Licensing (Premises) Sub-Committee - Tuesday 17 March 2026, 2:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Licensing (Premises) Sub-Committee
Tuesday, 17th March 2026 at 2:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Democratic Services Officer
  2. Cllr Phil Gomm
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Democratic Services Officer
  2. Cllr Phil Gomm
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer
  2. Cllr Phil Gomm
Share this agenda point
  1. Applicant's Representative
  2. Cllr Phil Gomm
  3. Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer
  4. Applicant's Representative
  5. Sarah Coates - Licensing Officer
  6. Cllr Phil Gomm
  7. Sarah Coates - Licensing Officer
  8. Cllr Phil Gomm
  9. Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer
  10. Cllr Phil Gomm
  11. Applicant's Representative
  12. Cllr Phil Gomm
  13. Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer
  14. Applicant's Representative
  15. Applicant
  16. Applicant's Representative
  17. Cllr Phil Gomm
  18. Applicant's Representative
  19. Cllr Phil Gomm
  20. Kerryann Ashton - Licensing Officer
  21. Cllr Phil Gomm
  22. Interested Party
  23. Applicant's Representative
  24. Applicant
  25. Interested Party
  26. Applicant
  27. Applicant's Representative
  28. Cllr Phil Gomm
  29. Cllr Paul Griffin
  30. Applicant's Representative
  31. Applicant
  32. Cllr Paul Griffin
  33. Applicant's Representative
  34. Cllr Phil Gomm
  35. Applicant
  36. Applicant's Representative
  37. Cllr Phil Gomm
  38. Cllr Matthew Hind
  39. Applicant
  40. Cllr Matthew Hind
  41. Applicant
  42. Cllr Phil Gomm
  43. Applicant's Representative
  44. Cllr Phil Gomm
  45. Applicant
  46. Cllr Phil Gomm
  47. Applicant's Representative
  48. Cllr Phil Gomm
  49. Applicant
  50. Cllr Phil Gomm
  51. Applicant's Representative
  52. Cllr Phil Gomm
  53. Applicant
  54. Cllr Phil Gomm
  55. Applicant's Representative
  56. Cllr Phil Gomm
  57. Sarah Coates - Licensing Officer
  58. Cllr Phil Gomm
  59. Cllr Matthew Hind
  60. Applicant
  61. Cllr Phil Gomm
  62. Charlie Robinson - Licensing Manager
  63. Charlie Robinson - Environmental Protection Team Leader
  64. Charlie Robinson - Environmental Protection Team Leader
  65. Cllr Phil Gomm
  66. Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer
  67. Cllr Phil Gomm
  68. Applicant's Representative
  69. Interested Party
  70. Cllr Phil Gomm
  71. Interested Party
  72. Cllr Phil Gomm
  73. Interested Party
  74. Cllr Phil Gomm
  75. Interested Party
  76. Cllr Phil Gomm
  77. Applicant
  78. Cllr Phil Gomm
  79. Interested Party
  80. Cllr Phil Gomm
  81. Sarah Coates - Licensing Officer
  82. Cllr Phil Gomm
  83. Applicant's Representative
  84. Cllr Phil Gomm
  85. Charlie Robinson - Environmental Protection Team Leader
  86. Cllr Phil Gomm
  87. Interested Party
  88. Cllr Phil Gomm
  89. Interested Party
  90. Cllr Phil Gomm
  91. Interested Party
  92. Cllr Phil Gomm
  93. Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer
  94. Cllr Phil Gomm
  95. Applicant's Representative
  96. Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer
  97. Cllr Phil Gomm
  98. Webcast Finished

Can you still, oh yes I can definitely see everyone. As long as you legally can see them I'm happy.
Yes I can, thank you Phil.
Okay, the webcast has now started. So good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Our first
Democratic Services Officer - 0:00:37
business on the agenda is to confirm the chairman for today's hearing. And I can confirm that
Councillor Phil Gomm has been selected to chair this hearing.
Over to you, Chairman.
Thank you very much, that's very kind.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:00:48
Welcome everybody, good afternoon.
Welcome to the Buckinghamshire Council
Licences Subcommittee hearing
in relation to an application to vary
a premises licence located at the Gryphon 12,
the Broadway, Amersham, HP 7, 0HP.
