Agenda item

Proposal:     An Application for a premises licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003

Location:      Awberry Barn, Awberry Farm, The Green, Beenham, Berkshire RG7 5NX

Applicant:     Mr Nigel Hopes

NOTICE OF DECISION

The Licensing Sub-Committee of West Berkshire Council met on 8 December 2023 and resolved to approve Application 22873 in respect of premises known as Awberry Barn, Awberry Farm, The Green, Beenham, Berkshire, RG7 5NX 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 Home Office Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and West Berkshire Council’s Statement of Licensing policy.

The Sub-Committee heard oral representations made by:

1.            The Applicant: Nigel David Hopes and Duncan Craig (Applicant’s agent)

2.            The Supporter: Nigel Toon

3.            The Objectors: Lesley McEwen and Peter McEwen (Beenham Parish Council)

The Licensing Sub-Committee also considered the written representations of the following: Robert LeBlond, Nola Rice-Wood, JWD Clark, Sandra Clark, Belinda and Bernard Matthewman, Russell Green, Gillian Green, Neil Jackson, Pat Owen, Graham Bragg, Elizabeth Bragg, James White, Ian Smithers, Claudia Komzak, Lesley Scutter, Elizabeth White, Marie Pierro, Pete Machin, Peter Nordquist, Fenella Nordquist, Tom Whitter, Lucy Mackinnon, Simon Marshall, Natalie Fenech and Chris Beadsmoore, Christina Dudley, Andrew and Sala Lawrence, Jeff Vile and Rosemary Brown, Hannah Redgrave, Ariana Roscoe, Theresa Callaghan, Alan and Melanie Wilkes, A.R Gosman, Valerie Hartley, Ray Northway, Luke Woods, Galia Adair and Environmental Health as Responsible Authority.  The Licensing Sub-Committee also considered four written representations which had been submitted anonymously.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted that the evidence submitted by Beenham Parish Council on Thursday 7^th December 2023 at 3.07pm demonstrating that their written representation had been sent to Licensing within the consultation period was accepted despite the fact the representation had not been received by Licensing which was confirmed by the Council’s IT Department. The Licensing Sub-Committee therefore heard the oral representations made by Peter McEwen on behalf of Beenham Parish Council and considered their written representation, which was accepted as part of the agenda pack and the material before the Licensing Sub-Committee.  Copies of the representation were made available to the parties before and on the day of the hearing.

Having taken those representations into account, the Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that Application 22873 be granted subject to the conditions as set in the operating schedule, as modified below, as well as any relevant mandatory conditions in ss19-21 of the Licensing Act 2003 and secondary legislation.

Operating Schedule

Box J: Supply of Alcohol

Saturday 12:00 to 23:00 on and off the premises

Prevention of Public Nuisance

Condition 16 as set out in the operating schedule is amended to read as follows:-

The level of noise emitted from amplified music associated with the use hereby permitted shall not exceed 35dB LAeq,15min as measured at the boundary with any off-site residential dwelling.

Reasons:

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered the Application, together with the relevant written and oral representations made.  

The Sub-Committee considered the representations from all parties and noted that the concerns of the objectors related to all four of the licensing objectives. The Licensing Sub-Committee noted that the police are a key source of information and advice on the impact of licensable activities, particularly on the crime and disorder objective and Environmental Health, is a key source of information and advice in relation to public nuisance. The Sub-Committee also noted Environmental Health did not have a formal objection to the premises licence on the basis the amended wording to condition 16 had been agreed by the Applicant and therefore with the amended condition and operating in compliance with their proposed conditions, the Responsible Authority was satisfied public nuisance should not occur.  Consequently, no formal objection to the application had been received by a Responsible Authority. 

