision and poor lighting that was likely to increase the likelihood of criminal activity and disorder with an extension; concerns regarding the welfare of people staying in the Hotel with alcohol dependency issues, as the availability of alcohol at the premises would increase temptation.

·       The Planning Service objected the application as there was insufficient information regarding whether the unit was mobile or not; with the unit situated on the site for a number of months perhaps planning permission would be required; concerns regarding the proposed location of the unit, as the plan indicated that the location was beyond the public house's curtilage. 

·       The Public Health Service, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board had submitted observations to oppose in the context of the licensing aims to protect children from harm and public safety and the risks associated with the sale of alcohol close to a property that provided temporary accommodation to homeless persons.  

·       Public Protection (Pollution Control) objected on the grounds of insufficient measures to control public nuisance with complaints being received regarding cooking odours.

·       North Wales Police did not object the application; however, they required amendments to the present licence conditions as there was room for improvement as some conditions had dated and/or had been duplicated according to the law or were inevitable.

 

The Officer recommended that the Sub-committee carefully considered all the objections received, prior to coming to a decision based on the opinion that the applicant could comply with the licensing objectives or otherwise, and the 2003 Licensing Act.

 

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

·       Members of the Sub-committee to be 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 to be invited to expand on the application and to call witnesses

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

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

·       Every Consultee to be invited to support any written representations

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

⁠

 

c)         In response to questions from the sub-committee,

·        regarding toilets on the site, it was noted that there were no permanent toilets with the premises as Gwesty Dolbadarn was not open to the public as it was being used to provide temporary accommodation for homeless persons. It was added that the application was uncommon - a licensed hotel that had not registered. 

·        with 'Pubwatch', it was noted that the Hotel was not open to the public and the owner did not attend meetings, but the designated responsible person would commit to attending meetings.

·        regarding the site, it was noted that the intention was to locate a food caravan in the beer garden that had been operating there occasionally over the last few months under TENS arrangements.

·        why had the Officers not made a definite recommendation, it was noted that the application was unique and the Sub-committee had the freedom to make its own decision given the nature and the grounds and evidence submitted. 

 

ch)       Elaborating on the application, Sarah Hopwood, the applicant's representative and the owner of the food caravan, stated:

·       That the application would control the beer garden better as the area was currently used as a public area - it was not a safe area, and no one adhered to the licensing objectives. 

·       Although she sold food and offered a place for customers to sit in the garden of Gwesty Dolbadarn, the public could buy alcohol from a nearby shop or pub and drink this in the garden - this was not suitable for her business with glass and waste being left on the floor.

·       The proposal was family friendly with tables set out in the garden - open until 20:00. No alcohol would be served without food and groups would not have access 

·       She understood the concerns and welfare of nearby residents, but that the hotel residents were entitled to use the garden. Although it was a difficult situation, it was not her responsibility to say no, but she could refuse to serve alcohol to them.   That the situation required better control.

·       It was intended to make the area safe with better lighting, CCTV and toilets - should the application be approved, it would be possible to provide a mobile toilet unit.

·       In response to noise concerns, that they had operated TENS for 21 days and that no issues had arisen. ⁠However, a noise control scheme had been drawn-up.

·       The complaints about odours had been resolved with measures and site management had been implemented - no oil, no frying and the ventilation fan had been moved.

·       Drinking water was available.

 

In response to questions from the sub-committee, it was noted:

·        regarding the concerns about 'poor lighting' and 'dark places' and if CCTV was sufficient to protect public safety, customers and staff, it was noted that it was intended to improve the lighting and introduce more lights - however, it was proposed to open the business during the summer when there would be natural lighting in the evening. It was added that three CCTV cameras kept an eye on the area with a camera on the food trailer, the serving bar and in the seating area.

·        regarding how it would be possible to prevent the public from using the garden, it was noted that currently some did purchase food from the caravan and alcohol from a nearby shop or pub.  Should the application be approved, it must be stated that the area was licensed and that it was not possible to drink alcohol from another premises in the garden.

·        regarding the number of tables, it was noted that there was room for approximately 20 people to sit by the tables and there was no intention to add more tables. 

·        regarding how the owner of the Hotel would keep an eye on how the licence was administered (bearing in mind that the owner did not live locally), it was noted that a designated officer would be appointed for the site and she, as the manager of the food business had agreed to this.

·        Regarding the lack of control and limiting customers to 6 units of alcohol, it would be possible to control form where the alcohol came and what was consumed - alcohol would only be served with food. In response to a supplementary question that this could place additional pressure on staff in the food caravan, it was noted that there was a sufficient team for the work with three serving food, one to serve alcohol and one security officer at busy times.

 

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

 

Arwel Huw Thomas (Cyngor Gwynedd Planning Service)

·       That there were initial concerns with the application for a licence - a site plan had been submitted only indicating an outline of the site boundary  

·       No information had been submitted indicating the exact location nor any information about the whole food unit. 

·       On the grounds of a lack of information submitted as part of the application, the Planning Service could not come to a conclusion when assessing the proposal against the Council's planning and enforcement policies. 

·       That Saint Padarn's Church, which was a listed building, was situated parallel to the south of the site - without information it was not possible to assess the proposal against planning policies that involved listed buildings within the LDP.   

·       Not enough information had been submitted to ensure that proposal was for a fully mobile unit or otherwise.  On the grounds of a lack of information about the nature of the unit and its exact location, insufficient information had been submitted to determine if planning permission was required for the unit.  

·       On the grounds of insufficient information submitted, the Planning Service objected to the application for a licence.

