Agenda item

Becws Melyn, 41 B Stryd Fawr,  Llanberis LL55 4EU

 

To consider the application

DECISION: REFUSE

 

Reason: Lack of control to comply with the licensing objectives

 

 

·       Sarah Hopwood          Applicant 

·       Heather Jones               Llanberis Community Council 

·       Arwel Huw Thomas    Cyngor Gwynedd Planning Service  

·       Moira Duell Pari          Environmental Health, Cyngor Gwynedd 

 

Apologies were received from Jen Owen (a local resident who had submitted observations) and Elizabeth Williams (Licensing Officer, North Wales Police who had lost connection due to technical issues. ⁠ 

a)    Submitted – the report of the Licensing Manager giving details of the application to vary the premises licence of Becws Melyn, 41 B High Street, Llanberis. It was explained that Becws Melyn operated as a restaurant and small bar, with drinks served with food. The applicant was of the view that an extension to the opening time would be beneficial, and that the business had been licensed for a year and had been successfully managed over the summer without any issues. Alcohol sales were limited and therefore there was no potential for noise or unruly behaviour. 

Permission was sought to extend the sale of alcohol to commence at 09:00am instead of 12pm, and to extend the opening hours from 22:00 at night to 00:00 on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. Permission was also sought to extend the hours of live and recorded music on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights until 00:00.   

It was highlighted that the application's consultation period was extended to 13 August because it had not been advertised correctly, but it was confirmed that the Licensing Authority was satisfied that the application was advertised in line with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003 and the relevant regulations and was therefore valid.

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

·       Llanberis Community Council objected the application as noise complaints had been received following one of the evenings held at the premises. It was also noted that noise carried when the front doors of the restaurant were open.

·       The Planning Service highlighted that an amended Planning consent permitted the premises to be open between 8:00 and 23:30, but the application to vary the licence went beyond those hours on four nights. It was also noted that the enforcement service had received complaints about noise. 

·       Nearby residents objected and they had highlighted their concerns, mainly in relation to the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder and a lack of confidence in the business owner's ability to control noise and anti-social behaviour at the premises.

·       The Public Protection Service had received complaints about noise disruption and the business was not adhering to the hours on the Planning consent. Highlighting a concern that insufficient information had been received from the applicant historically or presently on how they intended to operate to ensure that management measures and actions were in place to ensure that the licensing objectives were realised.

·       Although North Wales Police did not oppose the application as the proposed hours were no later than other licensed premises in the area, a comment was received that the Police had received a report regarding a music noise complaint following an incident in the premises on 31/5/24 that went on until the early hours of the morning; and disruption as people were standing outside the premises drinking.    ⁠ 

The Licensing Authority recommended that the Sub-committee should consider the evidence of a lack of control seen at the premises to date and refuse the application.  ⁠

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/her representative to be given the opportunity to summarise their case.

 ⁠ ⁠ ⁠

c)     Elaborating on the application, the applicant noted:

·       That the restaurant was small and sold tapas in the evening - used Welsh produce served with a drink - it was a comfortable area with a warm atmosphere 

·       The business was approximately 90% restaurant and 10% evening activities

·       That closing at 22:00 appeared to be early and it was a shame to have to close with customers wanting to stay - therefore there was an application to consider an extension up to 22:30.

·       That other eating places in the village were open until 23:00.

·       She apologised for the noise from the party held at the end of May 2024. Following hard work and the success of the business there was an opportunity to celebrate with the local community. It was one incident and there had been no trouble since then. She was not aware that complaints had been submitted. There had been a private party for staff from 22:00 onwards on the night with approximately 15 people - this had been a mistake and should not have happened.

·       She was unaware of other noise complaints until a letter had been received from the Council. A meeting was held to discuss noise mitigation measures, but food and planning issues were discussed and no details about noise complaints had been received. Again, she was unaware of the complaints of customers in the patio area - again she apologised for this

·       Since the first day, the business had been advertised as a restaurant/bar.

·       That events held in the premises included food evenings, Welsh language groups, antenatal classes etc.   

·       The owner felt frustrated that the issues / noise complaints could not be discussed with neighbours - it was possible to mitigate noise and reduce the impact. The situation could be resolved with key issues 

·       Noise measuring equipment was available and ready to share noise levels with the Licensing Service 

·       She did not want to create noise problems for neighbours 

·       She wished that the concerns had been shared with her

 

In response to the observations, the owner was thanked for her honest admission of not being aware of the noise concerns and for apologising, however, it was considered that the restaurant, during the day was a positive attraction but was a noisy bar at night. Therefore, how would she control the situation?

 

The applicant noted that her nearest neighbours had submitted complaints but she was not aware of those complaints. Should the information have been shared with her she would have responded by closing the doors, closing the windows and clearing the patio area. She would have wished to have an open discussion to resolve the issues / concerns. She added that customers from the social club tended to create noise when they came up from the club to the high street, and this was more or less opposite the restaurant / bar.  She would not permit access to those customers.

 

In response to a question regarding how many staff worked in the restaurant / bar and a description of the premises, the applicant noted that the restaurant / bar would be open throughout the year and received support from local people. It was explained that there was a small room upstairs where up to eight people could sit. There were no beer taps in the bar. If she had to close the restaurant / bar at night then the business would not succeed.

 

In the context of access to the premises, it was noted that the ramp to the premises was used as a patio area, however it was possible to gain access for prams /wheelchairs via the back door of the premises that was on street level. 