The Licensing Sub-Committee decided that the promotion of the licensing objectives could be achieved through conditions.  The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the application and conditions put forward by the Applicant were well considered, taking into account the type, location and characteristics of the premises and events concerned and were sufficient to ensure the licensing objectives were not undermined. The Applicant and owners live on site and therefore will be well placed to ensure any conditions attached to the licence will be adhered with.  The Licensing Sub-Committee also noted on page 41 of the Agenda Pack, as part of the Noise Management Plan, at Appendix C, that a hot line will be set up to respond to complaints of noise during events but were satisfied that the conditions in place were sufficient to ensure the licensing objectives were not undermined.  The Licensing Sub-Committee and were satisfied that the conditions set out in the operating schedule as modified above, were reasonable, proportionate, and appropriate for the circumstances.  

 In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee noted the Council as Licensing Authority must determine each application under the Licensing Act 2003 on its own merits, and every decision must be both justified and proportionate based on the available evidence in accordance with the Statutory Guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.  

The Sub-Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 2(1)) concerning Licensing Application 22873 in respect of Awberry Barn, Awberry Farm, The Green, Beenham, Berkshire, RG7 5NX.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Krystelle Kamola (Licensing Officer, West Berkshire Council) Nigel Hopes (Applicant), Duncan Craig (Agent), Lesley and Peter McEwen (Objectors), Nigel Toon (Supporter) and Councillor Dominic Boeck (Ward Member) addressed the Sub-Committee on this application.

Ms Kamola introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and outlined the application timeline.

Mr Hopes and Mr Craig, in addressing the Sub-Committee, raised the following points:

·           The Applicant had always worked with integrity and objectivity in line with the Nolan Principles and his own personal values.

·           Personal professionalism of the Licensee was key was had been demonstrated by the way Mr Hopes had managed the Six Bells Public House.

·           The venue would benefit the local economy, whilst preserving the heritage asset.

·           They had worked closely with the key consultees and adopted all suggested conditions.

·           The Applicant allowed for consultation with residents and made significant adjustments to cater for the issues raised.

·           The Applicant would be present at all events and would have control of all bookings, which would help mitigate anti-social behaviour.

·           The hours for the sale of alcohol were modest.

·           Live music could e played at the event even without the license.

·           There were 27 letters in support of the application compared to the 16 objections. The representations in support were relevant to the Licensing Objectives, whereas some of the objections were not relevant, or speculative.

·           That the Sub-Committee should look to Responsible Authorities as the main source of guidance for the application and that all the authorities saw it as acceptable.

Councillor Nigel Foot queried the noise mitigation measures for when people leave the barn. Mr Hopes explained that there was a 2.5-meter-high acoustic fence at the entrance to the site and members of staff would manage the movement of people to a from the carpark, however he could not stop people from talking. Mr Craig explained that condition nine of the license required the Licensee to manage the flow of people from the carpark to the site.

Councillor Martha Vickers questioned the number of employees on the site and Mr Hopes explained that it depended on the number of attendees, however generally there would be 15 catering support staff and ten general support staff.

The Chairman asked for clarity on the closing schedule of the venue and Mr Hopes and Craig explained that 23:00 pm was a hard deadline and then the team would manage the dispersal off-site within forty-five minutes.

The Chairman asked why off-sales were included in the application and Mr Craig clarified that every license would have off-sales as well as on-sales. The purpose of the off sales was to allow people to have a drink outside the barn. Mr Craig asserted that there was no intention to run the barn as an Off-License.

Ms McEwen questioned the term ‘multi-event’ and Mr Hopes stated that the venue was intended as a wedding venue, however the term ‘multi-event’ was used to allow for small community evets. Mr Hopes emphasised that the venue would not host ‘riotous’ events.

Ms McEwen queried what measures were in place to prevent disturbance created by individuals using the over night residence. Mr Hopes stated that there would be no difference in the mitigation measures and the management of those individuals and Mr Craig stated that it would be covered within the dispersal policy.

Ms McEwen asked about the noise made from the opening of the two large double doors and Mr Hopes explained that the doors would not need to be opened as there were another set of doors with a ramp for disabled access that would be used for access to the toilet block. The two sets of doors would come with an acoustic curtain to help further noise.

Mr McEwen questioned whether the second set of large double doors would remain shut. Mr Hopes answered that they would be opened for the catering and would be available for emergency egress.

