To determine an application for a variation to the premises licence for The White Hart, 125 Dunstable Street, Ampthill, made under the Licensing Act 2003, to which representations have been received.

 

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 Punch Taverns plc to vary the premises licence for The White Hart, 125 Dunstable 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’s solicitor had no questions relating to the officer’s report.

 

The Applicant’s solicitor introduced the application for consideration.  He reminded the meeting that in 2013 the premises licence for The White Hart had been reviewed following ongoing problems arising from the late night operation of the pub at that time.  The solicitor stated that he felt the Council’s decision to amend the premises licence to prevent late night operations and restrict certain activities had been correct.  The tenancy had subsequently been terminated by Punch Taverns and the premises closed.  He stressed that Punch Taverns, as the landlord, had not supported the previous tenant’s actions.

 

The Applicant’s solicitor then stated that the premises had been closed for approximately two years at a cost in lost revenue of £300,000 and a further cost of £20,000 to secure it.  Although Punch Taverns could have appointed temporary tenants the company wanted a ‘cooling off’ period and the ability to appoint new tenants who would represent how much The White Hart had changed.

 

The Applicant’s solicitor then briefly described the nature of the proposed variation as set out within Appendix B to the officer’s report.  He added that the application did not include an attempt to vary the hours of regulated entertainment although a further application could be submitted in the future if there was a proven need.

 

The Applicant’s solicitor referred to the information supplied through Oakman Inns and Restaurants relating to the development of The White Hart as a pub, restaurant and hotel and of Oakman’s approach to the development of its properties.  He drew Members’ attention to the shortlisting of company in three categories in the Publican Awards 2015.  The solicitor also referred to the successful development of the Kings Arms in Berkhamsted, a similar premises to that as The White Hart, which operated on approximately the same basis as that proposed for The White Hart.  He stated that the development of The White Hart was an example of the commitment of Punch Taverns and Oakmans and their willingness to invest in Ampthill. 

 

The Applicant’s solicitor stated that there would be occasional functions and these would not be held every week.  The bar was the first stage of the premises’ development and would be community focused.  The hotel element fell within the second stage.  He stated that the proposed extension to the opening hours was an attempt to retain patrons at The White Hart so they did not have to leave to continue drinking elsewhere rather than an attempt to encourage new customers to continue their drinking at The White Hart.

 

The Applicant’s solicitor referred to the residents’ meeting which had been held the previous week and how the Applicant had given consideration to what could and could not be done.  Within the representations received there had been general support for reopening The White Hart but there had also been concerns relating to the impact on Ampthill and the possibility of the pub reverting back to its previous poor standards.  The Applicant’s solicitor also referred to the large numbers of supporters for the proposal both in person and on social media.  As an example of commitment to the locality he informed the Sub-Committee that the new Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) had purchased a home in Ampthill and her partner was a chef at the restaurant.

 

There were no questions from the Sub-Committee.

 

Any Interested Parties present were asked to speak if they wished.  In response a local resident referred to how, previously, late licenses had led to crime and noise.  However, the Applicant was now stating that late drinking was business critical despite there being no evidence in support of this claim.  What was certain was that the more drink that was sold the more profits were made and the more drunken behaviour there was.  She stated, furthermore, that the company had a history of misconduct and that the grant of a late licence for The White Hart would attract and concentrate the drinkers from other pubs at the premises. 

 

The local resident stated that, however well managed the pub was internally, the noise generated by the pub would travel externally.  She referred to a report which had originally been submitted to the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 22 January 2013.  The report was by the Council’s Technical Officer in the Public Protection Team and a copy had been attached as an appendix to a letter from an objector to the current application.  The resident drew the meeting’s attention to the officer’s reference to the excessive noise levels and the disturbance caused to local residents.  In support the resident reminded the Sub-Committee of the decision by The Hide in Woburn Street not to serve beyond 11.00 p.m. because it recognised the negative implications of late drinking.  The local resident also referred to the proposed removal of existing conditions regarding the closing of doors and windows despite these being good noise prevention measures.

 

With regard to the development of The King’s Arms in Berkhamsted the local resident commented that Berkhamstead was a bigger town with a more commercial high street. 

 

The local resident next referred to the movement generated by the use of the outside overflow bar and the smoking area, both of which would generate noise which would impact on Dunstable Street and Woburn Street.  She urged that the Sub-Committee refuse the application because of the late night disturbance that would be caused.

 

Discussion followed on late night entertainment and access to, and use of, the second bar.  In response the Applicant’s solicitor stated that there would only be regulated entertainment for events and not permanently.  He emphasised that there was no intention to return to the poor standards experienced under the previous tenant and the Applicant had a genuine obligation to mitigate any negative impact on the local community.  Despite this, however, the local resident reiterated that noise emanating from the outside area would not only impact on Dunstable Street but would also be funnelled up Woburn Street.

 

The Applicant’s solicitor stated that he understood the concern regarding noise emanating from the outside garden area but stated that the licence holder would ensure patrons were inside the pub from 11.00 p.m. with the exception of smokers in the smoking area.  The Chairman suggested an additional condition requiring the closure of the garden area from 11.00 p.m. apart from the designated smoking area.

