East District Council Penns Place, Hampshire GU31 4EX

Chief Executive: Sandy Hopkins

East Hampshire District Council

Minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee meeting held on Friday 24 th June 2011 at 11.30am in the Council Chamber, Penns Place, Petersfield.

Present: Councillors Bob Ayer, Angela Glass and Marge Harvey.

Officers: Principal Licensing Officer, Solicitor, Committee Services Co-ordinator and Committee and Councillors’ Support Officer.

The following were also present:

Graeme Marley, Regional Manager, for Enterprise Inns, the applicants Clare Johnson, Solicitor for Enterprise Inns, the applicants; Dennis Thomas, interested party; Thelma Thomas, interested party; and Brian Griffiths, interested party.

6. Election of Chairman

Resolved that Councillor Bob Ayer be elected Chairman of the Sub- Committee for the Hearing.

7. Apologies for Absence

There were no apologies for absence.

8. Chairman’s Announcements

The Chairman made the following announcements:

• Asked that all mobile phones be switched off; and • Made all those present aware of the nearest fire exits.

9. Declarations of Interest

None were declared.

1 Licensing Hearing Minutes 24.06.11 - 2

10. Licensing Act 2003 – Application for a Premises Licence – Windmill Inn, Road, Four Marks, Alton, Hampshire, GU34 5HG

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Principal Licensing Officer, EXJR.30/11, which had been previously circulated.

The Principal Licensing Officer stated that the report related to an application made by Enterprise Inns for a Premises Licence for the Windmill Inn, Winchester Road, Four Marks. The report contained details of the licensing activities requested on pages five to seven of the agenda. The applicant had stated steps to be taken to promote the four licensing objectives and these were shown on page three of the agenda.

The hearing had been called because a representation had been received from the responsible authority, Environment Protection and interested parties living in the vicinity of the premises. Representative extracts of the representations were shown on pages eight to eleven of the agenda and shown in full in Appendix C of the report.

The application named the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor as Paul Ryan. He was a director of the company that held the previous premises licence and it was understood that he might no longer have a connection with the Windmill Inn. The applicant would be able to advise further on this point. The Principal Licensing Officer had not attempted to arrange mediation as this matter remained outstanding.

The Sub-Committee was advised that in determining the application:

1. it may grant the application as asked; 2. modify the conditions of the licence, by altering, omitting, or adding to them; 3. refuse to specify a person in the licence as the premises supervisor; or 4. reject the whole or part of the application.

Clare Johnson, Solicitor for Enterprise Inns PLC asked the Principal Licensing Officer if Environmental Services had withdrawn their objections following agreement by the applicant to the conditions requested. She had been in communication with Environmental Services on behalf of the applicant and on the 13 th June 2011 had confirmed the exact wording of the conditions. She had also written asking them to confirm the withdrawal of their objections.

Dennis Thomas, interested party raised a concern about the procedures when informing interested parties of the hearing. He asked the Principal Licensing Officer to confirm that all interested parties had received information about the hearing. He advised the Sub-Committee that he and his wife had had to approach the Licensing Services Team as their pack of information had been misaddressed. In chance conversations with other interested parties he understood that Mr Neil Vine at 7 Hazel Road, whose objections could be found in Appendix C of the report, had not received a pack. Another resident

2 Licensing Hearing Minutes 24.06.11 - 2 at No 2 Fairlight Gardens had sent his objections by email, but it was understood that these objections had never been received.

The Principal Licensing Officer in reply said that she could confirm that there was no record of any representations being received from the resident at No 2 Fairlight Gardens. She was unable to confirm that the pack had been sent to 7 Hazel Road.

Cllr Ayer asked how significant it was that an interested party might not have received the pack about the hearing.

Clare Johnson addressed the Sub-Committee and said that she was happy for the hearing to continue. Whether the pack had been received was irrelevant as it was deemed to have been received two days after being sent.

The Sub-Committee adjourned at 11.42am to enable the Principal Licensing Officer to confirm if the pack had been sent to the correct address.

The Sub-Committee reconvened at 11.55am

The Principal Licensing Officer confirmed that a letter had not been sent to Mr Vine. It was a matter for the Chairman and Sub-Committee to decide whether to proceed with the hearing.

The Principal Licensing Officer said that all information had been received and valid representations were included in the agenda.

The Chairman said that it was regrettable but he believed that the Sub- Committee was capable of conducting the hearing, representations had been received and recorded and the Sub-Committee would look at those representations with extra care.

Clare Johnson for the applicants said that they would like the hearing to go ahead as the views were echoed in other representations and therefore the concerns could be put across.

Dennis Thomas said that it was worrying that there had been a need to check on the information and gave no confidence in the process.

The Principal Licensing Officer apologised to all concerned.