Just before I continue,
I just want to make sure everybody's aware
that you are being recorded and this is in the public domain.
Okay, so as long as you're all aware,
if you're not happy with that,
I suggest the only option would be to leave the meeting,
but this is normal process that we do.
So just to be clear.
As per the Licencing Act of 2003
and the regulations made there under,
licencing subcommittees are not precluded
from holding remote hearings as they are unaffiliated
by the requirements relating to the local government act
of 1972 and therefore hearings may be conducted online and attended remotely by members and
officers. The public and the press can still see and hear the hearing through the live
webcast and members of the public have been allowed into the virtual hearing to speak
where they have registered to do so. Just one more thing, can everybody turn off their

1 Confirmation of Chairman

microphones please and then that stops us getting any feedback as the meeting goes on.

2 Introductory remarks by the Chairman

Thank you very much. So I'm the chairman for the hearing, I'm Philip Gomme, I look after the
Quaington Ward under Bucks and now I'd like to introduce you to the rest of the panel members.
Councillors if you'd like to introduce yourselves please. Councillor Hind and Councillor Gryphon.
Yeah I'm Matthew Hind, I'm a Councillor for the Missendons which obviously
does not include Amersham but it's very close to it.
My name is Paul Gryphon.
I'm the Councillor for the Ivers,
which also doesn't include Amersham,
but I've been there many, many times.
Thank you very much colleagues, that's very kind.
Remember to turn your mics off if you can please.
Then we're going to go through the officers here today.
Ms. Sarah Coates is the Licencing Officer.
As she will present the report and provide advice
on any matters relating to the licencing policy, guidance and practise.
Would you like to introduce yourself please?
Good afternoon everyone. Sarah Cates, Licence Officer of the Buckinghamshire Council.
Then as we move on, Ms. G. Van Verde of the Council's Legal Department,
she is here to advise the panel on licencing and local government law.
This is to ensure that when the committee makes a decision,
is both within its powers and legally sound.
Would you like to introduce yourself?
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon, everybody.
I'm Gee Van Verde,
a solicitor for Buckinghamshire Council's legal team.
That's very kind, thank you.
We've still got a lot of microphones on,
it's annoying me, please, if we could turn them off.
Thank you.
And then we have, sorry, I've lost myself.
Ms Catherine Mackenzie is the Democratic Services Officer supporting the meeting and is able to
advise on council procedures and again if you'd like to introduce yourself please.
Catherine Mackenzie, Democratic Services. Okay okay I still got microphones on.
Can we see who's got mics on? Can you see them Catherine?
Yes I'll be switching them off to mute now. Thank you.
Okay, before we move forward though, there's still going to need to bring to our attention
on the legal side. So we've got another colleague here actually is Sade Oda. She was the reserve
counsellor. Sade, would you like to introduce yourself please?
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, my name is Sade Ado and I represent Richway West.
So Sade was our reserve colleague, Councillor, that was here today just in case my other
two colleagues didn't turn up, which is supposed to be three of us. So do you have a verdict,
would it be correct that I'm allowed to let Sade now leave the meeting if she requires
to or she can stay and watch whatever she prefers?
Yes, Councillor Addo, you may leave the meeting. The quorum has been met for the meeting so
yeah no issue with the procedural side of things on that aspect so you may leave should you wish to.
Thank you very much thank you and we we appreciate you giving up your time to be the reserve there
as well thank you thank you so now I'm going to go through the rest of the list also in attendance
of the following who will be involved in the hearing at various stages of discussion of this
application. If I get your names incorrect, correct me. I'm more than happy for that to
happen. I'll do my best as we go through. So you got Mr Joe Izzo, the licence holder,
and then we got Mr James Anderson is the solicitor's agent today of the application.
And also in attendance, we're following interested parties, is Mr Charlie Robinson,
is the responsible authority officer here today.
Then we carry on, we've got Kieran Lonergan,
then Mr. Alan McCarthy and Mrs. Oona McCarthy,
and then Mr. Bill Yevlington,
Ms. Sally Brown and Mr. Peter Collins.
Did I pronounce those all correct?
I'm impressed with myself.