 

ch) The consultee in attendance took the opportunity to expand on the observations that had been submitted in writing by them.

Moira Duell Pari (Environmental Health, Cyngor Gwynedd)

A video was shared of some incidents that highlighted the noise from the premises (outside opening hours)

·       That complaints had been received regarding the party held on 31-05-24.  Although it was mainly a party for staff only, it had been announced on social media.

·       That complaints involving licensing, planning and public protection had come to hand and a letter had been sent to the applicant on 06-06-24 drawing attention to the complaints. Although the applicant accepted the blame, she had not responded.

·       ⁠A meeting had been arranged with the licence holder and the manager of the restaurant / bar where issues were discussed and information had been shared about people convening outside the premises and raising their voices. The response to this had been disappointing.

·       Misuse of acoustic / amplified music - they had to behave responsibly and a robust management structure was required.

·       As a business person, it was expected that consideration should be given to behaviour and responding responsibly.

 

Arwel Huw Thomas (Cyngor Gwynedd Planning Service)

·       The Planning Service objected to the application. Planning consent permitted the premises to be open between 8:00 and 23:30 at night. Although the opening hours for the public (playing of live and recorded music and the sale of alcohol from Monday to Wednesday) in accordance with the opening restrictions for the premises, extending the hours to midnight between Thursday and Sunday was contrary to the restriction. Permitting the licence to be amended would be contrary to the planning permission that already exists for the premises.

·       The Planning Enforcement Unit had received complaints about unacceptable noise levels emanating from the premises in the past, and it was considered that permitting the licence hours would only further highlight this. A complaint had been submitted highlighting that loud music had been played during the early hours of the morning on 1 June 2024.

·       These observations were material Planning considerations and proposals are refused if they have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of local residents. 

·       Should the hours be extended it would be necessary to re-assess via the Planning procedures and against the Council's Planning policies that would be subject to a new planning application.

 

Heather Jones (Llanberis Community Council)⁠

·       That noise complaints had been received in the area of the premises

·       They objected on the grounds of a lack of compliance (31-05-24 incident)

·     Although they encouraged businesses on the high street and welcomed the restaurant and its use for community events they had to ensure a balance - too much noise emanated from the premises at night

·     It was accepted that noise also came from the social club, but was worried about the impact of noise on residents living between Becws Melyn and the Social Club.

Everyone was thanked for their observations. 

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

·     She welcomed a new, successful business but was not convinced that there was effective management of the site.

 

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

·     That she was ready to show that she could manage the premises well and respond to the Planning observations

·     A request for the Members to consider an additional half hour - up to 22:30.

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, the written observations submitted by the interested parties, the Licensing Officer’s report together with the verbal comments of every party present 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 

Reason:  Insufficient regulation measures to comply with the licensing objectives  

Particular consideration was given to the following.

The comments and objections received related to the licensing objective of Prevention of Public Nuisance. No objection was submitted from the Police as the proposed hours were no later than other licensed premises in the area. Nevertheless, it was explained that they received a music noise complaint following an event at the premises on 31/5/24, which went on until the early hours of the morning; and disturbance because people were standing drinking outside the premises. The Public Protection Service explained that the premises was in a noise-sensitive location, and that the hours restriction on the Planning consent had been set as the Local Planning Authority considered that noise nuisance and disturbance needed to be controlled. 

Complaints had been received following a party to celebrate the business's birthday on 31/05/24 as well as noise complaints for other nights in 2023 and 2024. Videos taken as evidence by nearby residents were shown. In presenting their comments, the Planning Service also noted that they had also received complaints about noise. The Service explained that a meeting had been held with the Applicant on 07/08/24 to discuss noise control, but they did not feel that their concerns had received the attention expected and that the Applicant had not taken ownership of the issue.  Nevertheless, they also felt that the Applicant should have realised that there were issues with the premises and they had written to her. They believed that the applicant had not provided sufficient information historically or with the current application on how they intended to set management measures and actions to ensure that the licensing objectives were realised.

The sub-committee considered the Applicant's comments including the explanation that she was not aware that there were so many complaints made and she believed that only one event on 31/05/24 was the issue. However, they were of the view that better control should be kept at the premises especially given that the premises was in a noise-sensitive area. The Sub-committee appreciated that the Applicant had admitted that she was wrong and apologised for the incidents; and she acknowledged that there was a need to improve the management of the premises. They also appreciated that she had offered in the hearing to take noise control measures by e.g., reducing the hours, ensure that the door as closed and have a noise meter to ensure that the noise did not reach unacceptable levels. However, these conditions and amendments had not been included in the application and neither had they been submitted and discussed with officers prior to the hearing.

In such a case, where there were many concerns expressed, the Sub-committee needed observations from the professional officers after they had been given an opportunity to evaluate them thoroughly and discuss them further with the applicant, if necessary.  ⁠It was also noted that the Applicant had not reported on the levels measured by her noise meter and this reinforced the impression that sufficient attention had not been given to the matter. It was not possible for the Sub-committee to satisfy itself that what was being proposed was sufficient to get to grips with the concerns regarding the application. 

There was clear evidence of noise issues from the premises and the Sub-committee was not satisfied that the Applicant was currently taking sufficient action to control the problem.  The Sub-committee would need to be satisfied that any variations to the existing licence would be reasonable in terms of the proposed hours and that there were suitable and sufficient conditions implemented to address the noise issue. For these reasons, the Sub-committee could not approve the application either on the grounds of the hours submitted in the application or a reduction in the additional hours proposed by the applicant in the hearing.

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.