Caffi Porthdinllaen, Lon Golff,
Morfa Nefyn LL53 6BE
To consider
the above application
Minutes:
The panel and the officers were introduced to everyone
that was present and it was announced that everyone had up to 5 minutes to
share their observations on the application.
On behalf of
the premises: Mr James Munday (applicant) and Mrs Wena P Williams
Others
invited: Mr
Ian Williams (North Wales Police)
Mr Peter Jones, Mrs Hazel Pielow, Mr T Gareth Gruffydd, Mr Idris Williams, Mrs Shan
Gruffydd, Mr Tony Connelly, Mrs Dolwen Williams
a)
The report and recommendation of the Licensing Section
Submitted – the report of the Licensing Manager giving
details of the application for a premises licence for Caffi
Porthdinllaen, Lôn Golff, Morfa Nefyn
in relation to the supply of alcohol on
and off the premises from midday until 11pm, every day, and to play recorded
music on the premises. A provision to deliver food orders off the premises will
be offered and ordering alcohol as part of the food order will be part of the
offer. It was highlighted that the premises was currently used as a café that
was open until late afternoon, with an outside area for customers.
Attention was drawn to the proposed hours in the
report. It was noted that the Licensing Authority had sufficient evidence for
the application to be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the
Licensing Act 2003 and the relevant regulations.
Reference was made to measures recommended by the applicant
to promote the licensing objectives along with the responses that were received
during the consultation period.
It was noted that 20 letters / e-mails had been
received, with 19 objecting to the application based on the licensing
objectives. Attention was drawn to the objections received from the Local
Member, Nefyn Town Council, and local residents in
the report. It was highlighted that some of the objections included concerns
about the parking provision, parking problems along the narrow road as well as
an increase in traffic. No response has been received from the Transportation
Unit to these concerns.
In response to comments about anti-social incidents
and noise concerns, it was noted that the Environmental Health and Safety
Service had neither received formal complaints regarding this nor complaints on
the impact of late night lighting and waste disposal. An Officer representing
the Police noted that no anti-social incidents had been recorded by them.
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 expanding on the
application, the applicant noted that he was happy with what had been submitted
and reiterated the following observations:
· There was no intention of opening the café /
restaurant any later than 9pm (specific events only)
· There was no intention of running the café /
restaurant as a public house - it was a restaurant with a family atmosphere
· The intention in applying for a licence was to offer
alcohol with food and for alcohol to be sold off premises with food orders only
· He had held discussions with an Senior Environmental
Health Officer and had agreed on six conditions that were recommended to
control noise
· There was no intention of having audio units outside
the premises
· A planning application had been submitted, which
included seven parking spaces and a turning area - the application had not been
approved, but the plan responded to national standards. (He also highlighted
that he had access rights to boundary fields should there be a need to extend).
· It was hoped that the Council would re-paint double
yellow lines on the road
· He had already discussed the food delivery system with
a Police Officer
· There was no intention of selling cheap wines and
operate as a licensed shop
· The premises, although it appeared to be a wooden hut,
had been insulated to the same standard as a normal house - he would be happy
for the Environmental Health Unit to monitor and check this
· Only recorded music would be played at the premises
· He had had a conversation with the Local Member to
discuss her concerns regarding the application.
Recent comments were presented and read by the Local
Member as a result of this discussion.
The noise conditions that were recommended by the
Senior Environmental Health Officer were read out by the Licensing Manager.
The consultees present at the meeting took advantage
of the opportunity to elaborate on their objections to approve the licence and
they reiterated the observations that had been submitted by letter.
·
Noise levels would rise
during special events
·
The road past the café was
narrow - concerns that there would be accidents
·
The nearby fields needed to
be drained before they could be used for parking
·
Needed to ensure that the
building complied with planning conditions, e.g. toilet provision
·
Needed to ensure that
customers would leave at 9:30pm without alcohol
·
Concern that noise would
carry from the decking area and outside toilets - the café boundary abutted
residents' houses
·
Too many places selling
alcohol in the village
·
Parking was a concern - it
was a very dangerous area. Which measures would be taken?
