THE OLD
MARKET HALL, STRYD Y PLAS, CAERNARFON
To consider
the above application
Minutes:
1.
APPLICATION TO VARY A PREMISES LICENCE – THE OLD MARKET HALL, PALACE
STREET, CAERNARFON
The panel and the
officers were introduced to everyone present. It was announced that everybody
had up to 10 minutes to submit direct observations on the application.
On behalf
of the premises: Mr David Williams (applicant) and
Mr Edward Grant (Capita PLC – the applicant's agent)
Others in attendance: Corrina Favento, Mandy
Mathews and Cliff Roberts (nearby residents); Moira Duell-Parri (Environmental
Health Officer)
The report and
recommendation of the Licensing Department.
a) Submitted – the report of the Licensing
Manager providing details of the application to vary a premises licence for The
Old Market Hall, Palace Street, Caernarfon. It was highlighted that the
application form noted that the nature of the establishment had changed since
the business opened in July 2014 and that the premises had held several events
under the Temporary Event Notice procedure. The nature of the proposed
variation was to extend the licensable activities to include all kinds of
regulated entertainment, to extend the hours for the sale of alcohol and to
provide late night refreshments. Reference was made to the table that detailed
the variation. It was noted that the applicant had included the appropriate
steps to promote the four licensing objectives as part of the application.
Following a consultation period, it
was noted that the Fire and Rescue Service had no observations on the application.
North Wales Police and the Environmental Health Service did not object to the
application, but they had proposed specific conditions to be imposed on the
licence. It was reported that the Licensing Authority had received confirmation
from the applicant that he accepted these conditions and wished to impose them
on the licence. Three objections to the
application had been received from local residents based on the licensing
objective of Preventing Public Nuisance. One objector had suggested that the
notice of the application had not been displayed in an obvious place, but the
Licensing Authority was satisfied that the notice met the relevant regulations.
One letter of support had also been received from Caernarfon Town Council.
In response to a question regarding
the opening times of nearby establishments, the Licensing Manager noted that
the licensing hours of nearby establishments varied, with a range of alcohol
sales until 1am; playing music until 1am and closing hours up to 2am.
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 of 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 elaborating on the
application, the agent, on behalf of the applicant, noted that he was happy
with what had been submitted and reiterated the following observations:
·
The property was managed responsibly
·
The intention was to
minimise any concerns from local residents and they accepted the objectors'
observations and concerns
·
The business offered
hospitality and entertainment
·
The premises closed to the
public at 12:30am and that everyone left via the Palace Street doors
·
Sound insulation had
already been installed
·
CCTV had been installed (at
the Police's request) with the Police's cooperation.
·
It was intended to
collaborate with a local registered company to provide door supervisors
·
Capita would provide
additional training
·
Challenge 21 and Challenge
25 would be supported
·
The applicant was willing
to collaborate with the Licensing Department
In response to a question it was noted that one
noise complaint had been submitted and had since been solved by installing
sound insulation and as a result the complaint had been withdrawn. It was
reiterated that the applicant had adhered to the licensing objectives and had
completed the one-year probationary period.
In response to a question regarding the entrance
/ exit to Hole in the Wall Street, it was confirmed that these doors were only
used as a fire exit, with three entrances / exits to Palace Street.
ch) A letter received from
Rita and Brian Geary that objected to the application was
acknowledged
d)
Taking advantage of the
right to speak, Mandy Matthews, a local resident who lived opposite the
premises, noted that she objected to application based on noise. She had no objection
to the development and she supported the enterprise by a local person. She
confirmed that she had not made an official complaint about noise and she had
no evidence that all of the noise was coming from the premises in question. It
was also noted that she had agreed to a mediation meeting.
It was highlighted that the noise, during
specific events, affected her way of life, as she got up early in the morning
to go to work. It was added that the noise of live bands at night was too loud
- the noise carried through the doors of the premises’ toilets and through
windows above the building. Reference was made to one occasion where the noise
had continued until 00:40am, but she had not complained to the Police or the
applicant. It was noted that they did not have double glazed windows on their
property and therefore the impact of the noise was louder. She requested
assurance that there would be no unnecessary noise and suggested playing music
until 11:45pm in accordance with nearby premises.
(dd) In response to the
observation about a mediation meeting, the Licensing Manager noted that a
request for a mediation meeting had been issued to all parties once the
applicant had received the conditions of the Police and Environmental Health.
It was highlighted that EVERY party had not been satisfied with a mediation
meeting and therefore a decision was made to progress with a hearing.
e) A letter received from Mr Harry Matthews that objected
to the application was acknowledged.
f)
A letter of support
received from Caernarfon Town Council was acknowledged.
ff) Corrina Faventa, the owner of a restaurant adjoining the premises
was given the opportunity to share her observations, although she had not
submitted written observations within the consultation period. The Chair noted
that Ms Faventa had direct contact with the premises. The applicant and the agent had no objection
to this.
