Agenda item

Proposal:     Application for Premises Licence 

Location:      Newbury College, New Build, Monks Lane, Newbury, RG14 7TD

Applicant:     Marstons Plc

NOTICE OF DECISION

The Licensing Sub-Committee of West Berkshire Council met on 13^th August 2014 and resolved to approve Application 14/01053/LQN in respect of premises known as Newbury College, New build, Monks Lane, Newbury, RG14 7TD subject to a number of conditions which are set out below.

In coming to their decision, the Sub-Committee had regard to the four licensing objectives, which are:

1.                 the prevention of crime and disorder;

2.                 public safety;

3.                 the prevention of public nuisance; and

4.                 the protection of children from harm.

They also considered the Department of Culture, Media and Sport Guidance on the Licensing Act 2003 (issued in June 2014) and West Berkshire Council’s Licensing Policy.

In determining the Application the Sub-Committee considered all of the relevant evidence and information presented to it, both written and oral.  The Sub-Committee heard representations made by:

1.                  The Applicants: Mr John Gaunt (Solicitor), Mr John McElholm (Acquisitions Surveryor) and Mr Dave Walker (Project Manager) on behalf Marstons PLC

2.                  The Objectors: Councillor Alan Agutter, Greenham Parish Council

Decision:

Having taken those representations into account, the Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that Application 14/01053/LQN be granted subject to the conditions as in the operating schedule and any relevant mandatory conditions in ss19-21 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Reasons:

The Sub-Committee in reaching their decision noted that the Objector had indicated concerns on the basis of all four licensing objectives.  However, the Sub-Committee did not consider that the objections raised were supported by evidence which would be sufficient to justify either refusal of the licence or the imposition of any additional conditions to those referred to above.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee also noted that none of the Responsible Authorities had raised objections to the Application on the grounds of public safety, the protection of children from harm, crime and disorder or public nuisance.

The Sub-Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 2(1)) concerning Licensing Application No. 14/01053/LQN submitted by Marstons Plc in respect of premises at Newbury College, New Build, Monks Lane, Newbury, RG14 7TD.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Emilia Matheou (Licensing Officer, West Berkshire Council), Mr John Gaunt, Mr John McElholm and Mr Dave Walker (representing the Applicant) and Councillor Alan Agutter, Greenham Parish Council (objector) addressed the Sub-Committee on this application.

Ms Matheou, in addressing the Sub-Committee, raised the following points:

·          West Berkshire Council’s Licensing Service received an application made under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 for a new premises licence to be granted for the premises at Newbury College, New Build, Monks Lane, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 7TD.  The application was submitted on 25^th June 2014.

·          The Responsible Authorities had been advised of the application on 25^th June 2014.

·          The application was for the sale by retail of alcohol (both on and off premises sales), Monday to Thursday from 10.00 to midnight, Friday and Saturday 10.00 to 01:00 and Sunday 11:00 to midnight. Regulated entertainment (Films, indoor sporting events, live and recorded music and performances of dance) and the provision of Late Night Refreshment had been applied for based on the same timings as the sale of alcohol.

·          The 28 day consultation period ran until 23^rd July 2014.

·          The application had been advertised in accordance with the regulations with blue notices displayed at the premises (witnessed by an officer on 1^st July 2014) and by publishing in a local newspaper, the Newbury Weekly News on 3^rd July 2014.

·          During the statutory consultation period, representations had been received from Greenham Parish Council on 9^th July 2014.

·          No representations had been received from the Responsible Authorities.

·          No information had been received to indicate that mediation had taken place.

Mr John Gaunt (representing the applicant) requested that copies of the proposed food menu for the premises and the Marston’s Inns and Taverns Alcohol and Social Responsibility Statement be given to the Sub-Committee. With the agreement of the Sub-Committee and Councillor Alan Agutter, the objector, copies of the above documents were circulated.

Mr John Gaunt (representing the applicant), in addressing the Sub-Committee, raised the following points:

·        Marston’s Plc had opened around 20-25 new pubs a year over the last five years, nation wide. The establishments were all traditional food led operations with the emphasis heavily on the dining element of the trade. For this reason, the applicant was happy with the request for regulated entertainment to be limited to no more than 12 occasions a year, mainly during the festive season.

·        Based on the sales figures of other Marston’s premises, it was anticipated that the trade of the new establishment would be broken down as follows:

70% - food sales

20% - alcohol sales

10% - soft drink and coffee sales

Only 3-6% of the total sales were expected to be from stand alone drinkers.

·        With the exception of the objection from Greenham Parish Council, there had been no other objections made and importantly, none of the Responsible Authorities, including Thames Valley Police had made representations.

·        With regard to concerns regarding any loss of amenity for local residents, the Sub-Committee noted that the pub would be screened by a busy road and large bank that would provide a physical barrier between the premises and local residents.

·        The objector had made no suggestion that Marston’s Plc was not a well run operation. With over 700 premises across the country, the business could not be successful if it was irresponsible in its approach.

·        With regard to concerns raised regarding the prevention of Crime and Disorder, there was no evidence that this type of food led establishment would lead to the type of unacceptable behaviour suggested by the objector. As regulated entertainment would be limited to 12 occasions per year, this would further reduce the chances of illegal and anti social activities.

