The Interim Assistant Director Waste, Fleet and Transport Services will present a report (Document “AE”) which outlines an application for a review of a premises licence for the Watchmaker, South Square Centre, South Square, Thornton, Bradford, BD13 3ES.

Members are invited to consider the information and documents referred to in Document “AE” and, after hearing interested parties, determine the related application.

(Melanie McGurk – 01274 431873)

Resolved -

That having considered all valid representations made by the parties to the hearing; valid written representations received during the statutory period, the published statement of licensing policy and relevant statutory guidance; the panel refuses the application for a review.

Reason – This decision was made on the basis that the evidence heard does not lead the Panel to consider that it is reasonable to restrict the use of the Community Garden by patrons of the Watchmaker licenced premises.

ACTION: Interim Director, Waste, Fleet and Transport Services

Commenced: 10:09

Adjourned: 11:18

Recommenced: 11:33

Concluded: 11:36

PRESENT

Members of the Bradford District Licensing Panel

Councillor Slater (Chair), Councillor Winnard, Councillor Hawkesworth

Legal Representative

Richard Winter

Licensing Officer

Melanie McGurk

Applicant

Andy Jewsbury

Abril Kelly

The Licensing Officer presented a report (Document “AE”) which outlined an application for a review of premises licence for the Watchmaker, South Square Centre, South Square, Thornton, Bradford, BD13 3ES.

The Licensing Officer reported that 13 letters of representations had been received from local residents objecting and 24 letters from other local residents in support of the Beer garden.

The Applicant advised Panel Members that he resided on Oakroyd which is opposite the Beer garden. The Applicant explained that the level of noise generated at the Garden has caused nuisance to local residents, residents were not able to open their windows or able to enjoy the use of their own private gardens due to loud disruptive noise. The Applicant expressed disappointment that the Beer Garden had been granted permission to operate in an area in which residents have enjoyed peace and quiet for many years.

The Applicant informed Panel Members that there had been several anti-social behaviour incidents and obstructive car parking by patrons of the Watchmaker.

The Applicant further explained how the noise from the Beer Garden would build from early evening and would get louder as the evening progressed due to alcohol consumption. Residents were able to hear individual conversations; therefore, residents were not able to enjoy quality time in their own private gardens.

The Applicant requested that the use of the Beer Garden by the Watchmaker to be limited to occasional use only with limited operating hours.

Panel Members were keen to know if there had been any input from Environmental Health department and if there had been any visits to the site to establish the noise related issue.

The Applicant advised that the Environmental Health department had been approached but residents had been advised that there were no resources available to take any action.

Panel Members wanted to know if the issue of loud noise was throughout the duration of the week or just on weekends. Panel Members wanted to better understand the frequency of the noise nuisance.

Responding to Panel Members the Applicant advised that the problem was mainly on Friday, Saturday and Sundays from 2pm till 7.30pm every week. The gazebo also helped attract customers in all weathers and most evenings.

Panel Members were keen to understand what the Beer Garden had been previously used for.

The Applicant advised Members that the Beer Garden was used by various different businesses such as, gift shops and workshops. People from the community would make good use of the of the area occasionally.

The Legal Advisor requested to know if there was any screening around the garden space and requested clarification on representations received from other local residents.

The Applicant advised that there was some fencing around the Garden which did not deter noise pollution. 13 other unhappy local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12