 

Louise Woodfine (Public Health Wales)

·       The proposal would increase accessibility to the site that already caused some issues.

·       the homeless and other persons who resided in the hotel were vulnerable persons - providing alcohol would create a very challenging situation to those who had left hospital with complex mental health requirements and problems relating to alcohol and/or other substances. 

·       Homeless persons used alcohol as a coping mechanism; that the homeless population had more cases of health problems than the general population.

·       Where a licensed premises was being used as temporary accommodation - this could lead to a rapid deterioration in mental condition leading to hospital admission.  

·       Concern regarding how preventing residents from buying alcohol would be managed

·       There was concern regarding the proximity of the garden to the local school - 4 minutes’ walk.

·       They did not support the application.

 

Moira Duell Pari (Environmental Health, Cyngor Gwynedd)

·     She accepted the need to expand the business, but it was a historical site for anti-social behaviour.

·       Drinking water - confirmation was required whether it would be served from a pipe or a bottle? 

·       There were toilets inside the hotel! 

·       Noise scheme - an e-mail had been received, however, more information was required.

·       More information was required about the PIR lighting when they were not in use

·       Was this an application for a licence over the summer only or throughout the year - details were needed

 

            Elizabeth Williams (North Wales Police)

·       It was necessary to ensure that drinking water was available

·       The site was part of the public house and therefore the right to refuse already existed. 

           

Everyone was thanked for their observations

 

dd)       Taking advantage of the right to conclude her case, the Licensing Manager noted:

·        That her concerns remained - insufficient control measures had been submitted

·        Although there were sufficient staff - there were several aspects to be controlled

 

Taking advantage of the right to conclude her case, the applicant's representative noted:

·     That the caravan was mobile and used for events - if planning permission was required then it was possible to submit an application

·     It would be possible to control the site well as a licence holder 

·     Too much alcohol would not be served

·     They would operate in accordance with the licensing objectives - would keep the area safe. 

 

e)             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 observations 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

 

Observations submitted which were irrelevant to the above objectives were disregarded.

RESOLVED: To refuse the application

Reason:  Insufficient regulation measures to comply with the licensing objectives  

 

Particular consideration was given to the following.

 

That nearby residents had objected the application by referring to anti-social behaviour issues that included the hotel's residents convening to drink. Reference was also made to the fact that the Police and the Ambulance Service were often called to the hotel and expressing concern that granting the licence would offer further temptation to the residents and would make the situation worse. ⁠However, the Sub-committee considered that the Police did not object to the application, but recommended CCTV conditions to the licence as a means of preventing the person(s) who insist on behaving in an anti-social manner and cause problems. 

 

⁠The Health Board's Public Health Service had objected the application on the grounds of the licensing objectives of public safety and the protection of children from harm. Their concerns were attributable to this specific premises due to the use made of the hotel building to accommodate homeless persons including persons discharged from Uned Hergest in Bangor. In their opinion providing alcohol would create a very challenging situation to those who left hospital with complex mental health requirements and problems relating to alcohol and/or other substances. Without a filtering process for the most vulnerable persons this could lead to an increase in harm while they were at the site, but this would be very difficult at the moment due to the level of need. The Sub-committee was of the opinion that these comments were significant. In terms of the concerns raised regarding the proximity of the premises to a school, the sub-committee did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to support this argument. 

 

The Public Protection Service, Pollution Control submitted comments objecting on the grounds of insufficient measures to control public nuisance. Complaints had been received regarding cooking odours and they had not responded to the concerns by the hearing date.  They also had concerns regarding toilet provision and drinking water as the hotel's facilities were not open to the public. More information was required about the type of lighting to be used on the site and that a noise management scheme was required to get to grips with any noise from customers. The Applicant explained that measures would be taken to prevent the odours from impeding neighbours including cooking off the site. It was explained that portable toilets would be used on the site. The Applicant admitted that people left litter including glasses on the site and getting a licence would be a means to control this.

 

The sub-committee understood the reasoning behind the application i.e. briefly, that getting a licence to sell alcohol on the site would be a means to prevent people from bringing alcohol from other places, as was currently the case, and to control the type of alcohol that would be consumed there.  However, it had to be borne in mind that the site was in private ownership and as the owner and licence holder the Applicant had a responsibility to manage the site responsibly and could already take measures to get to grips with problems if she so wished. 

 

Evidence demonstrated to the Sub-committee that the applicant did not currently do this and this caused them concern. The applicant's representative also noted that the business would only operate from the garden for specific hours and times of the year and therefore she could not get to grips with the problems outside those hours. In addition, it was noted that the food caravan had already been operating on the site and supplying alcohol under the TENS arrangements. 

 

The Sub-Committee considered the practicality of keeping the site under control as the Applicant intended while the caravan was in operation. The Sub-committee had not been persuaded that it would be possible to sufficiently manage the site taking into consideration the open and public nature of the site and the number of staff who would be present at any time. Neither would it be practical for staff to be able to identify all the hotel's temporary residents to differentiate them from other customers and to refuse serving them. It was evident to the Sub-committee from what everyone, including the Applicant had said, that issues already existed on the site.

 

Overall, the application intended to get to grips with these issues by getting a licence for the sale of alcohol with food in the garden from the caravan. However, the Sub-committee had not been persuaded that this would be sufficient in itself to control all the issues and that it was not practical to implement the control measures proposed. The specific use made of the hotel and the vulnerable nature of the residents meant that this could exacerbate the situation.  The sub-committee therefore resolved to refuse the application.

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.