Agenda and minutes

HARVESTER HAM FARM PUBLIC HOUSE, Licensing Panel
Tuesday, 31 July 2018 10:00 am

Venue: Room 16/17 Eastleigh House, Upper Market Street, Eastleigh

Contact: Matt Dobrowolski, Democratic Services Officer Tel: 023 8068 8080; Email:  democraticservicesl@eastleigh.gov.uk  Amy Stephens, Democratic Services Officer Tel: 023 8068 8273; Email:  democraticservices@eastleigh.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

18.

The Application pdf icon PDF 10 MB

Minutes:

The Clerk outlined the application to review the current premises licence for Harvester Ham Farm Public House, Twyford Road, Eastleigh, Hampshire, SO50 4LF.

 

The applicants were Mr. Paul William Donnellan and Mr. Stuart Oxenham.

 

The Chair asked whether any members of the Panel wished to declare any interest in the application and all members declined.

 

(Note: This meeting was previously adjourned by the Panel on the 12 July 2018 where all parties agreed to it being held on the 31 July 2018) 

19.

Representations from the Applicant

Minutes:

Mr. Paul Donnellan made a representation supporting the application.

 

Main points raised by the applicant:

 

·         Excessive noise originating from the premises’ beer garden;

 

·         The licence holder was unsuccessful in prevention of public nuisance by failing to comply with conditions of the licence as set out in the noise management plan;

 

·         Mr Donellan presented his log in which he recorded the alleged disturbances; and

 

·         The applicants requested that the beer garden be shut at 21:00.

20.

Representations from the Licence Holder

Minutes:

The licence holder (represented by Poppleston Allen solicitors) addressed the application.

 

The main points raised by the licence holder included:

 

·         The premises were well managed;

·         There was no evidence to support any excessive noise from the premises,  from the Environmental Health officer or from the Police;

 

·         The management of Ham Farm had taken issues seriously;

·         Any further alleged disturbances/excessive noise should be reported to Environmental Health; and

·         Closure of the pub garden at 21:00 would have a negative effect on trading.

 

(Note: Two local residents spoke in support of the licence holder. They confirmed that the pub was well run and that they had never noticed any disturbances or excessive noise at the premises).

21.

The Decision

The Panel withdraw to make their decision 

Minutes:

The Panel withdrew from the meeting to make their decision and invited the Clerk and Legal Adviser to join them.

 

The following decision was read out to the hearing when the Panel reconvened:

 

All parties will receive formal written confirmation of the decision and reasons.

 

The Panel has considered very carefully the application for review of the premises licence at Harvester Ham Farm brought by residents. It has given due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance and the adopted statement of Licensing Policy.  Human Rights Legislation has been borne in mind whilst making this decision. 

 

All the evidence presented both written and given orally today, has been carefully considered and taken into account. The Panel particularly focussed its mind upon the licensing objective for the prevention of public nuisance.

 

Having carefully considered all of the above, and all the steps available under section 52, sub section 4, the Panel has decided to take no action at this stage.

 

Reasons

 

The Panel noted that the application was supported by evidence dating back to 1998 and decided that little weight should be attached to evidence pre-dating the current management at the premises (i.e. dating back further than three years).

 

The main issues raised by those bringing the review related to the following (but not necessarily limited to the following):

 

-           Non-compliance with conditions attached to the licence

-           Poor management of the premises and of the outside areas in particular

-           Nuisance relating to noise from patrons using the outside areas

 

The Panel considered the conditions attached to the licence and noted that the relevant condition requires compliance with the noise management plan. That plan requires notices to be displayed indicating that use of the beer garden shall cease at 22:00. Accordingly, the condition does not, in actual fact, require the use of the garden to cease at 22:00 but merely requires signage to indicate this is the case.

 

In any event the Panel heard that the licence holders were voluntarily operating a policy of closing the garden at 10.00pm and evidence presented to the Panel supported this position in that the Panel heard customers did not always readily accept the position and staff were nonetheless firm.

 

The Police representation was generally supportive of the premises noting few examples of any concern and highlighting a difficulty in ascertaining precisely which premises might be responsible for any issues that might exist (there being several licensed premises in close proximity). The police hold no concern that licensing objectives are being undermined, likewise there are no concerns that conditions are not being adhered to. The only relevant noise complaint on file with the police dates back to 2009.

 

The Panel noted that no representation had been received from Environmental Health and therefore had to draw the conclusion that there are no concerns regarding nuisance from them.

 

The Panel found the number of representations in support persuasive – this is very much an unusual feature of this case.

 

Legal advice was accepted that public nuisance can be raised by a single complainant and that the nature of public nuisance is widely defined in the guidance. Paragraphs 49-82 of the Hope and Glory case were referenced. Clearly, what amounts to a nuisance in one location, may not amount to a nuisance in another due to the nature of that area.

 

The Panel did consider the financial impact of imposing further restrictions and weighed this carefully against the interests of residents affected by the alleged nuisance. However, in light of all the relevant evidence in this case the Panel was not convinced that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.