·
There was a need to be
sensible when considering noise concerns
ch) Letters received stating an objection to the application by
David and Hayley Slater, John Wainwright, Christine Archbell,
S. H. Hall, Virginia Kay, Jayne Burrell, Derek Hollinrake, Rogel
Ellwood, Andy Spencer, and Wyn and Bethan Hughes, were acknowledged
d)
A representative from the
Police noted that North Wales Police had no evidence that would enable the
refusal of the application. Since the café had come into existence (2007), no
complaint had been submitted. He noted that he had discussed the application
with Mr Munday and that suggestions and conditions
had been recommended. In terms of sending alcohol out with food, it was
highlighted that it would be possible for the Police to implement a test
purchase to ensure that Challenge 25 was being implemented. It was recommended
that the residents present noise pollution complaints so that it would be
possible to act on them.
dd)
In summarising his
application, the applicant highlighted his willingness to work with the local
community and the residents. He noted that he was attempting to improve and
adapt the café as a restaurant. He reiterated that he would be willing to work
with the Transportation Unit, and the Environmental Health Officer, should
noise complaints be submitted.
e)
In considering the
application, all the evidence submitted was considered, giving particular
attention to the principles of the Licensing Act 2003
• Crime and Disorder
• Public Safety
• Preventing Public Nuisance
• Protection of Children from Harm
RESOLVED to approve the application
1.
Supply of alcohol will be
permitted, to be consumed on and off the premises, from Monday to Sunday
between 09:00 and 23:00.
2. Recorded music will be permitted inside only, Monday
to Sunday, between 08:00 and 21:00.
3. Opening hours for the
public are from Monday to Sunday, between 08:00 and 23:30.
4. The issues included in section
M of the application were included as conditions on the licence.
5. To add a condition that
CCTV clips are kept for at least 28 days and are available at the request of
the Licensing Authority and the Police.
6.
To
add noise control conditions as suggested by the Environmental Health Officer
and agreed
7. To add a condition that the policy for spreading
customers at the end of a night is planned and adhered to
8. To add a condition that the
Police are informed within 14 days prior to holding a late night party on the
premises, i.e. after 21:00.
Specific consideration was
given to the following comments and concerns:
Anti-social behaviour
The written comments of the local member, Councillor Siân Hughes, were considered, stating that there had been
incidents of anti-social behaviour in the car park opposite to the premises in
the past. Concern was also expressed regarding an increase in anti-social
behaviour from Virginia Kay and Jayne Burrell.
Although the Sub-committee had accepted that there had
been incidents of anti-social behaviour in the past and that it could be
relevant to the licensing objective of preventing crime and disorder, no
details were received regarding dates, numbers, length or the source of the
incidents. With no information, it was not possible for the Sub-committee to
come to a conclusion whether the historical problems were sufficiently serious
that they represented a problem relating to crime and disorder that could be
attributed to the premises, and it was not a basis on which to anticipate an
increase in the problem should the licence be approved.
In accordance with the requirements of the Home
Office, the Sub-committee had to consider the comments from the Police before
coming to a conclusion whether a crime and disorder problem was likely to arise
should the licence be approved. The Police confirmed that they did not oppose
to the application as there was no history of anti-social behaviour involved
with the premises that was sufficiently serious that it represented a crime and
disorder problem. As a result, the Sub-committee was satisfied that the
application was in accordance with the licensing objectives of preventing crime
and disorder.
Noise problems
Concerns were expressed by a number of people that approving
the licence would mean an increase in noise - the hut's unsuitable design for
playing loud music, the noise of bottles, people and cars.
The Sub-committee accepted
that the noise concerns were appropriate ones and they could, in principle, be
relevant to the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance.
