Minutes:
The Applicant’s representative presented the case on behalf of the Applicant. He explained that he would outline how the four licensing objectives would be promoted.
He explained that the site of the White Hart was currently a trading pub. J D Wetherspoon had conditionally acquired the site subject to planning and licensing and had successfully obtained planning permission for an extension.
Those present were informed that the premises already had a licence, which would be surrendered if the new application was approved. The Applicant’s representative explained that they could have applied for a variation, but wanted to be transparent and therefore submitted a new application.
The Sub-Committee was informed that J D Wetherspoon would be investing £1.7 million in the premises and would carry out a kitchen extension and internal and external refurbishment. It was hoped that the site would become an amenity to the town and would provide additional jobs.
The Sub-Committee was referred to the plan of the premises which had been included at page 44 of the agenda. The area on the ground floor would be mainly open plan with a large kitchen to the rear. Toilets and staff provision would be located on the first floor. The open plan area would contain tables and chairs as the focus would be on food. CCTV would be in operation.
The Applicant’s representative provided those present with a background of J D Wetherspoon. He explained that they had been operating since 1979 with 954 premises in the UK and Ireland. They wanted to achieve a family environment and good value whilst supporting local breweries by offering local guest ale. They did not provide music or any regulated entertainment. The aim for the White Hart was to focus mainly on food.
The Applicant’s representative explained that he had written to all of the objectors to try and alleviate their concerns. He was confident that the four licensing objectives would be promoted.
The Applicant’s representative did not feel that late night disturbances would be a problem. J D Wetherspoon had lots of policies and procedures in place and a strong Management Team. Staff underwent an online training programme and had a zero tolerance attitude.
The Applicant’s representative explained that the Area Manager would meet regularly with the Police and if local residents were concerned they could approach the Manager.
It was explained that the garden area would be refurbished and a smoking area would be provided so that patrons did not stand out of the front of the premises where there was a narrow footpath. He acknowledged the proximity of the garden areas to residents and collective measures would be put in place such as signage, no music and staff monitoring.
The Applicant’s representative reminded those present that the conditions had been agreed with the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team which included limitations on the use of the outside area. No drinks would be permitted outside after 22:30, or 23:00 on Friday and Saturdays. A plan which had been circulated to the Sub-Committee following publication of the agenda and showed a red hatched area which would be the only portion of the garden open to smokers after this time.
The Applicant’s representative confirmed that a 3m acoustic fence would be erected and a noise management plan would be produced.
The Applicant’s representative felt that, because of the nature of the premises, it would rarely be at capacity at closing time. The dispersal of customers would be managed.
The Chairman thanked the Applicant’s representative for presenting his case and invited questions from all parties.
In response to a question from the Licensing Manager, the Applicant’s representative confirmed that a temporary barrier would be in place to restrict access to the lower part of the garden when required because of the newly agreed conditions. Signage advising patrons of the arrangements would also be erected and staff would monitor the area.
Mr Lane referred to a noise assessment which had been carried out and had recommended a 6m canopy to reduce noise pollution. The Applicant’s representative explained that due to the restrictions on access to the garden after a certain time the canopy would not be required.
Mr Lane asked what measures would be put in place to ensure that the neighbouring properties were not affected by light pollution. The Applicant’s representative explained that there would be minimal outside lighting, and it would only be in the smoking area when the rest of the garden was closed. He explained that a condition had been attached to the planning permission which required a scheme to be approved by the Planning Authority pertaining to lighting arrangements.
In response to a question from Mr Merry, the Applicant’s representative explained that he needed to strike a balance between customers and residents and if issues arose when in operation they could be reviewed.
Councillor Mrs Fraser asked what measures would be put in place to ensure that customers left the outside seating areas at the required time. The Applicant explained that as part of their operations they would start moving customers away from the garden half an hour before the required time. A barrier would then be put in place and staff would monitor. He explained that this was a licensing condition so the Applicant was duty bound to comply.