Normally I get one or two slightly wrong,
but very good as long as everyone's happy. I can confirm that if the relevant person
is not present their representations will have been read and will be considered when
reaching a decision. I would like to ask that every that nobody apart from the panel members
and officers use the chat function. Now we're going to go into the procedural items this
afternoon on agenda item three and I'd like to ask do we have any apologies for absence?

3 Apologies for absence

There are none.
Democratic Services Officer - 0:07:09
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:07:10
Thank you very much. As we move on to agenda item four,

4 Declarations of interest

you could hear the hearing now. I can't hear anything.
Can we see who that is? Catherine?
Yes, it was displaying as James Anderson, I believe.
If we could make sure the mics are kept off until asked to speak, please.
Then we move on to, turning now to declarations of interest under the council's code of conduct.
Do any of the members have any declaration of interest which they'd like to bring to
the attention of the subcommittee? Colleagues?
Nothing to declare, Chair.
Thank you very much gentlemen.
And then as we move on to agenda item five, we have the virtual licencing subcommittee
hearing procedurals which have been appended to the agenda pack for information. Please
could all parties in attendance confirm that they have seen and understood the procedure
to be followed for at this hearing.
Everybody, have you seen those?
Very good.
Thank you. It looks like we've got on the button there.

5 Hearing Procedure Rules

So everybody's confirmed that they've seen those.
Thank you.
So is everybody in attendance happy for the hearing to proceed?
Chair, can I just interject at that point?
Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer - 0:08:43
There was somebody, I wonder whether it was Mr Anderson,
The applicant's agent who isn't able to hear anything.
There was somebody who just mentioned that they couldn't hear anything.
I don't know if that was picked up.
It may well be. Mr Anderson, actually.
It looks like they're trying to resolve the issue.
Are we able to pause for a few moments? Yeah.
Yeah. There's always those guys. And up. So, yes.
Yeah sorry James. Can everybody wait? I will call your name out if I want you to speak,
otherwise I'll get everybody at the same time. So if you'd like to put your hand up, use it on your
bar. You can either do it on your iPad, we'll just put a hand up. Joe, had his hand up first please.
Yeah sorry, James just called me, Mr Anderson called me to say he couldn't hear anything.
I don't know if it's, I'm not too sure what's going on his end. I might just get him on call
so he can hear via my telephone if that's okay with everyone.
Yeah.
You're gonna try that and see.
Bill Gibbleton, you've got your hand up sir.
Yes, Mr. Collins also cannot hear apparently.
Oh.
Peter Collins. It may be that you dial back in, Peter, but that's one.
The dial back in thing usually works from experience.
Mr. Collins, if you'd like to do one, we're going to let them just drop out.
I'll send him a text as he can't hear us. I just realised that.
Also, yeah, that's a good point. So we'll let Mr Izzo and Mr Leveton contact those people.
Will be good if they want to spare with us a second, please.
Chair, we'll see how that pans out and if it works. And obviously, if not, with your
permission would it be a sensible idea to adjourn and sort of reconnect for everybody?
Obviously at the very least everyone needs to be able to hear for a fair hearing what's happening so
yeah I shall leave that. We'll just we'll give it a minute and then see how we do
like you say it's easy to do. Mr Collins hasn't dropped out yet, nor is Mr Anderson.
I can hear now. Ah brilliant. That's what happens.
Okay that's one result. Thank you very much. Mr Collins if you could turn your mic off
when you're not speaking but very good to welcome you to the meeting.
I know you've missed most of it now but not
and so how are we doing with Mr Anderson do you know?
Mr Anderson, could you hear us yet? I believe he's still struggling. He's got someone working
on it. Yeah, but give him a minute, don't worry. Okay. At least we got one out of two,
we're getting nervous.
.
Anyone that's viewing the webcast out in the public domain at the moment we're just waiting for
one of the applicants solicitor actually just to engage being able to listen so that's what
just all waiting for at the moment if you're watching on.
Yeah, Mr Izzo. I just got a call from James, I believe he can hear now, he's all good. I've just
told him to give you confirmation that he can, okay. James Anderson, can you hear me? Thanks,
Joe. Yes, Chair and Councillors and everyone, sorry about that. I had a technical fault,
but it's been remedied, so I'm in the meeting, thank you. Don't worry, that happens, we know
what technology is like.
