The Firecat Country House, Camlan Uchaf, Mallwyd, SY20 9EP
To consider
the above application
Minutes:
APPLICATION TO VARY PREMISES LICENCE - FIRECAT COUNTRY HOUSE B&B,
CAMLAN UCHAF, MALLWYD
The panel and the officers
were introduced to everyone present. Councillor Annwen Daniels was
congratulated on her appointment as Vice-chair of the Council.
Everyone was reminded that the hearing that was held on 21.7.2016 had been postponed so that the Licensing
Sub-Committee could carry out a site
visit following objections to the application on the basis of the public’s safety. It was confirmed that Members of the Sub-Committee had visited the site on 28 July
2016 with the Licensing Officer.
On behalf of
the premises: Mr Robin Worgan
(applicant) and Amber Worgan
Local Member: Councillor
John Pughe Roberts
a)
The report and recommendation
of the Licensing Section
Submitted – the report of the Licensing Manager providing details of the application for a premises licence for The Firecat Country House Bed and Breakfast, Mallwyd in respect of supplying
alcohol, recorded music, live music, dance
performances, film and drama showings, any other entertainment
and the provision of late night refreshments.
The right was sought to supply alcohol and provide entertainment inside and outside
the premises until 01.00am,
seven days a week. It was explained
that the premises was run as a small
bed and breakfast hotel, with three
bedrooms let to guests.
The details of the proposed hours were brought
to attention, but it was noted that
circumstances had changed since submitting the application and that the application had been amended. It
was highlighted that an e-mail had been
received from the applicant confirming these amendments.
Measures recommended by the applicant to promote the licensing objectives (as part of the original application) were referred to, along with the responses that had been received during
the consultation period. It was noted that
the Local Member, the Community Council and nearby residents objected to licensed activities for non-residents. The objections were generally made on the grounds
of the licensing objectives
of Preventing Public Nuisance and the Public Safety.
It was noted that the Police did not object to the application and, following a visit to the site, it was noted
that the applicant had agreed to operate the Challenge 25 Policy. The Fire
Service did not object to the application,
but a recommendation had been given in
terms of total numbers which should
be allowed in the public rooms of the building.
The Environmental Health Officer had held discussions with the applicant to obtain more details about the application. The Officer’s observations and recommendations were referred to. The frequency of events had been discussed, and it was reported
that there were not enough details to determine whether the right precautions would likely be implemented to ensure that the licensing objective of Preventing Public Nuisance would not be undermined. It was highlighted that the Officer's suggestion would be to oppose the original application, but following further
discussions and amendments to the original application, it was confirmed that the Officer did not have any objections to the selling of alcohol and the provision of late night refreshments.
The correspondence that had been received from
the National Park was referred to (that had not been included in the report), where it was highlighted that planning permission
was needed for the business because over 50% of the bedrooms within the premises would be used for
letting puposes. It was reiterated that this was not a licensing issue and that the applicant
needed to discuss this further with
the Park.
Following amendments to the original application, the Licensing Manager highlighted, following discussions with the Licensing Officers and Environmental Health, that by
now, the applicant had decided to include alcohol and late night
refreshments only and that he/she wished to take
advantage of the exemptions
of the Live Music Act 2012 for showing films,
dance performances, live and recorded
music until 11pm only. Attention was drawn to the full details in
the report.
b)
In considering the application, the following procedure was followed:-
·
Members of the Sub-committee
and the applicant were given an
opportunity to ask questions to the Licensing Manager.
·
The applicant was invited to expand on the application.
·
Consultees were given an
opportunity to submit their observations
·
The licensee, or his 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 consultees.
c)
In expanding on the application, the applicant noted that he was happy
with what had been submitted and reiterated the following observations:
·
That his only intention was to offer a bottle
of wine to his guests with supper
·
That there would be less coming
and going from the site with
guests staying on-site
·
Discussions had been held with
the Police, the Fire Service and
the National Park
ch) Taking advantage of the right to speak, Councillor John Pugh Roberts (Local
Member and Mawddwy Community Council representative)
made the following comments:
·
That he was supportive of new ventures, but he
highlighted concern with licensing issues in a rural
area
·
That the property was within the National Park - a place
for people to have tranquillity
·
He opposed to the original application, but he had since
changed his mind following amendments to the application
·
The Community Council also supported the amended application
d)
In summarising his application, the applicant noted
·
That he accepted the comments
·
He highlighted that the residents provided their own alcohol, and if the licence were not permitted, this arrangement would continue
·
That it was intended to provide a picnic basket for residents
that would include a bottle of wine
·
Alcohol would be available for residents
only
·
That there would be more coming and going with
the selling of eggs next door
·
There were only three bedrooms
available to let so a maximum of six people
·
The intention to maybe prepare an
evening meal for the residents that used the nearby
holiday cottage
·
That the road to the site was as wide
as a highway
·
The hotel had been open for
12 months, and no issues had been
raised within this period.
dd) Members of the
Sub-committee discussed the amended application, considering all the evidence
submitted, and gave particular attention to the principles of the Licensing Act
2003, namely;
• Crime and Disorder
• Public Safety
• Preventing Public
Nuisance
• Protection of
Children from Harm
along with the guidelines of the Home Office and
the Council's licensing policy.
RESOLVED to permit the application in accordance with
the amended application
Consideration was given to comments from Councillor
John Pughe Roberts, Dinas Mawddwy Community Council,
Mr Boulton, Mr Negus and Mrs Clarke, that raised concern over the level of noise that was likely to arise from the premises, as well as their
effect on the National
Park, local people, livestock etc. Whilst the Sub-committee accepts that these comments
were made in trust and
that the noise could possibly be related to the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance, the Sub-committee was not satisfied with the evidence in front of them that the likely outcome of granting an alcohol and late night refreshments
licence would be a noise problem that would be subject to public nuisance. Specifically, no evidence was received about the expected level of noise, the number of noise events, frequency of those events, the duration of every event or the number
of people it would affect. Without
this objective data, it was impossible for the Sub-committee to say more likely or not that the licence, if it
was permitted, would lead to public nuisance. It was noted that the Environmental Health had raised concern about noise,
but that those were to be attributed to the original application in terms of entertainment. They did not derive from the alcohol and late night refreshments
part of the application, parts that Environmental Health could not object to. For these reasons, the Sub-committee did not consider that the application undermined the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance.
The Sub-committee also considered the comments referring to the condition of the
road that led to the premises, that they had benefited from visiting the site. They came
to the conclusion, however,
that in terms
of the intended purpose of
the premises - to sell wine to residents during meal times
or for a lunch box - that
there was barely any evidence that
the licence would lead to any significant
increase in traffic and any
concern in terms of public safety.
In the
circumstances, the Sub-committee
was satisfied that the licence granted was in accordance with
the licensing objectives.
The Solicitor reported that
the decision would be formally confirmed to everyone present by letter. He also
notified that they had the right to appeal the decision within 21 days of
receiving the letter.
Supporting documents: