Agenda and minutes

Announcement on procedural matters.

The Chairman opened the meeting, introduced Committee members and officers in attendance, and asked the applicants Mr and Mrs McKenzie of Cellar Head Brewing Company Limited and their solicitor Mr S Thomas of Stephen Thomas LAW to introduce themselves.  The Chairman then asked Mrs N Coles and her neighbour and supporting witness Mrs A Turley also to introduce themselves.  Mrs Coles had made a representation against the application and in accordance with the meeting procedures she had accepted an invitation to the hearing to present her views in person.

Following referral to the applicants and their representative, an email together with two photos from Mrs Turley reiterating Mrs Coles concerns over the dangerous nature of nearby highway arrangements, was allowed to be submitted to the hearing panel for their information.

Apologies for absence as reported.

No apologies were received.

To receive any declarations of interest by members in items on the agenda.  For any advice on declarations of interest, please contact the Monitoring Officer.

No declarations of interest were made by members at the meeting.

Mr Packham, the Licensing Officer summarised the facts, relevant representations and matters relevant to the local authority licensing policy statement and statutory guidance.  This information had been provided in more detail within the agenda report.  Members of the Sub-Committee had no questions for the officer.

Mr Thomas, solicitor for the applicants, explained the application and clarified that the hours of operation shown in paragraph 2.7 of the agenda report were the maximum for purchases of both on and off-sales but were limited to the hours under the heading Consumption on the premises for on-sales ie tasting in the Tap Room.  He reminded members that this  application was only concerned with the four licensing objectives and these were entirely separate from any separate legislation relating to Planning, Fire Risk Assessments, Health & Safety and Road Traffic Acts.

Mrs Coles was given the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and raised concerns about inaccuracies on the Licensing Application form concerning Planning permission, errors relating to the closing date of the application and consequent difficulties putting representations against the application on line.  Mr Harris reassured Mrs Coles that the status of the planning application had no bearing on the licensing application and Mr Packham explained that although there had been an anomaly relating to the closing date, the application had been re-opened on the website and the consultation period had been extended accordingly. Consequently, it was confirmed that all legislative requirements for advertising this application had been complied with in a correct manner.

In response to further questions, Mr Thomas clarified that, although the Fire Risk Assessment allowed a maximum of 80 persons including staff on the premises at any one time, in practice they estimated up to 40 or 50 at most at busy times.  He also explained that the experience offered by the proposal and the clientele were quite different to either a pub or club culture.  No music or other noisy entertainment was proposed and noise was not considered likely to impact neighbours as they were at some distance from the application site.   Mr Harris asked what steps had been taken to protect public safety on the site in respect of farm equipment and machinery.  Mr Thomas confirmed that the applicants had held discussions with the property owner and agreed detailed arrangements so that the public would not be impacted when the Tap Room was open.  These included appropriate signage, timings, and alternative access routes for tractor movements and other related farming activities. There was external lighting and sufficient specific public parking would also be provided within the site.  In respect of ‘Protection of children from harm’ there would be a strict age verification policy.  Planning enforcement relating to the removal of signs on the A21 was mentioned but was not considered relevant to the Licensing application.

Mrs Coles was given the opportunity to present her submitted views in person.  She pointed out that there was a residential property immediately adjacent to the application site, which remained vacant and which  ...  view the full minutes text for item LSC15/18