Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

 

The three Councillors that presided over this application were Councillors I Hadley, M Sartin and P Stalker.

 

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers present and outlined the procedure that would be followed for the determination of the application.

 

In attendance were the applicant’s representative Mr Dadds and the objectors Mr Evans, Ms Feeney, Ms Cook, Mr Bean and Ms Zeitler.

 

(a)        Application before the Sub-Committee

 

The Licensing Officer, P Jones, informed the Sub-Committee that an application had been made by Dadds LLP on behalf of ADO Catering Ltd for a new premises licence at The Blue Boar, Market Place, Abridge RM4 1UA .

 

The application was for the following licensing activities:

 

Provision of Live and Recorded Music (Indoors), Provision of Performances of Dance (Indoors), and The Sale of Alcohol (For consumption both on and off)

 

Sunday – Wednesday            10:00 – 00:00

            Thursday                                 10:00 – 01:00

            Friday – Saturday                   10:00 – 02:00

 

For statutory bank holiday weekend periods (Friday Saturday Sunday & Monday) the Thursday before Good Friday and Christmas Eve, the finish time would be extended by one hour beyond these times. On occasions of local, national or international significance or for charitable events, the finish time would be extended by one hour, with seven days’ notice and agreement with the police.

 

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

 

Sunday – Wednesday            23:00 – 01:00

            Thursday                                 23:00 – 02:00

            Friday – Saturday                   23:00 – 03:00

 

For statutory bank holiday weekend periods (Friday Saturday Sunday & Monday) the Thursday before Good Friday and Christmas Eve, the finish time would be extended by one hour beyond these times. On occasions of local, national or international significance or for charitable events, the finish time would be extended by one hour, with seven days’ notice and agreement with the police.

 

Opening Hours

 

Sunday – Wednesday            09:00 – 01:00

            Thursday                                 09:00 – 02:00

            Friday – Saturday                   09:00 – 03:00

 

For statutory bank holiday weekend periods (Friday Saturday Sunday & Monday) the Thursday before Good Friday and Christmas Eve, the finish time would be extended by one hour beyond these times. On occasions of local, national or international significance or for charitable events, the finish time would be extended by one hour, with seven days’ notice and agreement with the police.

The application was received by the Licensing Authority on the 11 March 2021. The premises licence application and the operating schedule set out the conditions which would be attached to the licence, if this application was to be granted. This application was for a premises licence identical to the one already granted to Blue Boar Holding Ltd at the same location.

All Responsible Authorities had been notified, it had been properly advertised at the premises and in a local newspaper. All residences and businesses within a 150 metre radius of the premises were individually consulted.

 

The authority had received one representation from Lambourne Parish Council and twenty-eight represents from residents and businesses in the area.There had been no comments from Community Resilience, Essex County Fire and Rescue Service, Environmental Health and Essex Police.

 

(b)       Presentation of the Application

 

Mr Dadds introduced the application and highlighted that this was a shadow licence which mirrored the licence that had already been granted. He noted that none of the responsible authorities had objected and outlined their responsibility in relation to the Licensing Act. He advised the panel that this was a successful food led business with no intention of changing the business operation. He detailed that property rights were not required to be taken into consideration and detailed that a tenant can apply for a shadow licence. The business had approximately 180 covers. He reiterated that the applicant did not want to make any changes to the licence, but simple to mirror what was already in place.

 

The Legal Advisor, R Ferreira, stated that shadow licences normally mirrored the existing licence; crime and disorder was normally led by the police, public nuisance was led by Environmental Health; there must be evidence to back up objections and this may not be considered if speculative; issues between freeholder and tenant could not be considered by the panel, anyone could apply for a licence even if they were not the owner of the premises and each case must be considered on it’s own merits.

 

(c)        Questions for the Applicant from the Sub-Committee

 

The Sub-Committee sought clarity on the amount of outside space that would be used. Mr Dadds advised that in the long term this would be the terrace, but that during covid restriction there had been wider use of the outside space and car park had been used. The Sub-Committee referred to role of Mr King and were advised that he worked at the premises and bore no relevance to the application.  The applicant and Mr Dadds client was Mr Andrews.