However, the Sub-committee was of the opinion that the
comments were hypothetical and there was no basis to past evidence that the
noise problems were tantamount to public nuisance. It was highlighted that, if
the noise problems were tantamount to public nuisance, the Sub-committee would
have expected Environmental Health to have received complaints.
The Sub-committee were advised by the Solicitor on
what was considered to be a public nuisance under law. (Public nuisance was not
tantamount to inconvenience. Public nuisance was defined as what happens as a
result of an act that was not permitted by law or a failure to complete a legal
duty, “...if the effect of the act or
omission is to endanger the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or
to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all Her
Majesty's subjects." Reference was made 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…” Reference was also made to R v Rimmingston
[2005] UKHL 63 about the “...requirement of common injury", i.e.
that a substantial proportion of the public must be affected. It not enough
that harm has been caused to specific individuals.
In these circumstances, the
Sub-committee was not satisfied with the quality of the evidence that the noise
problem deriving from the premises reached the legal definition of "public
nuisance".
Light pollution
The local member and Mrs
Burrell submitted concern that approving the application would lead to light
pollution.
It was acknowledged that light pollution could be
relevant to the objective of preventing public nuisance. However, no evidence
was received that additional lights would have a serious impact or have a
likely impact on public health.
Waste problem
The local member submitted
concern that approving the application would produce more waste.
As with noise and lighting, it was acknowledged that
waste could be relevant to the objective of preventing public nuisance.
However, without any evidence to hand of the likely levels of waste that would
be produced should the licence be approved, the Sub-committee was in no
situation to consider that refusing the licence would create further waste
problems.
Traffic / parking
Comments and concerns were submitted by the Town
Council, the local member, Mr and Mrs Gruffydd, Mr Wainwright, Mrs Archbell, Mrs Burrell, Derek Hollinrake, Hazel Pielow and Andy Spencer that approving the licence would
lead to an increase in traffic and a need for parking that would pose a risk to
public safety.
It was accepted that these
concerns were relevant to the licensing objective of protecting public safety.
However, the Sub-committee was not convinced that there was evidence of a
significant increase in traffic to or from the premises as a result of
approving the licence. It was noted that no comments were submitted by the
Police or Gwynedd council Highways Department expressing concern for road
safety. As a result, the Sub-committee was satisfied that the application would
not cause harm to public safety.
Protection of children from
harm
Mrs Burrell presented
comments expressing concern that changing the premises from being a
family-oriented café to a premise that sold alcohol would be harmful to
children. The Sub-committee did not agree with this statement as it was very
common by now for public houses and other licensed places to be open for
families, including children. The Sub-committee was satisfied that the
applicant intended to take appropriate steps that would safeguard children from
any harm, e.g. prevent under-age drinking through the 'Challenge 25' policy.
Irrelevant matters - Some comments / concerns
were disregarded on the grounds that they were irrelevant to the licensing
objectives.
Various concerns were raised regarding the building's
planning status. It was noted that the original permission for the café had
been earmarked for an individual; with a condition that the building be
demolished and restored for agricultural use when the individual vacated the
building. It was also noted that the proposed opening times were longer than
the seasonal hours, from April to October, which had been approved in the
planning permission. It was also noted that the toilet was outside the main
building. It was highlighted that these were planning matters and therefore
irrelevant to the licensing objectives.
The comment that there was sufficient provision of
licensed activities in the area was also disregarded. It was highlighted that
the Licensing Act 2003 noted that local provision was not a relevant
consideration under alcohol and entertainment licensing law. Concern was
expressed that approving the licence would lead to a reduction in the prices of
nearby property - this was not a relevant matter to any of the licensing
objectives and the comment was disregarded.
The Sub-committee was satisfied that the application
was in accordance with the licensing objectives and it was resolved to approve
the licence.
It was noted that the
licence was approved under the Licensing Act 2003 and the applicant would need
to make an application to amend the planning permission for the premises in
order to use it outside the hours approved under planning conditions.
Supporting documents: