LICENSING AND REGULATORY
SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 2
RECORD OF
DECISION
(WHITE HORSE, 22
PILLORY STREET, NANTWICH)
8TH
JUNE 2007
Present:
Councillor C Waling (Chair)
Councillors E Ankers and A Crawford
Advisory Officers:
Ms R
Allen Assistant
Solicitor (Committee Advocate)
Mrs C M Jones
Democratic Services Committee Officer
Mr A C
Lee Legal
Adviser
In attendance:
Mr A
Evans Counsel
– representing The Spirit Group
Mr P
Crosby Assistant
Manager – White Horse
Ms D
McGill Business
Development Manager – The Spirit Group
Mr N
Kelly Environmental
Health
Ms S
Edge Environmental
Health
Mr
Atkin Representing
Mr Evans, an objector to the application
Mr D C
Dickinson Objector
to the application
12 ELECTION OF
CHAIR
RESOLVED: That
Councillor C Waling be elected Chair of the Sub-Committee.
13
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No Member made any declaration of interest in
the proceedings.
14
APPLICATION
The Sub-Committee considered the report of the
Executive Director (Environment and Development) which provided
details in respect of an application by The Spirit Group to vary
the current premises licence in respect of the White Horse public
house at 22 Pillory Street, Nantwich.
14.1
The application contained in the report proposed a variation to the
wording of the condition “the beer garden/outdoor drinking area
shall be closed to customers by 23.30 hours” as follows –
The beer garden/outdoor drinking area
shall be closed to customers consuming alcohol and food by 23.30
hours.
14.2 The
Legal Adviser outlined the application. It was noted that
Environmental Health had raised objections to the application.
There had been representations received from
occupants of properties in Barker Street and Love Lane all of whom
had objected to the application on the basis of the potential for
noise disturbance caused by patrons of the premises who would use
the outside area late at night, if the application were
granted.
The representations had been made under the
licensing objective of prevention of public
nuisance.
14.3 The
Sub-Committee was invited to determine the application having
regard to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the four
licensing objectives –
· The prevention of
crime and disorder
· Public safety
· The prevention of
public nuisance
· The protection of
children from harm
14.4
Mr A Evans, on behalf of the applicant, presented the
application.
The variation was being sought to enable
customers to smoke outside at all times when the premises were open
after the introduction of the smoke-free legislation on
1st July 2007.
The applicant’s view was that a high proportion
of the White Horse patrons, in common with patrons of other public
houses, were smokers and the proposals were a reasonable way of
discouraging large numbers of smokers from congregating on the
footway outside the front of the premises which would have
implications for road safety.
Mr Evans tabled an annotated plan showing the
outside area and the proposal to provide a small canopy for
protection from the rain and a small heater; these measures were
not intended to provide a comfortably lit area, which would
encourage socialising, but were intended for smokers only.
In response to questions from the Committee
Advocate and Mr N Kelly (Environmental Health), Mr Evans confirmed
that there would be a limit of 20 persons who would be allowed into
the beer garden, at any one time, after 11.30 pm and this would be
enforced at the discretion of the staff on duty, possibly by use of
a machine which would record the exit and entry of
patrons.
14.5
The applicant’s Counsel and the Assistant Manager were questioned
by the Committee Advocate, the Legal Adviser, local residents and
Members of the Sub-Committee, by way of clarification.
14.6
Objections
Mr Atkin (on behalf of Mr Evans, an objector)
and Mr Dickinson, objected to the application and cited the
following -
Ø The extended hours would
result in increased socialising in the “smoking area” with a
resultant increased noise nuisance.
Ø There were domestic dwellings
in close proximity, some of which overlooked the outside area, and
any extension of hours would lead to excess noise into the early
hours of the morning.
Ø Likelihood for noise to be
exacerbated as a result of the intoxication of some patrons.
Ø The noise disturbance
generated by the premises had been much-reduced since the
introduction of controls brought about by the conditions attached
to the premises licence under the Licensing Act and they expressed
concern that the improvements would be lost if the condition were
relaxed in the manner intended.
Mr Kelly (Environmental Health) gave evidence
of his concern for the potential for increased noise disturbance in
general, but also due to the break-out of sound from the single
door of the premises which was used for access to the beer
garden/outdoor drinking area.
He drew attention to the potential for
disturbance having regard to the close proximity of some domestic
premises which overlooked the outdoor area.
14.7
Mr A Evans responded to the objections.
14.8
The Committee Advocate summarised the key points which had emerged
during the hearing.
14.9 Mr A
Evans summarised the application.
14.10 The Sub-Committee,
together with the Legal Adviser, adjourned to
consider the application.
14.11 Having reached a
decision, the Sub-Committee re-convened the meeting and informed
the applicant’s representative, and those present of its
decision.
14.12 DECISION
RESOLVED:
That the application to vary the licence by the
amendment of the condition which required closure of the beer
garden/outdoor drinking area to customers by 23.30 hours to
“closure of the area to customers consuming alcohol and food by
23.30 hours” be refused.
14.13 REASONS FOR THE
DECISION
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the
residents of the neighbouring properties would be safeguarded from
additional noise disturbance if the use of the beer garden/outdoor
area was extended beyond the current time of 23.30 hours.
Accordingly, the application was refused on the ground of
prevention of public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee took into account evidence
given by the applicant that the smoking area within the beer garden
would be restricted in size and limited to no more than 20 persons
at a time, and the congestion and road safety issues which might
ensue as a result of customers smoking on the footway in front of
the premises if the application were refused.
On balance, the Sub-Committee concluded that
these considerations did not outweigh the reasons for the decision
to refuse to grant the variation of the licence.
The Sub-Committee also took into account –
Ø
The Council’s Licensing Policy and the Licensing Objectives
Ø
The report of the Executive Director (Environment and Development)
summarising
the application.
Ø
The application together with support given orally at the
hearing.
Ø
The written representations from local residents and Environmental
Health together with oral evidence at the hearing.
………………………………….Chair