The application is made under the Licensing Act 2003 for the variation of a Premises Licence to request an increase of the opening hours and the sale of alcohol hours on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only.

 

The Hearings Procedure is also included which outlines the participants involved in the hearing, delineates their respective roles, and describes the order in which the hearing is conducted.

The Sub-Committee heard from the Licensing Manager that the application had been made under the Licensing Act 2003 for the variation of a Premises Licence to request an increase of the opening hours and the sale of alcohol hours on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only.

 

The applicant had described Skinners Arms as a Public House.

 

The applicant had proposed to open to the public on the following days/hours:

 

Monday to Thursday               10:00 - 01:00   (No change to hours on these days)

Friday and Saturday               10:00 - 02:00

Sunday                                    10:00 - 01:30

 

The Sub-Committee were informed that the current opening hours had been as follows:

 

Monday to Thursday               10:00 - 01:00

Friday and Saturday               10:00 - 01:30

Sunday                                    10:00 - 23:30

 

Following mediation with the objectors, the applicant had subsequently amended the proposed opening times to be as follows:

 

Monday to Thursday               10:00 – 01:00

Friday and Saturday               10:00 – 02:00

Sunday                                    10:00 – 23:30

 

The Sub-Committee were informed that with the withdrawal of Sunday, the Variation application for consideration is for Friday and Saturday only.

 

It was reported that those amended opening times had been accompanied by two suggested conditions to be put in place:

 

1)    Save for those persons who wish to leave the premises temporarily, for example to smoke, the external garden shall close no later than 2300hrs.

2)    That notices shall be displayed in the rear garden requesting customers to respect the local residents.

 

Following those amendments to the application, three of the objectors had withdrawn their representations with the agreement of the amended hours and conditions proposed, four objections remained and three had not responded.

 

Members were notified that the current licensable activities had been:

 

-       Sale of Alcohol on and off the premises

-       Performance of Live Music

-       Performance of Recorded Music

-       Provision of Facilities for Similar Entertainment

 

Members had additionally been notified that those licensable activities were licensed for the following times:

 

Monday to Thursday               10:00 - 00:30

Fridays and Saturdays           10:00 - 01:00

Sunday                                    10:00 - 23:00

 

 

The Sub-Committee heard that the sale of alcohol on and off the premises was the only proposed licensable activity to be varied. The proposed hours had been as follows:

 

Monday to Thursday               10:00 - 00:30   (No change to hours on these days)

Fridays and Saturdays           10:00 - 01:30

Sunday                                    10:00 - 01:00

 

The Licensing Manager reminded Members that all other licensable activities and conditions currently permitted by the licence would remain unchanged.

 

The variation application had been attached to the main report (A.1) as Appendix A

 

The current premises licence had been attached to the main report (A.1) as Appendix B

 

The Sub-Committee heard that the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (PRSR Act 2011) had removed from the Licensing Act 2003 the specific reference for representations to be made by ‘interested parties’ and had also removed the requirement that representations could only be accepted from persons living in the ‘vicinity’ of the premises concerned, or who had for example, a business in the ‘vicinity’ of the premises.

 

There had been no guidance or definition of ‘vicinity’ within the Licensing Act 2003 which effectively had had a limiting effect on those that could make relevant representations.

 

Members were informed that the PRSR Act 2011 had replaced the references to ‘interested parties’ and ‘vicinity’ and substituted that representations could be made and accepted by the Licensing Authority from ‘other persons’ which had meant that those persons had not necessarily had to live or run a business, for example, in the proximity of the premises to be able to submit a valid and relevant representation.

 

The relevant extracts from the Section 182 Guidance that accompanies the Licensing Act 2003 advised the following in relation to ‘other persons’:

 

            “8.12 As well as responsible authorities, any other person can play a role in a number of licensing processes under the 2003 Act. This includes any individual, body or business       entitled to make representations to licensing authorities in relation to applications for the     grant, variation, minor variation or review of premises licences and club premises         certificates, regardless of their geographic proximity to the premises.”

 

Representations can be made either against or in support of an application. The relevant extracts from the Section 182 Guidance that accompanies the Licensing Act 2003 advises the following in relation to this point.

 

            9.3 Relevant representations can be made in opposition to, or in support of, an     application and can be made by any individual, body or business that has grounds to do           so.”

 

Ten representations/objections had been received from residents in relation to this application.

 

Those letters of objection/representation had been attached to the main report (A.1) as Appendix C.

 

There were three objectors present at the meeting. They were Ruth Stocks (representing Manningtree Town Council), Paul Simmonds and Nigel Barker.

 

The Agent (Ewan McGregor) appointed by the applicant (Punch Taverns Ltd) was present accompanied by the current leaseholder and Designated Premises Supervisor of the Pub (Peter Allcock).

 

The Sub-Committee heard that all responsible authorities had been consulted as per procedure and that no representations had been received in response to that consultation.

 

Members were reminded that each application must be considered in its own rights and on its own merits only on how it might impact the four licensing objectives, which were the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety and protection of children from harm.

 

The Agent spoke in support of the application, gave an overview of how the premises were operated and who was involved in running it, stated that the premises had not received any complaints to the Police or to the leaseholder, confirmed that the proposed opening hours had already been used on various Bank Holiday weekends, informed the Sub-Committee that the leaseholders would be willing to speak directly with any residents or attend a Town Council meeting to address future concerns, noted that other public houses in the area were open until 01:00 on Friday and Saturday nights and that the proposed hours would therefore extend trading later than some neighbouring premises, and suggested that the absence of Police representation at the hearing indicated that the Police had no concerns regarding anti-social behaviour.