Yes, at my age, I find I struggle with it, Chairman, I have to say, but there we are.
No problem. Good, good, good to have you on board. Fantastic. We can move forward.
So we have progressed partly through the agenda.
We just sort of basically introduced all of ourselves, et cetera.
So we're we move on because time is precious for everyone.
Right. So as you go on, we're up to the point where the purpose of the hearing
should be borne in mind at all times to enable those with a right to appear
to advance their point of view and concerns to test the case of their opponents
and to assist the subcommittee to gather evidence and understand the relevant issues.
Please be reminded that parties should only address the subcommittee in relation to matters
but it previously raised or submitted. That is very important to remember that. If anyone tries
to add anything to it I will be pulling you up as we go through also with my legal team.
Do you have Verdi?
I'm sorry, Chair. I just wondered, because Mr Anderson hadn't heard the introductions, would it be worth, I know it disrupts your flow and I am sorry for that, but would it be worth going through introductions again?
I wonder, Chair, if you feel that it's necessary just so that Mr Anderson knows who everybody is, if you feel that's appropriate.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:15:13
Yeah, that's a good question. I'll ask Mr Anderson what he would like to do. Mr Anderson, how would you like to proceed?
No, I'm fine. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Verde, for that. But I've got helpfully names in
front of faces. And in fact, I know some of the people anyway. So I do appreciate the
offer. But in the interest of speed and to save everyone repeating themselves, I'm happy
for the meeting to continue. But thank you.
Very kind. And thank you very much, Deewit Verde, for bringing that to our attention
to address. Thank you. The subcommittee, that as I just said, we need to be reminded that
should only address the subcommittee in relation to matters previously raised and submitted.
The subcommittee may depart from this procedure if it considers it necessary or equitable
to do so. As we move on, do we have any preliminary issues? That would come from my licencing
officer. Do we have any issues? No, no preliminary issues. Thank you, Chair.
Okay, thank you very much. So we now move on to agenda item six which is the application.
We now move to consider the officer's report being presented this afternoon in respect

6 The Griffin, 12 The Broadway, Amersham, HP7 0HP

of a variation of the premises licence located at the Gryphon 12, the Broadway Amersham HP7
0HP. Please note that you should only address the subcommittee in relation to matters previously
raised, as I've already stated, any lay evidence would only be considered with the consent of all parties present.
Chair, may I just make a quick point and apologies for interrupting.
Yeah.
The previous point you mentioned, I think, was under 9, which was whether we wish to make any
Applicant's Representative - 0:17:03
change to our application with a view to addressing issues raised by the representations.
Is that correct? Does that come in before Sarah's report?
I'm just at paragraph 9 on top of page 8.
Dean Van Verde, could you confirm that for me, please?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:17:22
Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer - 0:17:27
Do you know when? Just checking.
Are we all doing business? I only mention it because it may impact on the report that you're about to receive from your licencing officer,
Applicant's Representative - 0:17:42
because we have made a late change, which I'm happy to let the committee know at whatever point they deem appropriate.
But I thought it may be sensible to mention it now.
Sarah, would you like to say you got your hand up?
Yeah, no, it was only just to say that the changes that have been proposed since the
Sarah Coates - Licensing Officer - 0:17:59
original application was submitted, I've amended slightly what I'm going to report on moving
forward. And then when you're given the opportunity, maybe that would be the best time to address
anything then. Is that OK?
It's fine by me. It seems very sensible if you're happy, Chair.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:18:16
Yeah, very good. Okay, let's answer that one. Very good. Sarah Coates has always advanced
of us, which is great, which is what I like from our officers. So I'd now like to invite
the Licencing Officer, Ms Coates, to present the report outlining the details of the application
and representations received. Can I just cheque before she starts that everyone's microphone
is off, please? Sarah Coates, over to you.