 

(d)       Questions for the Applicant from the Objector

 

Ms Evans asked if music would be played up until the hours applied for in the licence.  Mr Dadds explained this application mirrored what was in the current licence and advised that there was no intention to change the way the business had operated for the last 12 years.

Ms Feeney asked why music was needed if the business was food led and questioned the use of trestle tables and benches in the car park. Mr Dadds advised that music was ancillary to food, the hours in the application were the same as the hours in the existing licence and the background music stopped outside by 10pm, The car park would fully revert to a car park when covid restrictions had stopped.

 

Ms Zeitler drew attention to the abatement notice that had been served by Environmental Health and the objection raised by Lambourne Parish Council and asked Mr Dadds if these were relevant representations. Mr Dadds responded that the Sub-Committee could determine what weight it attached to evidence, but that there had been no objections raised by Environmental Health, the Police or the Licensing Authority. She further queried the role of Mr King.  Mr Dadds advised that Mr King was not a relevant person and he would only answer questions relevant to the Licensing Act. Mr Dadds confirms that the application was made on behalf of ADO Catering limited, that he had taken his instructions from Mr Andrews and he had confirmed this in writing on 1/4/21.

 

Ms S Cook advised there was no issues with the tenant and asked why after 12 years there was a need for a shadow licence.  Mr Dadds advised that his advice to his client was subject to legal privilege and his client was entitled to apply for a shadow licence.

 

 (e)       Presentation from the Objector

 

Mr Evans advised that the residents had been subject to excessive noise from a new clientele at the premises, music events with DJs were planned which would lead to noise problems. He advised he was aware of two fights that had occurred and people had sat on his wall and vomited on his property. This was a conservation area and the pub getting bigger was not good for the residents.

 

Ms Feeney agreed with Mr Evans and advised the panel that there had been an increase in litter. She also advised that the pub had a minder on the door which she suggested showed that were expecting trouble.

 

Ms Zeitler suggested that in the last 12 months there had been a change in the operation and behaviours in relation to crime and public nuisance. There was nothing in the application that indicated the applicant would ensure that public nuisance and crime would be prevented. There had been an abatement notice served and this should inspire no confidence in the application. She suggested that a shadow licence did not need to mirror current landlord’s licence and that the panel should consider more stringent conditions.

 

(f)        Questions for the Objector from the Sub-Committee

 

There were no questions from the Sub Committee.

 

(g)       Questions for the Objector from the Applicant

 

There were no questions from the applicant.

 

(h)       Closing Statement from the Applicant

 

Mr Dadds explained that this was a shadow licence as such the hours were already applicable. The food led business would continue to operate as it had been, but the applicant wanted their own licence. He advised that there had been no fights at the premises and there was a litter pick, but as the business did not operate a takeaway service litter should be minimal. He suggested it was unusual to receive representation and a request for more onerous conditions from landlord and that a tenant should be free to make an application for a shadow licence.  Mr Dadds stated that no primary evidence had been presented in relation to public nuisance, and suggested that Environmental Health would have submitted a representation if there were ongoing problems. He acknowledged there has been an increased use of outside space and the car park due to the pandemic and lessons had been learnt, this had ensured the business and jobs had been preserved. Mr Dadds stated that no primary evidence had been presented in relation to public nuisance. There had been no objections from the Police, Licensing Authority or Environmental Health. This licence was the same as that which was already in effect and he requested that the licence be granted as applied for.

 

(k)        Consideration of the Application by the Sub-Committee

 

The Chairman advised that the Sub-Committee would go into private deliberations to consider the application. During their deliberations the Sub-Committee received no further advice from the Legal Officer present. However, clarification was given around the nature of a shadow licence. The Sub Committee noted all of the submissions and representations, both oral and written made in relation to this application and considered what was appropriate to promote the four licensing objectives and the relevant parts of the Council’s Licensing Policy and the Home Office’s guidance.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application for a premises licence in respect of The Blue Boar, Market Place, Abridge, RM4 1UA be GRANTED subject to the following conditions which they considered were reasonable and proportionate for the promotion of the licensing objectives:

 

1.            The conditions which were consistent with the Operating Schedule.

 

The applicants and the objectors were reminded of their right of appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of date of the written notification of this decision.