Brian Griffiths, interested party asked the Principal Licensing Officer about the conditions proposed on the licence in Appendix C to the report. In particular that noise from the premises shall be inaudible after 22.00hrs at the boundary of the nearest residential property. He lived at the nearest property and could confirm that he could hear people in the kitchen at this time. Did inaudible mean no noise should be heard?

The Principal Licensing Officer confirmed that inaudible meant that the noise should not be heard.

3 Licensing Hearing Minutes 24.06.11 - 2

The EHDC Solicitor informed the meeting that the condition was frequently used in the District and nationwide.

Dennis Griffiths asked about Paul Ryan, who on the application was the Designated Premises Supervisor and his association with the application.

The Principal Licensing Officer said that it would be better to wait for the applicant to explain the current situation.

Clare Johnson, Solicitor for the applicant addressed the Sub-Committee. She explained that she represented Enterprise Inns PLC, they were the freehold owners and landlord of the premises. Enterprise Inns PLC owned properties around the country and let them out to tenants who then ran the business under terms and leases. If the lease was being breached then the company would take action.

This was an application for a brand new premises licence, the premises had held a premises licence before and there had been a public house on the site for 100 years, it was the only one in the village. The licence for this premises had lapsed, it had been held by a company called “R&R Leisure Management Ltd” who had been leasing the property but who had gone into liquidation in 2010. Once a business became insolvent then the licence lapsed. Enterprise Inns PLC had not been aware of the situation. The applicants had inherited Paul Ryan who had been the Designated Premises Supervisor, (DPS) this could only be removed if the holder had a criminal conviction or was unfit to hold the licence due to a financial situation. She confirmed that Paul Ryan was no longer the DPS for the premises.

Enterprise Inns had not been aware of the issues involving the premises until they had received correspondence from the Relevant Authority and residents in the area. This was not unusual as they were only the landlords and not the premises licence holder. Clearly they were aware now and if they were granted the licence her clients would ensure that the premises would be run correctly.

Graeme Marley, Regional Manager, for Enterprise Inns PLC was responsible for the premises and if the application was granted he would be vetting the next tenant very carefully. The aspiration for the premises was that it would be a family friendly dining pub. She acknowledged that there was a need for a community pubic house which residents of the village could enjoy and attend.

The application before the Sub-Committee was identical to the previous licence, except for timings over Christmas and the New Year and there was no request for a licence for adult entertainment.

Clare Johnson then referred to the representations made by Environmental Services against the application and the request by Environmental Services for three conditions to be added to the licence. In respect of inaudibility of noise there were tests that could be done. If issues were so extreme then

4 Licensing Hearing Minutes 24.06.11 - 2 residents should contact the Licensing Authority or Environmental Services. They would carry out checks and tests on the noise levels. She believed that this was the time to forget the past and move forward. It was not so much a premises issue, but the way in which the premises had been run in the past. Her clients had taken on board all the comments by Environmental Services and had put in place measures to reduce public nuisance to an acceptable amount, taking into consideration comments by them and residents. She said that there had been no other representations by other relevant authorities. In respect of crime and disorder there would be no under age selling of alcohol on the premises.

Clare Johnson noted that some Interested Parties who had made representations resided at some distance from the premises and across a railway line she was therefore surprised that at such a distance they could be affected. There was dense housing around the premises and the complaints seemed to be limited to a small number of residents. The concerns expressed by the interested parties also appeared to refer to spats of problems, not every single night. She noted that most of the complaints were about Paul Ryan and his management of the premises. She referred to the complaint submitted by Mr and Mrs Lock and their comments that for the majority of the time they had lived near the premises, the premises had been a good neighbour. It was clear that the premises could operate properly with and for the local community with the right manager in place. Many of the interested parties accepted the need for a public house in the village and noted the comments from one interested party on page 40 of the agenda. This was that “the village desperately needs a local pub where locals (not just young people) can meet, eat and enjoy a pleasant evening.” Paul Ryan the previous DPS had not catered for the local community as a whole.

It was now the intention of Enterprise Inns PLC to take the pub back to a properly managed respectable run establishment with a tenant who would adhere to the conditions and support and assist the local community. She asked the Sub-Committee to give Enterprise Inns PLC and their new tenant, when appointed, a chance to prove they would operate the premises responsibly. The issues had been about poor management of the premises.

The Chairman invited Graeme Marley, Regional Manager, for Enterprise Inns to address the Sub-Committee. Mr Marley informed the Sub-Committee that last Friday Paul Ryan had abandoned the pub. He did not like to see public houses closed, but felt sure that local residents would breathe a sigh of relief. The pub would remain closed as of course it had no licence to trade, but in addition there was damage to the premises and the Police were involved. Some practices had been uncovered which Enterprise Inns PLC and himself were not proud of. This included the gas meter being removed and improvisation of the gas supply to ensure that there was no charge for the gas. His view for the future of the premises was that it would be a family friendly eatery for the whole village, very similar to the Earl of March public house in Chichester. He hoped that in the future the community of the village would be able to hold events at the premises. He said that the play equipment

5 Licensing Hearing Minutes 24.06.11 - 2 outside was now a pile of rubble. He would be carefully selecting the next tenant for the premises.