Sarah Coates - Licensing Officer - 0:18:45
Thank you, Chair. So the application being considered today has been submitted by Pulpeston
Allen Solicitors on behalf of the Gryphon Amersham Limited for the Gryphon 12th and
Broadway Amersham HP 7 0 HP. It seeks to vary the existing premises licence to update the
ground floor layout plan to include the addition of the external bar and new internal bar,
to include the first floor assembly room within the licence premises and to introduce separate
conditions and operating hours for licence of activities specifically for the assembly
room. The proposed hours for the supply of alcohol on and off the premises are 10am to
11pm, seven days a week. The proposed opening hours for the assembly room are 8am to 11pm,
seven days a week. All other licence of activities, permitted hours, opening hours and conditions
are intended to remain as per the existing licence. The Gryphon Amersham is an established
public house and restaurant situated in the southern side of the Broadway within the built -up
area of Amersham Old Town. The premises is operated as a bar and restaurant since the
licence was first granted in 2005 and was transferred to the current licence holdout
in May 2021. Premises currently consist of a ground floor bar and restaurant area with
a joining garden and small mezzanine area at first floor level. The area surrounding
the premises as a mix of retail, hospitality and residential properties. The assembly room
does not currently form part of the area covered by the existing premises licence and was previously
used as office space. Prior to the application being submitted, several temporary event notices
were submitted to authorise the licence of activities in the assembly room. A list of
the submitted TENs covering the period of the 6th of September 2025 to the 8th of November
2025 can be found within my report on pages 2 and 3. A further four temporary event notices
were submitted by the applicant to cover licence of activities for dates covering the period of
the 14th of November and the 1st of January 2026. These were subsequently subjected to by
Environmental Health during the statutory consultation period on the grounds of prevention
of public nuisance and were either refused by the local authority via counter -natus or withdrawn
by the applicant. Details of these tents can be found on pages 3 and 4 of my report.
Since October 2024, the Licencing Authorities received ongoing complaints relating to noise
and unlicensed licenced activities in the Assembly Room. Advice was provided to the
Licencing Holder, both verbally and in writing, explaining the requirements of the Licencing
Act 2003, the limitations of the current licence and the need for appropriate authorization
before carrying out regulator entertainment or alcohol sales in the assembly room.
On the 28th of November 2025, the licencing authority wrote to the licence holder following
the receipt of evidence of unauthorised alcohol sales and regulator entertainment taking place
on the 15th and 27th of November 2025 in the assembly room. This application seeks a variation
to the current licence with immediate effect. The application form is attached to my report
as Appendix 6. The applicant's originally proposed premises plan is included at Appendix
7. However, please note that this plan was amended on the 16th of March, 2026. A revised
plan of the assembly room has been circulated to you and the original plan showed the entire
assembly room as part of the licenced area, but the amended plan now limits the licenced
area to the bar within the assembly room only. The variation application originally proposed
two new conditions to apply to the assembly room, although amendments to these have now
been made and additional conditions have been proposed by the applicant which were again
circulated to you on the 11th and 16th of March. Members should also be aware that due
to amendments made to the plan on the 16th of March, the deregulated live and recorded
music provisions under the Licence Act 2003 would no longer apply to the entire assembly
room. This means any amplified entertainment in this area between 8am and 11pm would now
require prior authorisation by 10 or a further variation, even if this application is granted.
So the application has been subject to a full 28 -day consultation period and was advertised
in line with the statutory requirements. During consultation, no responses were received from
Valley Police or the licencing authority. Bucks Fire and Rescue responded with no objection
and Environmental Health submitted a relevant representation which is attached to my report
as Appendix 8. Four objections from residents were received, primarily citing concerns relating
to public nuisance and crime and disorder. Eleven representations in support of the application
were also received. The primary issues raised relate to the prevention of public nuisance,
particularly noise from music, patron behaviour and customers gathering outside. Objections
included comments that previous complaints had not been addressed by the licence holder
and expressed concern that licencing at the assembly room may lead to increased disturbance.
