To receive apologies for absence.

To receive any details of Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the committee.

There were no substitutes present at the meeting.

To receive declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.

In the opinion of the Proper Officer, the following items (agenda item 5, 6 and 7) will not be, or are likely not to be, open to the public and press at the time they are considered.

RECOMMENDATION:           that under section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12(A) of the Act, as indicated below and it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

1       Information relating to any individual.

7       Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

RECOMMENDATION:        that under Regulation 14(2) of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, the public be excluded from the meeting as it is considered that the public interest in doing so outweighs the public interest in the hearing, or that part of the hearing, taking place in public.

To consider an application for a review of a premise licence in respect of The Ruby Takeaway, 23 Union Street, Hereford. HR1 2BT called by West Mercia Police under the Licensing Act 2003.

Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee of the council’s Planning and Regulatory Committee considered the above application, full details of which appeared before the members in their agenda.

Prior to making its decision, the Licensing Technical Officer presented the report which outlined the optionsavailable tothe Sub-Committeeand membersheard representationsfrom PCDean Walland the Police Licensing Officer.

PC Dean Wall, representing West Mercia Police, provided details of the operations conducted by the multi-agency tasking and enforcement operation on 11 April 2024 and details of the ongoing investigation following the operation. There was no longer concern that money laundering was being undertaken at the premises and this element of the investigation had ceased. Following investigation ithad beenestablished thatthree workersat theRuby Chinesehad beenworking illegally.Reference was madeto theearlier suspensionof the licencein 2018;it wasevident thatthis earlierincident had not changed practices at the premises with respect to the employment of workers with no legal right to work in the United Kingdom. It was requested that the licence berevoked.

Mr Sinh Quang Tran referred to the application made by West Mercia Police/supplement that had been circulated in advance of the meeting. In summary, he explained that:

·       He had run a business in the United Kingdom over the last 30 years and had complied with regulations and worked in this country to maintain business in legalway.

·       Officers at the council were aware that his business had been run in a legalmanner.

·       The allegations concerning money laundering and immigration offences weredenied.

·       During the operation by the Police members of his family had been veryscared.

·       The PoliceOfficers involvedin theraids hadno writtenwarrants andhe wasvery shockedby the action.

·       The accusationof moneylaundering was unfounded,the moneyfound waslegitimate money acquired through hisbusiness.

·       He was sad about the charge lodged againsthim.

·       He was unaware of English Law therefore was unable to arrange for legalrepresentation.

·       When police undertook the raid they had destroyed furniture and goods resulting in £5,000-

£6,000 of damages for which compensation should be received.

·       Following the raid the business was closed for two days and a lot of income had beenlost.

·       Any action taken against him would be complied with infull.

Following questions it was confirmed:

·       That Mr Tran had accepted immigration offences in 2018 but since then had ensured that all necessary regulations had been appliedproperly.

·       That thestaff workingin thekitchen werevoluntary. Whystaff therewere withno rightto work in the UK after issues in 2018? Those people helping were voluntary workers and were not beingpaid.

·       Had heemployed orengaged animmigration advisorwhen employingpeople? Nolegal advice sought whenhiring.

Having carefully considered those matters brought before them and in reaching their decision, the Membershad fullregard toboth theprovisions ofthe LicensingAct 2003,the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To consider an application for a review of a premise licence in respect of The Inn at Bromyard, 19-21 High Street, Bromyard, HR7 4AA called by West Mercia Police under the Licensing Act 2003.

Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee of the council’s Planning and Regulatory Committee considered the above application, full details of which appeared before the members in their agenda and the supplements published on 14 June 2024 and 20 June 2024.

Prior to making its decision, the Licensing Technical Officer presented the report which outlined the options availableto theSub-Committee andmembers heardrepresentations fromPC DeanWall, the Police Licensing Officer and the Licence Holder, Mr JimGeorge.

PC Dean Wall, representing West Mercia Police, explained the events of 14 April 2024 and the disorder that had occurred. Further, on 15 May 2024 a further incident of disorder was attended by thePolice. Currentlythere wereno conditionsrequiring CCTV,the implementationof anincident book including a list of banned individuals nor the provision of door staff. There was no confidence, on the part of the Police, in the current Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) or the current landlord to cope with disorder or incidents at the pub. To promote the licensing objectives it was requested that further conditions, as outlined in the supplement published on 20 June, be applied to the premises licence. Further it was recommended that a 3 month suspension was applied and the removal of the currentDPS.

