Agenda item

Agenda item

Application for the Variation of a Premises Licence under The Licensing Act 2003 at The Queens Head, 20 Woburn Street, Ampthill, Beds

 

To determine an application for a variation to the premises licence for The Queens Head, 20 Woburn Street, Ampthill, made under the Licensing Act 2003, to which representations have been received.

Minutes:

 

The Chairman welcomed the attendees to the meeting.  He then introduced himself, the members of the Sub-Committee and the officers present.

 

The Chairman explained the meeting procedure.

 

The Licensing Officer then introduced a report by the Head of Public Protection which asked Members to determine an application from TQH Ampthill Ltd to vary the premises licence for The Queen’s Head, 20 Woburn Street, Ampthill, Beds.

 

There were no questions by the Sub-Committee in relation to the report and no points by the Licensing Officer requiring clarification.  The Applicant had no questions relating to the officer’s report.

 

The Applicant then set out the nature of the propose variation to the premises licence which would see an extension in both opening hours and some of the licensable activity allowed on the site.  The Applicant provided a description of the premises, referred to the five year length of service by the current Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and stated that the average age of the pub’s patrons was approximately 50, with some younger persons who were attracted by the safe atmosphere and sociability found there.

 

The Applicant explained that the application had been made because some regular patrons left before the pub’s current closing time of 11.00 p.m. to enjoy late drinking elsewhere.  By extending the opening hours these patrons could remain.  He added that although representations against the application had been received none had been forthcoming from any Responsible Authority such as the Police or Environmental Health.  Further, many of those making representations did so with regard to the application for the variation of the premises licence for the nearby White Hart and not specifically for The Queen’s Head

 

The Applicant stated that he had taken full account of the representations, especially those from Councillor Blair and suggested various additional conditions which could be introduced to meet residents’ concerns.

 

The Applicant stressed that the issue of noise was taken extremely seriously given that the DPS and his wife had an eight year old daughter and they had no wish to see her affected by this.  However, he also reminded the Sub-Committee that, under the Licensing Act 2003, the responsibility for a person’s behaviour beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises lay with the individual not the DPS.  The Council had no vicinity policy in place and the law was not a mechanism for the control of anti-social activity.  He concluded by stating that he was confident that the proposed variation to the premises licence would not cause undue concerns for local residents.

 

There were no questions from the Sub-Committee.

 

There were no Responsible Authorities present to speak on this application.

 

The Chairman invited any Interested Parties present to speak.  In response a local resident stated that The Queen’s Head lay within a residential area not an area of mixed use and there were houses occupied by families around the pub.  She also stated that, contrary to what had been claimed, there were existing issues relating to fighting, noise and underage drinking.  She referred in particular to noise disturbance arising from music, especially in the summer when the pub’s windows were open.  Further, there was no noise containment and the problem was made worse by the presence of benches to the front of the pub which were used by patrons.  She referred to the information/evidence contained in the letters of representation which had been submitted by other local residents.

 

The local resident stated that she believed the landlord did not wish to cause local residents difficulties but she was concerned that the pub could gain a difficult reputation as it attracted a different type of customer and, she feared, would remain unpoliced as the landlord would be too occupied serving his patrons to monitor and control what was happening outside the pub.

 

The Applicant had no questions.  He stressed that there was a mechanism for review if the conditions imposed on the operation of the pub were not followed.

 

Other Interested Parties were asked to comment.   A second local resident stated that the previous interested party had made the salient points.  She emphasised the disturbance that would be caused by the arrival of new drinkers and the late night departure of patrons.  Further, longer hours would encourage a culture of drinking.  A fine balance currently existed which local residents accepted but they were concerned that this balance would be upset should the proposal be approved.

 

The Sub-Committee had no questions.

 

The Applicant queried whether local residents had only experienced issues with The White Hart in the past.  In response the local resident stated that problems had also been experienced with The Queen’s Head.