Those supporting the application described the premises as well managed and raised no
concerns regarding the licencing objectives. The Licencing Act enables licencing authorities
and responsible authorities through representations to discover, sorry, to consider what constitutes
a public nuisance and what is appropriate to prevent it in terms of conditions attached
to the specific premises licence. It is therefore important that when considering the promotion
of this licencing objective, licencing authorities and responsible authorities focus on the effect
of the licence of activities at the specific premises on persons living and working in
area around the premises which may be disproportionate and unreasonable. Members must consider whether
the conditions offered by the applicant are appropriate and proportionate to promote the
licencing objectives. The list of proposed and existing conditions is set out in paragraph
10 of my report, however I would remind members that additional conditions have been proposed
by the applicant since the report was published and these were circulated to all parties on
11th and 16th of March. In determining this application, the subcommittee
must have regard to the Council's licencing policy, particularly the sections relating
to the prevention of public nuisance and the statutory guidance issued under section 182
of the Licencing Act. Members must consider whether the conditions offered by the applicant
are appropriate and proportionate to promote the licencing objectives. The panel is also
required to have regard to human rights. The decision regarding this application will have
human rights implications in respect of both the applicant and the persons making relevant
representations which also need to be considered equally and fairly so that the decision is
proportionate and the right balance is met. You should also consider Article 8 and Article
one of the first protocol and that is the right to respect for private and family life and peaceful
enjoyment of property and possessions and that can include a licence. The subcommittee is obliged
to determine applications in light of the above and any other material considerations with a view
to promoting the four licencing objectives which are the prevention of crime and disorder,
public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.
The following options are available to the licencing committee today. You can grant the
variation application subject to any conditions to be attached to the premises licence which
consists of, consistent with the operating schedule and which are considered appropriate
and proportionate for the promotion of the four licencing objectives in response to relevant
representations received. You can reject the whole of the variation application or you
can grant the variation application subject to different conditions for different parts
to the premises or licence activities if this is considered appropriate and proportionate.
The subcommittee is asked to note that it may not reject the whole or part of the application
or modify or add or vary the existing conditions merely because it considers desirable to do
so. When determining an application to vary a premises licence, the subcommittee must
consider the likely impact of the proposed variations, any modification to existing conditions
or the imposition of additional conditions must be directly linked to the effect of the variation
if granted on the promotion of the four licencing objectives. That concludes my summary and I'm
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:27:22
happy to answer any questions. It's very kind of you and always a good report that you give.
Thank you very much and I'm sure everyone appreciates an extensive report like you do.
So as we move on, does the applicant or their agent wish to put any questions to the licencing officer?
Mr Izzo or Mr Anderson? No, thank you, Chair. OK, very kind.
Then I'm going to move on to the interested parties. Do any of you wish to give, put any questions to the licencing officer?
if you wish to do so please put your hand up by the man that comes down at the bottom of the screen.
No questions there. Okay do any members have any questions for the licencing officer at this point?
I leave for my two colleagues and I don't actually for a change. Okay so as we move on but first
DeWyn Verde, you had a conversation earlier on, is this the point where you'd like to…
Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer - 0:28:34
Yes, yes, I think, thank you, Chair. It's a good place to raise the next point, because
it follows so nicely on from Ms Coates' report. So I'd like to draw your attention
to all the parties that Ms Coates in her report raises at paragraph 16, the Deregulation Act
2015 amendments to the Licencing Act 2003. So there have been some legislative changes and in
light of those changes the panel members may take this opportunity whilst considering the variation
application to ensure that all the conditions on the licence are both appropriate and proportionate
for the promotion of the licencing objectives. So essentially this means that any obsolete
ineffective or conflicting conditions which are no longer applicable because the law has changed
should be dealt with appropriately and I'm sure all parties will appreciate that this is to
ensure the licencing objectives, to ensure that they're clearly promoted and to make sure that
the licence is correct and enforceable and it's also very helpful for the applicant in order to
voice any confusion and provides consistency and clarity in relation to the conditions
and the compliance of the licence. And indeed paragraph 9 .3 of the report also reiterates this
position. So that's all I had to say on that point, Chair. Thank you.
I'd like to thank you for bringing that to everybody's attention because yeah the licence
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:30:11
was originally was issued in in 2005 which is quite quite some time ago so there could be some
obsolete ones there so we're just sort of prose through those at the end which is very good.
Does everyone understand that procedure? Yeah thank you very much. Okay so we'll move on we're
sort of covering quite well now. I'd now like to invite the applicant and the agent of Mr Joe Izzo
and Mr James Anderson to present their case. So please, could you address the hearing now?
Appreciate it. Thank you.
