Transcript

Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]

Just to confirm, no more questions, no, fine. So I'm gonna move on to the representation from the resident. Let me pull out, I've got three to read, Dave. [BLANK_AUDIO] Be easy if I do it for you, would that help? [INAUDIBLE] Yeah, okay. So, just for clarity then, Ms. Flood contacted the office and spoke to Nikki originally. And Nikki said to her, thank you for your time speaking to me today. As promised, I've attached a copy of the application submitted to the licensing authority, the proposed conditions to be imposed on the license, and a copy of the current license. I've also copied Lorraine, who's Lorraine Astle, into this email, as she has been involved with the previous problems concerning noise on the premises. Please get in touch if you need anything else. So then Mrs. Flood replied by saying, let's get this right. Good evening, thank you, Nikki. Regarding a telephone conversation on Tuesday, I've had a look at the application for grant for premises license. I've noticed that they are very much the same as before. I'm just a bit concerned about a couple of things which were put into place with Lorraine Astle's help, and hoping would stay the same. It was agreed that live events starting would be limited to two per month, and I would be given notice. This was, as the soundproofing installed was not working properly, and the noise was heard, and caused a disturbance. She also set levels for the jukebox, will this still remain? The garden times on the license says that people have to leave that area by 2330, if I had read that correctly. It would be impossible to sleep, not just for me, but it is overlooked by neighboring houses. Talking, shouting, and clearing up late at night makes a hell of a racket. We agreed before it would be a lot earlier, and it worked well with that in place. Lorraine worked so well with the Rutland Arms to help put things into place, and it became a lot better. I do object to going back to how it was before the license conditions, as they are now, and not steps too short, these issues out, and eradicate these problems first. I really am feeling anxious about the new takeover, and praying that it won't be like before. I'm also willing to discuss these conditions if you think it would help, as I just want to be able to live in peace alongside the Rutland Arms. Thank you for your understanding about this matter. And then, in response to that, many thanks for email, outlining your concerns as regards to the current application, to the grant for PEN's license with Rutland Arms. Lorraine has already been in touch with me for contact details for the applicant's solicitor in order to discuss noise control measures. In addition, I've forwarded your concerns to the applicant's solicitor. I haven't provided them with your contact details yet, as I would obviously seek your approval to do this, should you wish to engage directly. I've suggested that they consider the issues you have raised, and whether they would be prepared to amend their application to address your concerns, which would be a far better solution than having to hold a formal hearing to determine the application. They will no doubt take your comments into consideration when they discuss noise issues with Lorraine. I've recorded your correspondence as a formal representation this time, but obviously, if your concerns can be addressed, then you can withdraw your representation. And as you've heard, as a goodwill gesture, the applicant amended their time slightly. We have met, Lorraine, Tyra, and myself have met, Mrs. Flood, and talked through her concerns. So we've done everything we can, members.

• I've just got a couple of questions. Now, I'm not sure who is going to be the best one to answer. Can we just get confirmation? We're treating these completely separate. They aren't the business running the place currently. It's just behind the scenes.
• Perhaps I can interject and just address the subcommittee on that particular point. It's been stressed already by the applicant's legal representative, and I would concur with what he has told you, that the two are entirely separate. This is not a consideration today of issues that may have been historical or ongoing in relation to the running of the premises under the separate license that's already in existence. This is a determination as to whether or not it's appropriate to grant another license on the same terms for an entirely separate entity, probably a limited company, I would imagine. Just to keep in its back pocket in the case, as you heard in the event that there is some issue re-insolvency or review or some other matter that leads to revocation or lapse of the license. So unfortunately, and as strange as it may seem to the layperson, this today is not a consideration of those issues that the resident is raising. This is simply a question of whether or not it's appropriate to grant a secondary license to sit in the background and not actually be utilised in the normal sense, although the courts have made it clear that the business of leasing a building can satisfy the tests under section 16 of the Act as to who can apply for a license. So just to confirm, any issues this lady is having she would need to contact the person that's running the business? Yes, they would be concerns about a separate license that's already in existence and could potentially lead to a review of the license if there were issues or concerns. And if that were to happen, I think that is probably the precise indication as to why landlords like in these circumstances to protect their own position to have a secondary license in the background so that if the tenant does misbehave or does go insolvent or have other issues, they still have an asset of a similar value that they previously had despite the actions of their tenant. Thank you. Members? Any questions? Just to fully concur with what Ben said, when you've got 4,000 or 5,000 pubs and a tenant is having financial issues like post COVID, we know what is happening in pubs at the moment, if a publican is struggling and things are really going wrong and everything is on them and everything on their shoulders, protecting a premises license is not the first and foremost thing. They could be living upstairs with a family, they could have all sorts of financial pressures. Protecting a premises license is the last thing that they think about. And usually that is the reason of a shadow license basically is because what happens is a head office will hear two or three months later that a tenant has, maybe they've gone and they actually didn't do anything with a premises license, it hasn't been protected and it's gone and it's too late. And for that reason, freeholders need to protect their public houses by applying for shadow licenses. OK, so we're going to move on to summing up then I think. I've nothing further to add. Would you like to sum up? Thank you, Chair. I'll be very quick. As we've heard, this is a shadow license application on behalf of the freehold owner, a kind of insurance policy, nothing more. Nothing discussed today in this hearing can affect the day-to-day running of the premises as it is operated by a totally separate entity who is not involved at all in this application. The fact that this is only a shadow license application means that there's virtually no way that the grantor of this license can undermine the licensing objectives. I conclude by thanking the committee for its time and in light of what we've heard today, I invite the committee to grant the application. Thank you. So we're going to move into closed session now. Ben, timings. I would imagine probably at least 20 minutes for you to make your decision, formulate your reasons for that all to be written up. So what we'll say, it may take longer than that, but I think you can be safe in the knowledge that the subcommittee won't reconvene before, shall we say, half past. So you can go stretch your legs, use the toilet, et cetera. If you do happen to bump into any of the members in the intervening time, please don't try to talk to them and engage with them. They won't. They've been instructed to ignore parties at that time because it causes all kinds of issues. So the subcommittee will adjourn and not reconvene before half past 11. Hopefully we asked the parties to leave the room.