 

Questions from Members:	Answers:
Why do you feel it necessary to extend opening hours until 2am?	(Agent) The lack of presence from the responsible authorities is compelling evidence that anti-social behaviour is not a concern for this premises. Regarding noise levels, the entertainment hours will remain the same.   (Leaseholder) The aforementioned extensions we have in place on some Bank Holiday weekends allow for a more regular flow of customers leaving. If we were successful, it does not mean we would always be open until that time as sometimes there is not the custom at those hours.
The form within the application for the licensing objectives has been left blank. Can you explain why?	(Agent) We did not believe that there was a requirement to promote the licensing objectives. The way the premises have operated since Mr Allcock (Leaseholder) took over in January 2025, there have been no complaints from the public or police.
How would the proposed conditions be policed?	(Agent) There would be notices displayed on the door leading to the garden. There is also CCTV in the garden which would be monitored and if the conditions were not adhered to, customers would be asked to leave.
Would smokers be allowed to take their drinks out to the garden?	(Agent) The consumption of alcohol is not a licensable activity and therefore customers would be allowed to take their drink into the garden when smoking. However, there would be notices displayed outlining that the garden is for smokers only after 11pm. The CCTV and staff policing the garden area could be incorporated as a condition to the Licence if the Committee is minded to grant the variation.
Is it the Leaseholder or Punch Taverns that have requested the extension in hours?	The application has been made by Punch Taverns as the licence holder, but the hours have been requested by the Leaseholder.
There are concerns here for the surrounding residents and further concern that the opening hours may have evolved and could possibly evolve further?	(Agent) Nobody has attended the pub and spoken with the Leaseholder about this application, so it has come as a surprise that there have been so many objectors. The current licence has been in place since at least the beginning of this year, so if the hours were to be extended further, we would have to go through this process to do so.
Has there been any previous complaints to the Council prior to this application?	(Michael Cook) No complaints have been received via the Licensing office until this application has been submitted.
Were the residents aware that this application was being made?	(Michael Cook) Within the Licensing Act (2003) there is a requirement to display blue notices at the premises for a period of 28 days and newspaper public notices. I can confirm that they were compliant with this requirement.

 

Paul Simmonds spoke against the application. He stated that his property backed directly onto the Skinners Arms car park and that, during the summer months, he had kept his windows closed because of noise from customers leaving premises area. He raised concerns that extended opening hours would have a further detrimental impact on his property and other neighbouring properties.

 

Nigel Barker spoke against the application. He noted that the absence of reported police involvement did not mean that anti-social behaviour had not occurred or had not affected the community and residents.

 

Ruth Stocks spoke against the application. She emphasised that the premises were in close proximity to a number of residential properties and that late-night noise from customers leaving would affect those residents. She expressed concern that existing litter and anti-social behaviour issues could worsen if later opening hours were permitted and that conditions attached to any permission might not reduce noise levels or be practicably enforced by staff. She stressed her primary concern for Manningtree residents and observed that neighbouring public houses, although licensed to later hours, chose to close at 23:00 because of the village’s quiet character.

 

The Chairman (Councillor J Henderson) the adjourned the meeting at this time whilst the Sub-Committee retired to deliberate. The Litigation Lawyer (Sarah Opene) and Democratic Services Officer (Katie Koppenaal) retired with the Sub-Committee for observatory reasons only.

 

Upon resuming the meeting, the Chairman (Councillor J Henderson) read out a statement detailing the Sub-Committee’s decision as follows:

 

“The Sub Committee has given careful consideration to this application. The premises being The Skinners at Station Road, Manningtree, Essex, CO11 1DX with the Applicant being Punch Taverns Limited. 

 

In reaching its decision, we have taken into account the views expressed by the Applicant and the objectors. The Council has considered statutory guidance and the Licensing Authority's Policy.

 

It has also considered the licensing objectives namely, the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. Alongside the application the Sub-Committee considered the additional evidence documents provided at the hearing.

 

The current opening hours of the premises are 10am – 01:00 on Mondays – Thursdays, 10am – 01:30 on Fridays and Saturdays and 10am – 23:30pm on Sundays 

 

The applicant in his application proposes to amend the sale of alcohol on and off premises for 10am – 01:30am Fridays and Saturdays and Sundays 10am – 1pm. 

 

Michael Cook summarising the application. Ewan McGregor representative from TLT made representations on behalf of the Applicant.

 

In Mr McGregor’s representations he confirmed the application had been revised with Sundays proposed amended hours withdrawn with the Friday and Saturday hours to remain as proposed.

 

It was confirmed that 3 objectors namely objectors 1, 5 and 8 have agreed to withdraw their objection in acceptance of the amendment and condition imposed.

 

Objectors 3, 9 and 10 have not responded and Objectors 2, 4, 6 and 7 insisted that their objections remain.

 

There are concerns of antisocial behaviour with the ongoing license as expressed in the written objections alongside the verbal objections presented in today’s hearing. 

 

The Sub-Committee’s decision is to reject the application as it negatively impacts one or more of the licensing objectives.

 

This decision will be communicated to the relevant persons in writing.

 

An appeal to this decision can be made to the Magistrates within 21 days.”