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 item will not be, or is likely not to be, open to the public and press at the time it is 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.

Sub committee members were advised that due to the nature of the information to be presented it was recommended that items 5 on the agenda be heard in private.

It was resolved that 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 Planet Buffet, 47 Commercial Road, Hereford, HR1 2BJ called by The Licensing Authority as a Responsible Authority 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 reports published on 21 May2025.

Prior to making its decision, the Licensing Technical Officer presented the report which outlined the options available to the Sub-Committee and members heard representations from Harry Spriggs on behalf of the licensing authority. 

Mr Spriggs, representing the licensing authority, provided details of the operations conducted by the multi-agency tasking and enforcement operation on 13 February and details of the ongoing investigation following the operation. It was explained that during the time of the raid it was observed that the premises was serving alcohol without a current Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). The Sub-Committee was informed of the section 182 guidance and actions that may be taken in the event of illegal immigrants being found to have been working at a premises with a licence. The licensing authority sought the revocation of the licence. However, if the Sub Committee was not minded to revoke it was proposed by the Licensing Authority that a condition be added to the premises licence regarding the employment of immigrants.

The Premises Licence Holder referred to the application made by the licensing authority. In summary, he explained that:

·       He requested that the licence was not revoked;

·       The fees that were not paid was due to the pandemic, it was not the intention of the licence holder to withhold payment. The fees had usually been paid as soon as the bill had been received;

·       The male that had been caught working in the premises had already returned to Malaysia; and

·       It was requested that the licence holder was given another chance.

Following questions it was confirmed:

·       In response to a question as to how the licence holder will comply with the licensing conditions in future it was explained that in the future illegal immigrants would not be employed and the licence holder would endeavour to examine the conditions to meet the requirements.

·       In response to a question regarding the non payment of fees and clarification that the fees had been owing from 2016, prior to the pandemic, the licence holder explained either the letter had not been received or had been lost therefore the payment was not made. It was not the intention to not make the payment.

Having carefully considered those matters brought before them and in reaching their decision, the Members had full regard to both the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006), the Guidance Issued under Section 182 and Herefordshire Council’s statement of licensing policy. 

DECISION

The Sub-Committee’s decision following a review of premises licence is as follows:

The premises licence shall be revoked.

REASONS

The Sub-Committee has taken into account all the evidence provided with the application for review brought by the Licensing Authority, presented in a report by Senior Licensing Officer, Emma Bowell and Harry Spriggs, Licensing Officer. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider an application for a variation for a premises licence in respect of The Crown Inn, Lea, Ross on Wye, Herefordshire, HR9 7JZ 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 21 May 2025.

Prior to making its decision the Council’s Licensing Officer presented the report which outlined the options available to the Sub-Committee. No representations were received from the responsible authorities. One relevant representation was received from a member of the public that the licensing authority accepted as being relevant. The Licensing Officer summarised the application and provided an overview of the representation received.

The Sub-Committee heard from the Applicant’s representatives that:

·       The Garden Bar was a permanent part of the site and the pub building, the application was asking for it to operate within existing licenced hours.

·       The application would support the pub and customers by easing pressure on the main bar and providing faster service. It would also facilitate a pizza offering for customers.

·       The re-opening of the pub had been a success and good feedback had been received from local people.

·       The pub helped to bring visitors to the area and employed local people.

·       The pub took its licensing responsibilities seriously and would stick to conditions and work with neighbours.

·       To limit the impact on local residents the pub turned off the speakers in the outdoor area at 9:00 p.m. and closed the upper garden at 10:00 p.m. and customers outside were moved into the pub at 11:00 p.m. Signage had been displayed to encourage customers to leave quietly.

·       The pub operated an open-door policy and encouraged local residents to provide feedback.

·       The outdoor bar did not represent an expansion of the pub but was intended to provide a better service for customers and was a facility that a number of other venues offered.

·       The concerns raised regarding the application were understood however it was felt that closing at 10:00 p.m. was reasonable given that the outdoor seating area was used until 11:00 p.m.

·       In response to feedback, music and bass had been turned down and the music turned off at 10:00 p.m. and people were moved into the pub at 11:00 p.m.

·       A number of neighbours had visited the pub and provided positive feedback.

·       The application proposed more efficient service of customers and an enhancement of the guest experience.

Following questioning by the Sub-Committee it was confirmed that:

·       In response to a question it was confirmed that the pub had been in contact with the local objector to the application.

·       It was clarified that the noise from the fan from the kitchen could not be considered as it was relevant to alternative legislation.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the representation, reports and evidence before them. They have had regard to their duties under S4 of the Licensing Act and considered guidance issued under s182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and Herefordshire Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy 2020

- 2025.

DECISION

The Sub-Committee’s decision is to grant the application as applied for.

REASONS

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider an application for a variation for a premises licence in respect of Hereford Rugby Football Club, Wyeside, Belvedere Lane, Hereford, HR4 0PH 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 published on 21 May 2025.

Prior to making its decision the Council’s Licensing Officer presented the report which outlined the options available to the Sub-Committee. No representations were received from the responsible authorities. Thirty six (36) relevant representations were received from members of the public that the licensing authority accepted as being relevant. The Licensing Officer summarised the application and provided an overview of the representations received.

The Sub-Committee heard from the public representatives that:

·       The local community was proud of the rugby club and happy to see the club attempting to diversify to remain viable.

·       The club was located in a conservation area, adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, close to cathedral and on banks of River Wye. It was a sensitive location.

·       During determination of the current licence, approved 4 years ago, residents had raised concerns regarding the noise nuisance that would be caused and the change in the atmosphere to the area. Noise nuisance existed for locals up to 11:00 p.m. but people were tolerant and few complaints were made. People generally accepted the current licence as they wanted the club to thrive.

·       The variation of 2:00 a.m. is too late. The terminal hour was later than other rugby clubs and there was a risk the goodwill of local residents would be lost.

·       The rugby club explains the need for an increase in income however it was not acceptable for local residents to suffer the consequences.

·       It is a rugby club, not a nighttime venue and there would be significant noise from the club as well as the noise caused by people arriving and leaving.

·       The whole community was concerned, the application would undermine community cohesion and have a detrimental impact on the neighbourhood.

·       It was a reasonable assumption of local residents that the noise currently heard up to 11:00 p.m. would now be audible until 2:00 a.m.

·       When the application was advertised on site notices, there was no webpage reference and to view the application an appointment at the council was required,

·       There could have been better communication from the club before the application was submitted.

·       Recent correspondence from the rugby club referred to amendments to the application but there was a lack of clarity regarding the nature of these amendments.

·       The licensing objectives contained the aim of preventing public nuisance. The increase in noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour posed by the application was counter to this objective and 2:00 a.m. was too late within the residential setting of the club.

·       In order to avoid noise and disturbance and reduce community tension the terminal hour of the licence should remain at 11:00 p.m.

·       The  south side of river had a number of residents whose homes faced the rugby club. However, no notification was provided to the local ward member of the neighbouring ward. It was doubted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.