 

The Applicant’s solicitor stated that the courtyard area was part of the designated smoking area and would have to remain available.  Given its mixed use the Chairman queried how the Applicant could meet the obligations proposed whilst retaining a designated smoking area.  In response the Applicant’s solicitor suggested that, after 11.00 p.m., patrons could not take drinks outside.

 

The Chairman referred to the absence of comments on the application from any Responsible Authority and expressed concern at this given the history of the premises.

 

A ward Member stated that he had been pleased on hearing that Oakman’s was to take over the running of The White Hart as the building was a wasted asset and a local landmark despite its recent history.  However, he warned of the late night drinking culture in Ampthill which had the aim of drinking for as long and as much as possible.  He then referred to the content of the report of the Head of Public Protection parts of which he felt to be misleading. In particular he referred to the statement that there was ‘some residential property’ within the nearby surroundings to the pub when there were actually 78 houses and flats  with 150 residents within 100 metres of the premises and this represented a density higher than most housing estates.  He commented that contrary to the claim within the report that the nearest ‘on’ licensed premises were over 100 metres from the premises he stated that both The Hide and the No 4 Bar and Grill were between 30-40 metres away and The Queen’s Head no more than 100 metres distant.

 

The ward Member went on to comment that a period of calm had existed in the town centre following the closure of The White Hart and the absence of other premises operating after midnight.  However, the problems associated with late night drinking were now reoccurring because late night opening had been permitted at other premises.

 

Whilst the ward Member acknowledged that Oakman’s would introduce measures to prevent problems reoccurring he felt that, however well intentioned, there would still be trouble as a result of late night drinking.  As a result ordinary patrons would be discouraged by the anti-social behaviour of other customers and Oakman’s reputation would suffer as a result.  He added that he had no objection to resident’s of the proposed White Hart hotel taking advantage of later drinking hours.

 

In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the opening of a hotel within The White Hart the Operations Director for Oakman Inns and Restaurants replied that work was being undertaken to replace and upgrade fittings and furniture in the building but that, at the moment, the premises provided a short term live-in facility for staff.  However, should trade go well and demand existed then hotel accommodation would be quickly introduced.  He added that there was no set timescale for this.

 

The second ward Member then spoke on the application.  He reminded the meeting of the how The White Hart had deteriorated rapidly under the previous landlord.  The ward Member then stated that all pubs traded well in Ampthill and demand for alcohol was such that Waitrose, the local supermarket, had expanded its product range to meet this.  Whilst he welcomed the proposals he was concerned that there would be a rapid decline in the situation with the queuing of taxis down Dunstable Street, general noise generation and traffic disturbance.

 

The ward Member stated that the Applicant was entering into an area that would surprise him with its high level of demand for alcoholic drinks.  He asked the Sub-Committee to examine the introduction of age restrictions, the closing of the barrier gates outside the premises to minimise noise as these acted as an attraction to young people.  He concluded by stating his concern that late drinking would have a detrimental impact on both local residents and businesses.  In response the Applicant’s solicitor explained that the barrier gates had been removed.

 

There were no other representations from Interested Parties.

 

The Chairman asked if the Applicant wished to modify or withdraw the application in any way.  In response the Applicant’s solicitor stressed that the ability to provide late night refreshment was business critical and this had was based on previous experience.  However, he stated that, as an operational promise and even if not strictly required, windows and doors would be shut for the periods of regulated entertainment.  He acknowledged that other premises had similar late night refreshment hours and he was aware of the difficulties that had arisen.  However, he commented that the prices to be charged for alcoholic drinks would be set at such a level that they would be too expensive to encourage binge drinking.  With regard to the possible introduction of age restrictions he explained that to do so would have a detrimental effect because the aim was to encourage families to return to The White Hart and confirm its status as a community pub.

 

The Applicant’s solicitor referred to various factors which he felt the Sub-Committee should consider in determining the application whilst, at the same time, stressing that the new White Hart would be operated as a community business and should problems arise then they would be managed.  He emphasised that the pub would not be a destination for young people and would not encourage the migration of drinkers from other establishments to engage in late night drinking.

 

The Applicant’s solicitor stressed that the operator was of good quality and changes to operational practices could be implemented if necessary.  Further, a formal review of the Licence could be undertaken if this was felt to be required.

 

A local resident commented that the premises was already allowed to operate but just not as late as it wished.  She raised the problem of noise generated by patrons relocating from the main to the cellar bar as well as that produced from customers at other external points.  She commented that late drinking hours would serve to attract customers to travel to the pub and the higher price charged for alcohol would still be cheaper than, for example, hiring a taxi to travel to a late night venue in Bedford.

 

The local resident commented that there were no age restrictions so it appeared that families would be present in the bar area until 1.00 a.m.  She added that it was not only the noise generated by young people but also that of the taxis that would deliver them to, and collect them from, the pub.

 

In response the Applicant’s solicitor stated that consideration could be given to introducing a last entry time

 

The ward Members summarised their position.

 

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 in the meeting room 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 because the premises had been closed for two years.

 

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 admission after 24.00 hours (midnight) on Thursday, Friday and Saturday;

2             The garden/courtyard area to be closed after 23.00 hours.

 

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 Services Manager – Commercial 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.