Transcript

Welcome back. It is 11.45. This is the decision for the matter of the Licensing Act 2003, application for grant of premises license, Rutland Arms, Public House 205, Francis Avenue, Southsea. All parties shall receive written confirmation of the decision and reasons. Due to the decision, the subcommittee has considered very carefully the application for the grant of the premises license. It gave due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the licensing objectives, statutory guidance, and the adopted statement of licensing policy. Two members of the subcommittee indicated that they had received representation direct from one of the parties to the hearing but had not engaged with the correspondence, would not take it into consideration given its late submission, and therefore remained impartial and unbiased. The subcommittee was satisfied that it would continue to consider the application. It was noted that there had been an application for a German as the resident's objector's mother was in hospital and she had wished to address the subcommittee. The applicant was in attendance with legal representation and indicated their wish that the hearing proceed. The subcommittee was referred to Regulation 20 of the Licensing Act 2003, Hearings Regulations 2005, and consideration of the public interest determined to proceed in the absence of the residents and on the basis that the written representation as properly submitted would be fully considered. The subcommittee considered the relevant representations both written and given and expanded upon at the hearing by all parties. Human rights legislation and the public sector equality duty has been borne in mind whilst making the decision. The subcommittee noted that the application sought a shadow license to protect the position of the freeholder. There had been no representations from responsible authorities and one resident objector. The application had amended the application to reduce the hours for exhibitation of a film and indoor sporting events. During the course of the hearing, the formal representation of the resident was read out to the subcommittee. Having heard all of the above evidence, the subcommittee determined to grant the proposed application subject to conditions to implement the agreement reached between environmental health and the applicant and otherwise consistent with the operating schedule. Reasons. The subcommittee accepted advice that it was considering an application for a shadow license and that these were not review proceedings for the existing license already in force. The subcommittee listened very carefully to residents' concerns in the written representations and has had to balance those concerns against the interest of the business. The subcommittee heard that the applicant had agreed with environmental health and whilst the shadow license is generally precisely the same as an existing license, it had been agreed that the provision of indoor sporting events and exhibitation of a film be reduced to 2,300 hours on any day. It was noted that the regulated entertainment is not authorized other than on special event days of which the police must receive notice and to which they have an absolute veto. The subcommittee heard from the resident that the concern related to live events with the dancing levels of noise from the premises including dealing with bottles, use of the garden and the ability of residents to sleep in the area. The subcommittee noted that and was impressed by the level of engagement by the premises with the responsible authorities and trust that this shall continue in future in the event that the shadow license may be activated. In the meantime, the subcommittee cannot ignore the fact that the historical or future perceived issues related to an entirely separate premises license which could be the subject of review or any other action. For example, statutory noise nuisance and which is not the subject of today's consideration. On balance subcommittee could see no reason to justify further restricting the shadow license in the circumstances and that it was therefore appropriate to grant the license in the terms of sort. There is a right of appeal for all parties to the Madrid court. Formal notification of this decision will be set out right in full and that determines the end of this subcommittee at 11.49.