It was noted that Ms Faventa had made an official complaint to
the Environmental Health Department regarding noise one night in November 2015.
She highlighted that a number of customers in the restaurant had complained
about the noise and that some had left. The observations were shared with the
applicant and although he had not been able to postpone the entertainment on
the night, he made improvements to the premises to reduce noise. The complaint
was withdrawn. As the restaurant had been closed during the winter, there was
no evidence that the improvements had been successful.
g) Taking advantage of the right to speak, Moira Ann Duell-Parri,
the Environmental Health Officer, noted that the department had received two
complaints and one of those had been withdrawn. The premises of the other
complainant had been visited on 22 February 2016. It was reported that no noise
could be heard on the night, but it was noted that the double-glazed windows
had been closed and perhaps it would be different in the Summer (with the
windows open). It was reported that light could be seen from the Old Market
Hall which revealed that the noise insulation was not effective. The officer's
willingness to advise the applicant on how to improve the situation was
highlighted. It was also reported that the details about the noise insulation
work had not been confirmed.
In response to the observation, the Chair noted
that the applicant had agreed to the Environmental Health Department's
conditions and the applicant was encouraged to collaborate with the officer to
improve the situation.
ng) A letter received from
North Wales Police was acknowledged and attention was drawn to the conditions
listed in the letter
i) In summarising his application, the agent, on behalf
of the applicant, noted that he accepted the observations and accepted the
conditions of the Police and Environmental Health. He confirmed their
willingness to collaborate with neighbours and the community and would continue
with their investment to try to improve the premises as the business developed.
He was thankful for the support and the advice was welcomed. It was confirmed
that there was no pattern to the noise and it was not constant. A request was
made for the wording, 'fire risk assessment', to be removed from the premises
licence as it was addressed by separate Legislation.
The applicant detailed on his willingness to
collaborate and listen to his neighbours' observations. He would also be
willing to collaborate with the Environmental Health Officer and was open to
ideas to reduce noise.
DECISION
Following consideration of
the application and those observations that were relevant to the principles of
the Licensing Act 2003, the Sub-committee decided to approve the application.
The licence was varied as follows:
1. Supply of alcohol will be permitted, on and off the premises, from Monday
to Sunday, between 09:00 and 00:00.
2.
Licensable
activities A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H from the licensing application form will
be permitted from Monday to Sunday, between 09:00 and 00:00.
3.
The provision of late night
refreshments will be permitted, from Monday to Sunday between 23:00 and 00:00.
4. The opening hours of the premises are Monday to Sunday, between 08:00
and 00:30.
5. Add the noise management conditions recommended by the
Environmental Health Unit to the licence.
6. Add the CCTV conditions recommended by the Police to
the licence.
7.
Remove the
"fire risk assessment" condition from the licence.
In making its decision, the
Sub-committee took the following matters into consideration:
1. That the applicant is willing for the conditions recommended by Environmental
Health and the Police to be added to the licence.
2. That the applicant has asked for the fire risk
assessment condition to be removed from the current licence as the fire
requirements were met by separate legislation, and therefore the condition was
unnecessary.
3.
The relevant
observations of the parties who had submitted observations in advance, along
with the observation of the owner of Stones Bistro, Hole in the Wall Street,
were taken into consideration, provided that the observations were relevant to
one or more of the licensing objectives.
4.
Specifically, the
observations made by Mr and Mrs Geary, Ms Mandy Matthews and Mr Harry Matthews
raising concerns about noise emanating from the premises during events, were
considered. Although the Sub-committee accepted that noise could be relevant to
the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance, the Sub-committee was
not convinced, based on the evidence received, that there was a noise problem
with this premises that could be described as a public nuisance. No evidence
was received of the dates of the events, the level of noise during those
events, the number of noise events, nor how many people were affected. Only two
complaints were submitted to the Environmental Health Unit (and one had been withdrawn)
and the Sub-committee did not consider that to be sufficient evidence of public
nuisance.
5.
The Sub-committee was
advised on what was considered to be a public nuisance under law. The
Sub-committee made reference to the case of the National Coal Board v Thorne
[1976] 1 WLR 543: “a public nuisance [is]
an act or omission which materially affects the material comfort and quality of
life…” The members also made reference to R v Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63
about the "requirement of common
injury", i.e. a substantial proportion of the public must be affected.
It is not enough that harm has been caused to specific individuals.
6.
In these circumstances, the
Sub-committee was not satisfied that the noise problem deriving from the
premises should be considered - as a legal matter - as a public nuisance.
The Sub-committee was
satisfied that the application was in accordance with the licensing objectives.
• Crime and Disorder
• Public Safety
• Preventing Public Nuisance
• Protection of Children from Harm
The
Solicitor reported that the decision would be confirmed formally by a letter
sent to everyone present. He also notified them of their right to appeal the
decision within 21 days of receiving the letter.
Supporting documents: