Agenda, decisions and minutes

None.

None were received.

None were received.

The Chairman explained the procedure for hearing and determining the application and detailed the order in which speakers would be able to address the Panel.

That the variation of the Premises Licence be granted for Y Delyn Wine Bar, Mold, in respect of the playing of live music and inclusion of plays, films and recorded music between the hours of 1pm to 1am on Monday to Sunday.

The Licensing Officer presented the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) to consider an application for the variation of an existing Premises Licence at Y Delyn Wine Bar, 3 King Street, Mold.  The application, which had been advertised in the correct manner, was to extend the licence for live music and to include plays, films and recorded music during the hours of 1pm to 1am on Mondays to Sundays.

Appended to the report were written representations from Mr. Alan Spaven, the owner of the neighbouring residential and business property, who had objected to the application.  His concerns related to the ongoing unacceptable noise levels emanating from the yard at the rear of the wine bar which could be heard inside his adjoining home, despite his attempts to minimise the impact.  His letter raised concerns about the potential escalation in noise levels should the extension to the licence be granted.  However, he had subsequently written to advise of his decision not to attend today’s hearing and that whilst he did not wish to challenge the proposed extension of time, there remained a need to impose restrictions on use of the rear yard to reduce noise levels.

The Licensing Officer explained that attempts for medication between applicant and complainant had been unsuccessful.

4.1       Representations by the Applicant

In addressing the letter of objection from the complainant, Ms. Martina Kavanagh felt it was important for the Panel to understand the wider context of issues relating to the wine bar and neighbouring property.

The Chairman requested that Ms. Kavanagh state only the facts as the complainant was not present to respond.

Ms. Kavanagh referred to the investigations undertaken by the Council’s Pollution Control section which had found no evidence of noise nuisance, and said that there was no evidence to suggest that further restrictions to the use of the backyard should be imposed.  She stated that loud behaviour was not permitted at the venue and that the back yard was monitored regularly with signs displayed to minimise noise levels.

It was the view of Ms. Kavanagh that the reason behind the complainant’s representations was due to an ongoing land ownership dispute.  In support of her application, she explained the need to adapt the business and said that the wine bar was a popular, vibrant and trouble-free establishment, employing local people and that use of the backyard was vital to its running and was not intended to upset those living nearby.

During her representations, Ms. Kavanagh said that she wished to provide background information to the land ownership dispute with the complainant’s family, however the Solicitor pointed out that this was not relevant to the application and that the Panel had noted Ms. Kavanagh’s assertions about the motivation for the complainant’s objections.

The Chairman gave assurance that the application would be considered, taking account of all the representations made, but that personal issues were a separate matter.

Ms. Kavanagh responded to questions raised by the Panel on the wine bar and its proximity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

There were two members of the press in attendance.