Mr Jim George referred to the application made by West Mercia Police. In summary, he explained:

·       That he hadowned thepub fora numberof years,new tenantshad takenover inthe previous year but they were new publicans and it had been a steep learningcurve.

·       Steps werebeing taketo addressthe issuesat thepub anda numberof problematiccustomers had beenbanned.

·       A CCTV system had been in place at the pub previously but was not currently working. Steps were being taken to repairsystem.

·       The suspension of licence would result in a high risk of permanent closure.

·       The proposedconditions fromthe Policeof implementinga CCTVsystems andan incidentlog were supported.

·       The proposed condition from the Police or two doorman was not supported. The cost of the doormenwould beprohibitive andwould notcreate theright impressionfor thepub orthe town ofBromyard.

·       If therewas more troubleat thepub newtenants wouldbe sought.However, withthe onerous condition of door staff it would be difficult to find newtenants.

Following questions, it was confirmed:

·       That in the event of any further incidents at the pub the current tenancy would be ceased.

·       The CCTVsystem wasto berepaired and upgradedshortly withmore camerasat frontof pub, inthe carparkand garden.It washoped thatthe CCTVsystem wouldbe functionalby theend of next week.

·       The implementation of an incident log was supported which would be implemented from next week.

·       All conditions proposed by the Police to protect children from harm were supported.

·       The employmentof SIAdoormen, as proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To consider an application to be the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) on the premises licence in respect of The Prince of Wales, Walford Road, Ross-on-Wye, HR9 5AP under the Licensing Act 2003.

It was confirmed that West Mercia Police had withdrawn its representation on the application to be the Designated Premises Supervisor on the premises licence in respect of Prince of Wales, Walford Road, Ross-on-Wye, HR9 5AP therefore the item was withdrawn from consideration.

To consider an application for a grant of a premises licence in respect of Parkfields, Pontshill, Ross-on-Wye, HR9 5TH under the Licensing Act 2003.

Members of the licensing Sub-Committee from the Council’s Planning and Regulatory Committee considered the above application, full details of which appeared before the members in their agenda, and the supplementary information published on 14 June 2024.

Prior to making its decision the Council’s Licensing Officer presented the report which outlined the options available to the Sub-Committee. One representation was received from the Responsible Authorities; Trading Standards – who requested conditions which were agreed with the applicant. Fourteen relevant public representations had been received. The Licensing Officer summarised the application, provided an overview of the representations received and outlined the licensing history relating to the licensing of the site.

The Sub-Committee heard from the public representatives that:

·       It was acknowledged that the application had been modified and was more reasonable but concerns remained over the impact on localresidents.

·       Previous applications for the premises had set aprecedent.

·       There was concern over the impact of amplified music and noise levels from the venue on localresidents.

·       Music and noise from the venue. A recent festival, over 2 miles away had been heard in the houses of local residents with windowsclosed.

·       The applicant needed to mitigate the impact of the venue especially on the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and publicsafety.

·       Noise posed the risk of causing a public nuisance and measures needed to be implemented by the applicant to attenuate itsimpact.

·       There were concerns with public safety involving the potential for drink driving from the venue and the applicant would need to seek to mitigate suchrisk.

·       There was concern that guests would socialise externally and create a noise nuisance on localresidents.

·       Local residents are largely retired and would be unduly affected by noise and in warmer weather would be unable to have windows open with warmerweather.

·       The application would have a significant impact on a peaceful, ruralsetting.

·       Over 20 complaints had been raised regarding the application but due to the nature of the hearing a number a local residents had not been able toparticipate.

·       There was concern regarding the impact of the application on a local holiday letsbusiness.

·       There had been an experience of problems with previous owners; noise and nuisance behaviour. A number of complaints had been raised but did not appear to have been recorded.

·       There were concerns regarding noise late at night from intoxicated attendees to the premises and the impact on mental health of noisenuisance.

·       There was concern that the application would provide the possibility of music to be played 365 days a year inside oroutside.

·       The local setting in a valley would amplify and reverberate noise.

The Sub-Committee then heard from the applicant’s representativethat:

·       It was intended that the venue would be the new home of LeadershipTrust

·       The key objective for venue was to host high-end, residential corporate events for up to 30 people.

·       The venue would cater for high end corporate events and also occasional community events.

·       The application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.