 

The two ward Members in attendance were then invited to comment.  The first Member stated that The Queen’s Head had felt it necessary to apply for the variation because other premises, such as the No 4 Bar and Grill, had a late licence.  He also acknowledged that some pubs within Ampthill were losing customers and that The Queen’s Head was a local pub trying to retain its patrons.  He added, however, that the Sub-Committee’s decision would effectively decide the Council’s licensing policy towards the town centre.  The ward Member then reminded the meeting that the area was residential in nature with adults and children living nearby.  He referred to the major noise disturbance to local residents that would be caused, although he did not believe this would be generated by taxi use as customers left the pub.  He expressed his concern that there would be a return to the problems which had previously existed as a result of late night drinking.

 

The second ward Member referred to the presence of various restaurants, pubs, clubs and a hotel within residential areas of Ampthill and the mostly positive relationship that existed between them and local people.  However, he then referred to the brevity of the officer’s report regarding the application for The Queen’s Head and stated that, contrary to what was stated within the report, the locality around The Queen’s Head was not an area of mixed residential and business use but was almost totally residential in nature.  He also referred to the concerns already expressed by local residents that, following the reduction in noise and disturbance as a result of the closure of The White Hart in 2013 and the absence of a pub or club open after midnight, noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour were now increasing again as a result of the late opening hours awarded to a town centre bar.  He was pleased that The Queen’s Head had taken action to redress the concerns that had been expressed and he did not believe that the pub wished to add to the problems experienced with some drinkers but instead, had been driven to act by concern at the loss of its customers.  Nonetheless, the late availability of alcohol coupled with the availability of outside seating required control.  He therefore urged the Sub-Committee not to approve the application for the sake of both local residents and the pub itself.

 

There were no questions from either the Sub-Committee or the Applicant.  The Applicant suggested no further conditions for adoption.

 

The Chairman invited closing submissions from the applicant and interested parties.

 

In response the Applicant said that much the content of the representations received was not related to The Queen’s Head.  However, any concerns that did apply to the pub had been taken seriously and, as far as possible, action had been taken to meet these.  He added that a mechanism existed if any further action was felt necessary.

 

The two Ampthill residents stated that intoxicated patrons would not take notice of any signs that were erected asking them to behave responsibly and the pub itself required more staff to monitor any conditions that were imposed.  The first ward Member concurred with the importance of sufficient staff to monitor behaviour outside the pub.

 

The Applicant concluded by stating that he was fully aware that any conditions imposed by the Sub-Committee would need to be managed and it was the job of the licensee to do so.

 

The Sub-Committee adjourned to make its decision in private.  All attendees left the meeting room with the exception of the members of the Sub-Committee and the Legal Services Manager – Commercial who remained with Members to advise as necessary.  The hearing reconvened when the Sub-Committee had finished its deliberations and could announce its decision.

 

On behalf the Sub-Committee the Chairman announced the following:

 

Findings of Fact

 

·         No objections or representations were made by the Responsible Authorities

·         No evidence had been produced in support of the objections made to the application.

 

Decision

 

That, following consideration of the information before it, the Sub-Committee decided that the application for a variation to the premises licence should be granted as set out in the application and subject to the following additional conditions:

 

1             No entry to the premises after 23.00 hours;

2             Outside areas to be closed to drinkers and smokers at 23.00 hours;

3             Windows and doors will be closed at 23.00 hours and when regulated entertainment is taking place;

4             Notices will be posted in the outside area and to the exit to the premises asking customers to respect neighbours and leave quietly.

 

In coming to its decision the Sub-Committee took into account the following:

 

·         The Licensing Act 2003  (Section 18)

·         The Secretary of State’s Revised Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 in October 2014

·         Central Bedfordshire Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy

·         The merits of the application and the representations received.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

The reason for the Sub-Committee’s decision was as follows:

 

·         Prevention of Public Nuisance.

 

Irrelevant Representations

 

The Sub-Committee determined that there were no representations that were considered irrelevant.

 

Right of Appeal

 

The Legal Executive informed the hearing that if the Applicant was dissatisfied with this decision or the imposition of any condition or restriction he had the right of appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the date on which he was notified of the decision.

 

The Chairman took the opportunity to remind all parties that the police or others could ask for a review of the premises licence because of a matter arising at the premises with regard to any of the four Licensing Objectives.

 

The Chairman also reminded all parties that a failure to comply with the licence conditions was a criminal offence and was subject to an unlimited fine or six months in prison or both.

 

 

Supporting documents: