To elect a Chairman for the hearing.

Councillor P Jones CBE was elected as Chairman for the Regulatory Sub-Committee hearing.

To receive apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence were received.

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

There were no substitutes present at the hearing.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

There were no declarations of interest made.

To consider an application for a new premises licence in respect of ‘The Royal Oak Hotel, South Street, Leominster, HR6 8JA.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee was convened in order to determine an application for a new licence in respect of 48 St Owen’s Street, Hereford. The application was submitted in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers and asked any interested parties to introduce themselves. The following attendees were noted:

·         Mr Stevens (Applicant)

·         Mr Backhouse (Applicant’s Legal Advisor)

·         Mrs Falcini (An interested party objecting to the application)

·         Mrs Mercer (An interested party objecting to the application)

·         Mrs Cornell (An interested party objecting to the application)

The Chairman advised all parties of the hearing procedures and asked if any person required an extension to the time allocated for making representations. None of the attendees felt that an increase to the 10 minute time allocated for making representations was required.

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager introduced the report and advised members that the application was for a new licence.

The Environmental Protection Manager advised Members that conditions had been agreed with the applicant. In response to a question he confirmed that the conditions did not require the applicant to keep all doors and windows closed but required them to monitor noise and take appropriate action if noise was emanating from the premises.

The Acting Regulatory Services Manager confirmed that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by West Mercia Police.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mrs Falcini, Mrs Mercer, and Mrs Cornell, interested parties who had objected to the application, addressed the sub-committee. They raised a number of points, including:

·         Noise was a concern especially as local residents had young families

·         Noise from music played at the premises could clearly be heard inside some of the neighbouring dwellings.

·         Concerns were raised in respect of antisocial behaviour at the premises.

·         Some residents had been verbally abused by previous managers at the premises.

·         The times proposed for live music were not appropriate for a public house situated in a residential area.

·         Cars had been damaged by patrons leaving the premises.

·         Concerns relating to litter and broken glass were also raised.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mr Backhouse addressed the sub-committee in support of the application. He raised a number of points, including:

·         Mr Stevens would be the new DPS of the premises, he was also the DPS for Brockington Hall.

·         The premises would be operated as a hotel and function venue, not a town centre public house.

·         The applicant was happy to agree to all of the proposed conditions.

·         The applicant would also be a member of the Leominster Pub Watch scheme.

·         There had been problems at the premises in the past.

In response to questions raised by the local residents, the applicant confirmed that:

·         He had purchased a noise meter to measure noise emanating from the premises and this would be measured on all sides of the premises.

·         The main business of the hotel would be organized functions.

·         2 of the bedrooms were not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.