·        With regard to concerns raised regarding public safety, the Sub-Committee noted that highways issues were dealt with under the planning remit and were not relevant to the licensing application. A car park providing 60 spaces for customers would be in operation. In addition, the existing gates to the Newbury College site would be moved closer to the college to ensure their site could still be secured.

·        The Parish Council had also raised concerns regarding the prevention of public nuisance. With regard to noise from the premises, double glazing would be in place, along with a lobby that would form part of the main entrance and exit to the premises. On the twelve occasions when entertainment took place then noise levels would be monitored closely by pub staff.

·        With regard to the concerns raised regarding the prevention of children from harm, the Sub-Committee noted that Marston’s Inns operated ‘Challenge 21’ in all their establishments and also used a company called ‘Serve Legal’ to visit each of their premises to ensure the necessary policies and procedures were operating correctly.

·        To conclude the Sub-Committee were asked to consider the evidence they had before them in coming to their decision. Mr Gaunt summed up by saying that Marston’s was a responsible operator, there would be a minimum of ‘stand alone drinkers’, there had been no representations from the Responsible Authorities and the establishment would be a food led concern.

Councillor Andrew Rowles said that he noted that regulated entertainment would be limited to twelve times a year but asked why it had been requested until 01:00 on a Friday and Saturday night both inside and outside. In response, Mr Gaunt said that the external speakers would be for background music only but the applicant would be happy to remove the external speakers.

In response to a question from Councillor Adrian Edwards, Mr Gaunt said that Marston’s pubs were family led establishments and children would be allowed on the premises. Mr Gaunt went on to say that whilst it was legal for 16 and 17 year olds to have a drink with their meal when being supervised by an adult, this was not the policy at Marston’s Inns and no one under the age of 18 would be allowed to purchase or consume alcohol on the premises. In addition, all waiting staff would be trained to ensure that this was the case. In response to a further question from Councillor Edwards, Mr Gaunt said that it was not the current policy of Marston’s Inns to have a notice on their menus to explain that 16 and 17 year olds were not permitted to drink alcohol with their meal but this could be could be done in this particular establishment if requested. Challenge 21 would also be operation.

In response to a question from Councillor Peter Argyle, Mr Gaunt confirmed that notices would be displayed asking customers to leave the premises quietly to minimise disruption to the local residents.

Councillor Alan Agutter, Greenham Parish Council (objector), in addressing the Sub-Committee, raised the following points:

·        With regard to the prevention of crime and disorder, most of the proposed customers would be leaving the premises on foot and the provision of signage was not sufficient to ensure that local residents were not disturbed by noise and rowdiness.

·        On the issue of public safety, and in particular traffic issues, the local roads were already over loaded and the proposed development at Sandleford would only add to this situation. The Newbury College access road was already busy with young people and adults and this would be added to by lots of people arriving and leaving the proposed pub.

·        The Parish Council had concerns about why door supervisors would be required and if there would be the need to for the police to be on stand by in a similar way to the town centre pubs.

·        With regard to the prevention of children from harm, the Sub-Committee noted that the Government Health Agency had stated that alcohol related illnesses and injuries cost the country around £21 billion a year. The location of a public house next to a college gave a very poor message to young people. In addition to the college, the Castle School and a nursery were also based on the site and shared the same access road.

·        There were concerns regarding the need for accommodation on the second floor of the premises and whether this was an attempt by the applicant to develop the building further with perhaps hotel accommodation in mind.

·        The Sub-Committee was asked to note that there were already five public houses within a one mile radius and the Parish Council questioned why it was necessary to have another one.

Councillor Andrew Rowles said the proposed establishment was a long way outside the town centre and therefore questioned the concerns regarding the disorder problems sometimes associated with the town centre pubs. In response, Councillor Agutter acknowledged that at the current time this might not be a problem but with a large scale housing development proposed at Sandleford the situation could be very different.

In response to a question from Councillor Adrian Edwards, Councillor Agutter said that the college was far closer to the proposed premises than The Bell and The Gun public houses were to the Park House School on Andover Road.

In summing up, Mr John Gaunt (representing the applicant) clarified the following points:

·        The highways and traffic issues were not relevant as they were planning matters.

·        Marton’s Inns had premises in a variety of locations across the country and the close proximity to the College was not seen as a problem.

·        Door supervisors would only be employed on particular occasions when it was deemed necessary and would not be a regular feature.

·        The premises would be built in accordance with Building Regulations.

·        The number of other public houses in the vicinity was not relevant to the application and ‘need’ should not be a consideration for the Sub-Committee.

·        There was no intention to extend the planned accommodation on site and the proposed bedrooms were purely for staff use.

Having taken the representations into account, the Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that Application reference 14/01053/LQN in respect of premises at Newbury College, New Build, Monks Lane, Newbury, RG14 7TD be granted subject to the conditions set out in the operating schedule and any relevant mandatory conditions as prescribed by the Licensing Act 2003 or secondary legislation, for the reasons set out in the Decision Notice.