Ms and Mr McEwan in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:

·         Beenham was a small quiet, crime free village.

·         40 properties backed onto the site.

·         It would be impossible to adhere to the 35-decibel noise limit.

·         The site would be five meters below the other properties; therefore, the volume would be louder than if it was above the properties, especially on summer days.

·         Vehicles leaving the property would disturb everyone during the night-time.

·         Could disturb the tranquillity and dark skies of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

·         The single road system through the area had poor sightlines and no paths. The added traffic could increase the risk of those who walk and cycle through the village.

·         Children use the nearby recreation ground and use the path nearby, which exits the site near the turning onto the site. This could be an increased hazard to children using the area.

·         Drunk people from the event could harass children using the recreation ground.

Councillor Foot expressed that some of the comments made regarding traffic were not licensing matters. Ms McEwan stated that the traffic issue was about protecting children from harm.

Councillor Vickers asked whether the Objectors had faith in the noise mitigation plans and Ms McEwan explained that it felt that many representations would be needed to help keep the applicant accountable if he broke the rules and was unsure how to make a complaint. Councillor Foot explained that the Licensing Sub-Committee could get involved if conditions were not met.

Mr Toon asked whether there was any evidence to support Ms McEwan’s claims that Duke of Edinburgh students may be harassed by dunk individuals as these students tended to walk past many licensed properties. Ms McEwan stated she had not, but it was a concern.

Mr Toon in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:

·         The Applicant had worked hard to engage with the community on the application and made significant changes such as reducing the maximum number of guests.

·         The significant investment in noise mitigation meant that it should not have a significant Impact on residents.

·         Strict operating hours means that it would not be operated until dawn and would be used for older couples.

·         Some of the events proposed at the barn had already been held in the past and there was no significant complaint.

·         The application could bring excitement to Beenham and would not put existing venues at risk.

·         The license could be removed if not adhered to.

The Chairman queried the best aspect of the application, and Mr Toon explained that it was the use of the existing barn for the good of the community.

Ms McEwan asked whether they needed a license for the previously held events and Mr Toon recalled that the Six Bells held a license to sell alcohol on the premises.

Councillor Boeck in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:

·         That the division within the community was regretful.

·         That he supported the development of business within the community and supported the community’s right to peace and quiet.

·         If Members were to support the application, they should consider whether they could add further conditions.

Ms McEwan asked whether the Councillor had any idea what the added conditions could be and Councillor Boeck answered that he would leave that to the Members.

Mr Hopes and Mr Craig in summing up for the Sub-Committee made the following points:

·         That the 35-decibel limit was related to amplified music.

·         There was no evidence to support the claim that people would become a nuisance to those using public areas.

·         The fact that it was suggested that there were six supporters that were not local did not change the fact that there was still a large proportion of supporters from the village.

The Sub-Committee retired at 11:30 am to make its decision.

Having taken the representations into account, including the written representations made by Richard Palmer R. Le Blond, Nola Rice Wood, JWD Clark, Sandra Clark, Mr & Mrs Paul Jerome, Belinda Matthewman, Russell Green, Gillian Green        , Neil Jackson, Graham Bragg, Elizabeth Bragg, Pat Owen, Shirley Moore, Beenham Parish Council, James White, Ian Smithers, Claudia Komzak, Lesley Scutter, Elisabeth White, Marie Pierro, Peter Machin, Peter Nordquist, Fenella Nordquist, Tom Whitter, Lucy Mackinnon, Simon Marshall, Nat Fenech, Christina Dudley, Andrew Lawrence, Sala Lawrence, Jeff Vile, Rosemary Brown, Hannah Redgrave, Ariana Roscoe, Theresa Callaghan, Alan & Melanie Wilkes, A.R. Gosman, Valerie Hartley, Chris Beadsmoore, Ray Northway, Luke Woods, Gaila Adair    the Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that Application 22873 be granted, subject to the conditions as set in the operating schedule, as modified below, as well as any relevant mandatory conditions in ss19-21 of the Licensing Act 2003 and secondary legislation.