Applicant's Representative - 0:30:44
Yes, Chair. Thank you. I'll address you initially, then I'll invite Jo to comment. I have to
start by saying I'm not quite sure of Ms Verdi's interpretation. I don't want to throw a spanner
into the works, but I think she's probably referring to some government study that has
announced and as a result of that it was certainly expressed that removing obsolete conditions was a
positive step but I don't think it has amended the legal position which is before you today that the
only way that you can impose conditions is either if we agree them or you consider them necessary
or appropriate to promote the licencing objectives but that may be an issue that we only need to
to address at the end, but I thought it only sensible for me to make that point at this
stage. Whilst it is a good idea, I'm not sure that legally there can be a wholesale exercise
of reviewing the licence at a variation because the law itself has not changed.
Okay, I can see that my legal officer has got her hand up ready to respond back, so we give her the
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:31:52
Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer - 0:31:55
privileged to do so. Thank you, Chair. Mr Anderson, you're absolutely
absolutely correct. The licencing authority wouldn't use a variation procedure in order
to rehaul an existing licence. What I was referring to were the changes imposed and
introduced by the deregulation legislation from 2015. But perhaps if we sort of continue
with the hearing and if this is still an issue, we can perhaps raise this again at the end.
But I just wanted to clarify where that sort of came from.
I'm sorry, and I'm sorry to raise it because it's not directly relevant. I shall move on
Applicant's Representative - 0:32:40
promptly in relation to the application. And chair, members of the committee, Joe is a
known man in Amersham, we have sent some papers in to you, a statement from Joe which has some
background to him, something of a self -made man. He's operated the Gryphon and Sarah's indicated
since 2001. It's a very successful business, it is award -winning, it employs in excess of 30
local people and is well liked by the people of Amersham. He makes the application in relation
to the existing premises, again, as Sarah has outlined helpfully,
only to add an external bar, which is there and needs to be licenced,
and also a bar in the ground floor, a central bar,
which he put in and frankly should have licenced but did not.
And those are the only two changes to the existing business.
It's the assembly room, which is the significant change.
Joe saw an opportunity in relation to the assembly room,
also called the gathering room, I think, in representations.
It's the same space.
It's above Joe's restaurant in part,
then above the coach entrance and above his bakery,
and has a wall that is a dividing wall
between the assembly room and Mr. Lonergan,
who is here today.
So he saw that as a business opportunity to have some functions and events up there.
Access can be gained from within the restaurant, but there is also a separate entrance and access to the assembly rooms
without needing to go in to the restaurant.
So it's a useful opportunity, he would think, in relation to promoting his business
and providing another opportunity for people in Amersham to use it as indeed they have done.
There have been issues there and we don't hide away from that.
Joe traded the assembly room initially, again, as Sarah has outlined, and we don't dispute
these facts initially because he thought wrongly that because it was in the same building
he would be able to.
And in certain circumstances he could have done
without a bar, for example.
He then had some temporary event notices
and then towards the end,
I advised him that there was a way
that he could operate without a licence,
but that's rather technical.
In the end, it was clear that there were problems
and so he stopped all activity around Christmas time
in the assembly room and cancelled any further events
because he realised that he needed to resolve the issue.
The issue is simply one of noise disturbance.
It's not really that the assembly room is not appropriate as a space
for certain events, functions involving the sale of alcohol and the provision of food,
but it is not as things stand yet suitable for the provision of regulated entertainment.
That is the view of the local authority.
That I'm sure is Mr Lonergan's view.
And that frankly is our view.
So Joe has amended the application.
We've amended the plan and apologies for sending it somewhat late in the day.
But the purpose of that amendment is effectively to remove the deregulation, which Miss Ferdie has referred to, which is the Live Music Act.
The Live Music Act allows premises which are licenced for the sale of alcohol
to have live and recorded music until 11pm.
We have amended the plan to remove that effectively.
And we've also offered a condition, which is in the papers,
but I have slightly amended it following a useful conversation
with Charlie Robinson, your Lead Environmental Health Officer,
who I think is also in the meeting.
And that amendment would be that in the assembly room,
and I can send this to you, Ms Verde, if it helps,
apologies that it's not before you in written form,
but in the assembly room, there should be no amplified live music
and recording music will only be played at background noise level.
So that's actually slightly better than the proposed condition,
which relied on your Environmental Health Officer being satisfied
as the noise attenuation works.
This means that we can't do any entertainment other than,
unamplified would mean a guitarist,
and background noise is the type of noise that you would hear
if you went to a restaurant and you were conducting a conversation.
