Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting

The Chair opened the meeting and introductions were made.

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed by the members present and then signed by the Chair.

To receive any apologies for absence

There were no apologies for absence.

To receive any declarations of interest

There were no declarations of interest.

The Sub-Committee were required to consider an application to review a premises licence for the following premises:

The Chipperfield Boot

Tower Hill

Chipperfield

Kings Langley

Hertfordshire

WD4 9LN

Decision

The Sub-Committee notes that a consultation took place between 7 March and 4 April 2024, during which 15 representations were received. These were from residents citing concerns about the potential public nuisance created by the proposed later opening hours.

Amongst the representations received, the following comments were noted:

• The Premises are close to a large number of houses and, if granted, this license will cause a significant disturbance. Chipperfield is a quiet village so the amount of noise will be significant and not in keeping with this. Additionally, increased licensing hours could lead to increased crime and disorder.
• The granting of the licence would impact the community and nearby residents. Allowing alcohol sales and late-night events at the Premises, situated close to residential properties, would present a significant infringement on their right to enjoy their property peacefully.
• The license would place an excessive burden upon residents to tolerate the noise from customers using the garden late at night, and noise from customers leaving the premises in the early hours 7 days a week.
• There are no outside sound barriers to control the noise levels in such a sensitive rural area etc. The representations continued. 

The Sub-Committee also heard from Mr Roger Williams in person, on behalf of the Objectors, who echoed much of what the residents had said, and reconfirmed that public nuisance may occur if the license was to be granted. When asked by the Sub-Committee whether there was any history of ASB in the same location, none was cited, save for reports of burglary.

The Sub-Committee notes that, whilst these were genuine concerns, there was no evidence to suggest that the granting of the licensing would seriously undermine one or, all of the licensing objectives as no such evidence had been put before the licensing Sub-Committee. Furthermore,  there were no objections raised by the Responsible Authorises. In conclusion then these concerns are merely speculative.

The Sub-Committee also took the view that the applicant is a responsible businessman, and it considered the character references that were submitted. He is also a resident and lives in close proximity with his family, and has therefore a vested interest. He said that the plan is not to operate as a late-night drinking venue, but as a simple village pub with a safe environment for both children and families. He was also prepared to voluntarily limit the opening times to 11 pm/7 days a week. He stated that he would also make efforts to include the local community/residents and start a dialogue leading to frequent meetings to discuss any issues that may arise.

Furthermore, the Applicant had confirmed that staff would be appropriately trained, the business would have CCTV (night vision), and incident logs would be kept.

In light of all the submissions and considering all relevant legal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.