To consider an application under the Highways Act 1980, section 119, to make a Public Path Diversion Order to divert part of footpath SB7, in the parish of Stanford Bishop, and to divert part of footpath LTB12 in the parish of Linton and, under the Highways Act 1980, section 118, to make a Public Path Extinguishment Order to extinguish part of footpath LTB14, in the parish of Linton.

A report was presented by the Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager about an application under the Highways Act 1980, section 119, to make a Public Path Diversion Order to divert part of footpaths SB7 and LTB12 at Stanford Bishop and Linton as well as an extinguishment order under section 118. 

He felt that the diversion and extinguishment of the footpath should be permitted because the proposals met the criteria set out within the Highways Act and the Council’s Public Path Order Policy. 

It was noted that there may be ‘higher rights’ over the land but that was a matter for the applicants consideration.

Having discussed all the aspects about the application, the Sub-Committee was agreeable to the course of action proposed by the Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager.

RESOLVED

THAT a public path diversion Order is made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as illustrated on drawing number: D279/230-12,351-7 and that a public path extinguishment Order is made under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980, as illustrated on drawing number D279/230-14.

To consider an application under the Highways Act 1980, section 119, to make a public path diversion order to divert part of bridleway CD18 in the parish of Cradley

A report was presented by the Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager about an application under the Highways Act 1980, section 119, to make a Public Path Diversion Order to divert part of Bridleway CD18 in the parish of Cradley. 

He felt that the diversion of the bridleway should be permitted because the proposals met the criteria set out within the Highways Act and the Council’s Public Path Order Policy. 

It was noted that there had been no objections received from the public, the parish council, the adjoining land owner or the Local Ward Member and the applicant would meet the costs involved.

Having discussed all the aspects about the application, the Sub-Committee was agreeable to the course of action proposed by the Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager.

RESOLVED

That a public path diversion order is made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as illustrated on drawing number: D396/99-18.

To consider an application under the Highways Act 1980, Section 119, to make a Public Path Diversion Order to divert part of footpaths WG23 and WG23A and, under Section 118, to make an extinguishment order to extinguish part of footpath WG23, all in the parish of Wellington.

A report was presented by the Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager about an application under the Highways Act 1980, section 119, to make a Public Path Diversion Order to divert part of footpaths WG23 and WG23A at Wellington as well as an extinguishment order under section 118. 

He felt that the diversion and extinguishment of the footpath should be permitted because the proposals met the criteria set out within the Highways Act and the Council’s Public Path Order Policy. 

It was noted that the diversion was a result of the mineral extraction works in the area causing an obstruction to the existing route. The issue was a longstanding situation with an initial application being submitted in May 2000.

Having discussed all the aspects about the application, the Sub-Committee was agreeable to the course of action proposed by the Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager.

RESOLVED

THAT a public path diversion Order is made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as illustrated on drawing number: D335/400-23,23A(i) and that a public path extinguishment order is made under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 as illustrated on drawing numberD335/400 - 23(ii).

To consider an application for a new premises licence in respect of The Queens Arms, 30 High Street, Bromyard, HR7 4AE.

Early in the debate a matter for clarification arose regarding the existence of an alcohol free zone within the area outside of the premises but included within the application. A further issue arose when the Licensing Officer checked the advertisement which had been presented at the meeting. No reference to the outside areas was contained within the advertisement.

The applicant requested that his application be withdrawn. The Licensing Officer advised the sub-committee that he would visit the premises and advise the applicant during the re-application process.

To consider an application for the grant of a premises licence in respect of ‘Bromyard Rugby Football Club, Tenbury Road, Bromyard, HR7 4LW.

The Licensing Assistant presented the report and gave a detailed background of the matters surrounding the application. She advised that the advertisement submitted by the applicant made no reference to non-standard timings or the provision of a marquee.

The Special Projects Lawyer advised members that Regulation 25 of the Licensing Act 2003 required applicants to advertise their application through a notice in a local newspaper, regulation 26 advised that the advert must describe the relevant licensable activity. He advised the Sub-Committee that only the licensable activities referred to in the advertisement should be considered by the committee and asked the applicant if he would be willing to withdraw the outside activities and the non-standards timings from his application.

The applicant agreed to amend his application accordingly.

Mr Mooney, representing West Mercia Police, advised the Sub-Committee that all conditions had been agreed with the applicant.

Mr Delahay, a local resident who had made a valid representation in respect of the application, advised the Sub-Committee that he had concerns regarding the extended hours requested by the applicant. He felt that the membership of the rugby club was strong enough without the need to open the club to non-members. He noted that by granting the application the premises would be permitted to open until 2:00 am on 104 days of the year.

The Sub-Committee retired to make their decision. On their return the decision was read out by the Special Projects Lawyer.

RESOLVED

THAT the application, as amended by the applicant to remove the outside activities and non-standard timings, be approved in accordance with the attached decision notice.

To consider an application for the variation of a premises licence in respect of ‘The Prince of Wales, Church Lane, Ledbury HR8 1DL’.

The Licensing Officer presented the report and gave a detailed background of the matters surrounding the application. He advised that four conditions were added to the licence through a minor variation subsequent to a test purchase operation failure in February 2011.

James Mooney, representing West Mercia Police, advised the sub-committee that there had been some negotiations between all parties in respect of the proposed conditions. He added that the only conditions that were not agreed related to the membership of a pub watch scheme; the reporting of a faulty CCTV system to the police; and the proposed condition regarding under 18’s on the premises. He went on to give details of the non agreed conditions and requested that the sub-committee include the three proposed conditions in any resolution.

James Haugh, representing the Council’s Trading Standards team, advised the sub-committee that three conditions had been agreed with the applicant. He advised that the condition regarding staff training had been amended to include the provision for an agreed internal training package. He added that at the time of the test purchase operation there had appeared to be a degree of apathy on the part of the member of staff who had made the sale, he felt this was regrettable and that the agreed conditions would help to assist the matter.

Mr Alan Lloyd addressed the sub-committee on behalf of the local residents who had made representations in respect of the application. He made a number of points, including:

•               The local residents suffered as a result of noise emanating from the premises.

•               The historic medieval street was very narrow with the nearest residential dwelling being approximately 9 ft from the public house.

•               All the properties dated from the 17th Century or earlier and were therefore not well sound insulated.

•               Concerns were raised in respect of loud live music on Thursday evenings and Sunday afternoons.

•               The premises was not suitable for live music.

•               Live music should not be permitted at the premises.

The Licensing Officer advised Mr Lloyd that the condition regarding noise had been amended to ensure that no noise was heard in neighbouring dwellings after 2300. Mr Lloyd raised concerns in respect of enforceability of the condition.

Gill Sherratt, the applicant’s representative, addressed the sub committee and made a number of points, including:

•               The application had been submitted to tidy up the licence and remove a number of outdated conditions.

•               There had been a great deal of negotiation and the majority of conditions were now agreed.

•               The test sale operation failure was regrettable and had been made by a personal licence holder.

•               The purpose of the application was not a review of the licence, a number of the concerns expressed could only be addressed through a review and not through a variation.

•               The pub watch scheme condition had not been agreed as no crime and disorder issues had been raised in respect of the premises and any condition added  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.