Brian Griffiths asked what was proposed for the old skittle alley on the site.

Graeme Marley had a vision but felt that the Sub-Committee meeting was not the right arena to go into details. The pub was on acres of land and his idea was to take a section and the site of the skittle alley and build dwellings. This was still in the early stages at present and he had not put his ideas to Enterprise Inns PLC yet. This was purely a dream but he believed that it would be cheaper to demolish the skittle alley than renovate it.

Cllr Ayer referred to the representation on page 40 of the agenda and the reference to the noise from live music. This asked that live music be kept to a minimum, this was a strong please and the request from the applicants was live music up to 12 midnight on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.

In reply, Clare Johnson said that limiting anything was contrary to fair play and the Sub-Committee had to determine the application on the basis of evidence. There were only nine representations and none were specific with days, times or frequency. She would be surprised if they heard anything. Environmental Services were happy with the situation and it should be noted that they were not seeking to reduce hours. This was purely speculation on what might happen. She referred to the “Thwaihts” case, any decision made on pure speculation as opposed to the evidence was wrong and would be quashed.

Cllr Glass asked what were “indoor sporting events”, was this referring to the skittle alley.

This was darts matches which attracted large audiences, there was no intention to have pole dancing or other previous activities.

Brian Griffiths referred to his letter of 24 th May 2011 on page 32 of the agenda. He said that his first objection no longer stood as Paul Ryan was no longer associated with the public house. His second objection to the opening hours stood as he was particularly concerned that noise would be audible. He referred to condition 13 which referred to the noise. Four Marks was a very quiet village and noise carried, you could hear foxes, sheep and cars and vans from A31 after 8.30pm. He believed that it would be impossible not to hear the live music and noise. He had complained about the activities at the premises in the past but these had not been passed on. In the late 1980s the pub had been very popular.

Thelma Thomas, interested party said that Clare Johnson talked about the premises and the area but she was not familiar with it. The representation on page 40 of the agenda may well be the furthest away from the premises, however, due to the lie of the land noise from the premises could be heard from that far away. The hours for live music were not acceptable.

6 Licensing Hearing Minutes 24.06.11 - 2

Clare Johnson asked Thelma Thomas how long she had lived in the village and was informed 23 years.

Thelma Thomas said that the village had not supported the pub in recent years although 23 years ago it had been gold mine.

Dennis Thomas said that many residents in felt as they did about the premises. They had been here before opposing an application for a licence and had failed on every count. He thought that Graeme Marley’s vision for the pub was spot on and he welcomed the proposed regeneration of the pub and that it would become a village focused public house. He was concerned bout the opening hours but would see how it went. He had felt intimidated by Paul Ryan and his friends and had been fearful of complaining.

Graeme Marley said that he had become Regional Manager in October 2009 and he was concerned to hear and read the representations by local residents. He had felt intimidated by Mr Ryan in the first three to four months and he suspected that this was why he had been brought in.

In summing up Clare Johnson asked that the basis of law and legal perspective be considered. There had been no representations from Relevant Authorities, and residents evidence should not give cause for concern as nothing had happened over the past 12 to 18 months. It was a tough environment for public houses, many had closed and the applicants were proposing to renovate the pub and give it a second chance.

The Sub-Committee adjourned to make its decision at 12.52pm.

The Sub-Committee reconvened at 13.18pm.

The Solicitor advised all those present that the Sub-Committee had reached its decision, as follows:

In considering the application, the Sub-Committee had regard to the promotion of the licensing objectives, the Act, its statement of licensing policy, the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State and the representations (including supporting information) presented by all parties.

The Sub-Committee has decided it is necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives, to grant the application with the following modifications as discussed today:

Firstly, the Designated Premises Supervisor named in the application, Paul Ryan, is deemed to be removed, with a new supervisor to be appointed.

The following conditions are added to those proposed in annex 1 and agreed with Environmental Protection:

1. During regulated entertainment, windows and doors shall remain closed, except for access and egress;

7 Licensing Hearing Minutes 24.06.11 - 2

2. Noise from the premises shall be inaudible after 22:00 at the boundary of the nearest residential property. Noise from the premises includes regulated entertainment and patron noise.

3. Signs shall be displayed at all times in relevant places reminding patrons to respect local residents and use the outside area quietly and respectfully.

These conditions are necessary for the prevention of public nuisance, specifically noise nuisance.

Appeal: The applicant and interested parties had the right to appeal the decision to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receiving official notification of the decision from the Licensing Authority.

The meeting closed at 1.21pm

Signed. Chairman

During the course of the Hearing there were no members of the press and 1 member of the public present.

8 Licensing Hearing Minutes 24.06.11 - 2