The Director for Public Health will submit a report in respect of The Clarence, 31 Clarence Place, Stonehouse, Plymouth for the Variation of a premises licence under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Committee:

(a)   Considered the report from the Director of Public Health

(b)  Heard and took account of verbal and written representations from the applicant, Mr Jakes and Ms Chilvers as follows:

·         There was a restriction placed on the licence in relation to regulated entertainment on the premises when it was under different management. Since that restriction was put in place the applicant had taken over the licence and they had moved the door back into its original position and sound proofed the front of the premises. With that in mind the application was effectively asking the committee to reconsider the restriction that was placed on the licence in light of the changes they had made and the conditions put forward by Environmental Health. The idea was to have music at the back of the premises and be able to talk at the front of the pub;

·         The limit of 2 nights per week put forward by Environmental Health and the other conditions were acceptable but they did not envisage having music every week. No all day events were planned however where they do charity events it was likely that the music would start in the afternoon. The proposition put forward by the complainant of non-consecutive days for the music was also acceptable to the applicant;

·         A sound limiting device was a good idea and was in interest of all parties as it would ensure that the licensing objectives were upheld and would prevent noise issues in neighbouring property. When they took over the premises contact was made with the neighbours to ask if the music was loud but they never said anything to them;

·         The Premises Licence Holder was regularly on the premises and when she was not there she is in regular contact with her partner on the premises and those working there have letter of authorisation to sell alcohol;

·         No alcohol or glassware was permitted outside and this rule was enforced. Anyone disobeying the rules was asked to leave;

·         Customers were told they can only smoke to the side of the building and ashtrays were provided. The area is cleaned at least once a day and inspected but it was impossible to mark out a specific area as the land was a public footpath;

·         Any customers found standing outside the adjoining house were asked to move away. However, since the door had been moved no one had been sitting on the wall and if they have been they were not their patrons;

·         Live music had only taken place when there was a TEN in place. The songs listed by the complainant had never been played as part of any TEN;

·         The verbal abuse from the customer mentioned by the complainant did take place but the customer was rebuked by Ms Chilvers;

·         Two sound monitors were used when any music performance took place and were recorded in the daily log. Recordings are taken inside and out. One example of the measuring that took place recorded as being between 86dB and 78dB and recorded as being background noise. Mr Jakes set his sound recorder 10dB higher than the other;

·         Sound proofing had been installed in the main area of the pub to restrict any noise to neighbours and a detail of what had been installed was provided to committee. Whilst committee noted this, they were not given any information to confirm that this was to any approved specification;

·         The premises now attract different clientele to what it did previously. A number of veteran and LGBT now use the venue. All patrons get on well and there was a diverse atmosphere without trouble;

·         The using and supply of drugs is forbidden and they had a zero tolerance towards it. They were working with local police to help prevent drug activities in the area. The premises have CCTV which picks up any drug dealing activities in the back lane and toilets are also checked regularly. Live music has nothing to do with drug use in the area;

·         A number of letters from local people in support of the premises were submitted. These were taken into account by the committee;

·         Being unable to have music put the business at an unfair disadvantage to others in the area. This was not taken into account by the committee as it was not relevant under the licensing objectives;

·         The premises have been run for many years without problems and were a hub of the community. The aim was for this to be a community pub and they will run charity events.

(c)   Heard the following representations from Environmental Health. These were considered relevant under the Prevention of Public Nuisance and were taken into account in reaching a decision:

·         That due to previous issues of noise from the premises they had made a representation under the licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance. Discussions had taken place with the Premises Licence Holder and conditions had been put forward which were detailed at appendix 2 of the report.

·         They were still of the opinion that Section 177A should not be removed from the licence but that the condition should be amended to reflect those conditions put forward at appendix 2.

·         Previous TEN had been granted and the premises had used the maximum they can for the year. They had one complaint in respect of music which claimed that there was no TEN in place. A visit to the premises had confirmed that a TEN was in place.

·         They were confident that the applicant would work with the conditions as Environmental Health has been working with the premises licence holder for 12 months without issues. Environmental Health believed that the conditions would address any potential problems.

(d)  Heard from Councillor McDonald representing a local resident who had made representations as follows. Both verbal and written representations were taken into account as follows:

·         The Premises Licence Holder had not reassured residents and problems continue despite having spoken to the neighbours when they took over and having the problems explained to them. Bad language is frequently used within the premises and is heard within the property;

·         There was a lack of sound proofing at the back of the property. This was where children may sleep and so music would disturb them. This was considered to be relevant under the licensing objective of prevention of children from harm. However the committee considered that the conditions put forward by environmental health would address any potential problems;

·         Currently when music was played at the premises it can be heard within the next door property, even though sound proofing had been placed between the premises and the neighbouring property. When the premises had a private party the music was very loud and drowned out the sound from the complainant’s television. The dates provided by the other party in relation to this problems experienced were: 5.5.18 (Sweet Caroline and Queen songs), 26.5.18, 19.6.18, 17.6.18. This was considered to be relevant under the licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance however the committee considered that the conditions put forward by environmental health would address any further problems;

·         There were concerns that having live music will attract drug dealers to the area and that this raises concerns for the safety of their children. This was considered relevant under the licensing objective of prevention of crime and disorder however the committee were satisfied that the actions taken by the premises licence holder including CCTV addressed any drug related issues in the area;

·         Various allegations made that licence conditions have not been complied and examples were provided in the representation. This was not considered to be relevant to the application save that it would be relevant when considering the likelihood of the Premises Licence Holder complying with the conditions put forward by environmental health. However having listened to what had been said by environmental health in this regard, the committee were satisfied that the Premises Licence Holder would comply with any conditions added to the licence;

·         There was no requirement for an additional live music venue in the area. This was not considered to be relevant as it did not relate to any of the licensing objectives;

·         The Premises Licence Holder is rarely at the premises. This was not considered to be relevant as it does not relate to any of the licensing objectives;

·         In the representation suggested conditions had been put forward and whilst these were not relevant under any licensing objective, the committee gave consideration to the suggestion that music should not be on consecutive nights as this would promote the licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance and the applicant had also indicated this would be a workable condition.

(e)  Having considered the representations as set out above the committee did not consider it appropriate to grant the application as applied for as it had the potential to undermine the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. However the committee agreed that the application would be granted as follows in order to promote the licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance:

Condition 26 be amended to read:

Section 177A of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to live and recorded music does not apply to this premises. Regulated entertainment may take place as follows:

a. Regulated entertainment is restricted to live and recorded music with two vocalists only. No live instruments are permitted

b. Regulated entertainment is restricted to two non-consecutive days per week between 10 am and 11pm.

c. The licence holder will control the sound levels of the music/entertainment. A noise limiting device (the specification and design to be agreed with the Environmental Health Service) must be fitted so that all live amplified music including vocals and recorded music is channelled through the device(s). The maximum noise levels will be set by agreement with Environmental Health Service and reviewed from time-to -time as appropriate. If the noise limiter is not working then no regulated entertainment is permitted.

The application for retrospective permission to move the location of the front door was granted.