So that, we hope, effectively is the most effective way
of dealing with Mr Lonergan's principal concern.
Joe has done quite a bit of work at the premises
and you'll see in the pictures that we submitted,
he has had a noise expert and acoustic report prepared,
which recommended that certain works needed to be done.
The premises are challenging in making them soundproof
as far or nuisance proof,
virtually soundproof in terms of Mr. Lonergan's flat,
because it's a listed building and it's very old.
So what Joe has done following the acoustic report is,
as per the pictures, insulated the dividing wall
with high levels of noise preventative material.
He has blocked up the fireplace.
The windows are now lockable, there's drapes.
The speakers have been repositioned
and have padding behind the speakers.
All of that has been successful in removing noise nuisance in terms of high frequency noise,
but not yet removing bass.
And that is why it would not be appropriate for us to be able to have any entertainment in there at the moment.
So if you were minded to grant the application as applied for in relation to the Assembly Room,
we would have a room for events where we could sell alcohol only until 11.
And that is less than the Gryphon, deliberately so. It's not a big space, maximum of 70 people
at the most. We have offered certain conditions to address other concerns. So we have offered
a noise management policy, which Charlie Robinson has accepted. We have offered monitoring and
a door staff presence if it's a larger event.
And we've also agreed to certain restrictions on the ground floor external area,
even though it's not really the subject of any concern.
Joe has decided to do that as a gesture of goodwill and he thinks that is reasonable.
So the assembly room stands before you, as it were, as a function space.
It won't be used regularly.
It could be used by restaurant customers, but most likely it would be private hire,
local businesses, birthday parties. Some will not be licenced.
There will be some business meetings where the bar will not be open,
but some will involve the sale of food and drink, probably two per week, that sort of order.
It's not going to be regular. And he's offered a dispersal policy which will assist.
In some ways, the premises are well placed for dispersal
because there is a large car park at the rear
and that can be accessed from the street.
He has a good relationship with a local taxi operator
and is well known in the town.
So he's confident that if the space is used
that he can disperse people quickly and quietly
without disturbing Mr. Lonergan.
But the principal point that I would make
and I've made, forgive me, several times, is the amendment of the plan and the condition which removes
any ability that Joe has to play other than background music and amplified live music.
Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. I don't have anything further to add.
I'm happy, of course, to deal with any questions that you have of me.
Joe would like to address you, which I do think is appropriate because he is the applicant and it's his business.
Joe. Over to you. Just inviting you, Joe, just to speak to the committee.
Thank you for that, James. Yeah, please, please go ahead.
Applicant - 0:41:28
Yeah. Hello, everyone. Yes, I think sort of James has sort of wrapped it up, really.
I just wanted to add that obviously I don't want, you know, we are, we've been just to
correct James, we took over the Gryphon in 2021, not 2001, but we have been in the old
town for nearly 15 years and never really had any issues.
Always sort of, you know, been very sort of community led and very grateful to be here.
The last thing I want is to keep people up at night and affect their lives in a negative
way.
It's not what we're about.
And I understand that has happened and regretfully so.
We just would love to move on and obviously try to resolve the noise issues that are coming
from the assembly room in terms of continuing our project to soundproof it and then perhaps
at a later date once Environmental Health are happy with the transmission of noise and
making sure it has no impact on number 10 because I think they feel it the worst.
That's our objective, but equally I would love the opportunity not to lose completely
any additional revenues that we might be able to drive from that room because it is a good
and it's a big part of what we do.
Yeah, thanks Joe.
Yeah, thank you.
I just would like, I forgot to mention two points, forgive me.
Applicant's Representative - 0:43:05
The first point is that of course, if we wanted entertainment up there,
we'd have to vary the licence to add it.
And of course, anyone who'd been disturbed could object.
The second point is that it's better in a way that the area is licenced,
because if it's licenced, it's part of Joe's licence for the restaurant,
which is his core business.
So if there are any problems in the Assembly Room
that led to a review, for example,
that would affect his business as a whole,
which gives greater enforcement weight, I think,
to the authorities and indeed to Mr Lonergan.
And the third point is that we may not achieve
a level of base reduction that is acceptable.
We accept that,
in which case we would have to operate with what we've got
We can try and there's certain things we can do, but it is challenging.
So we are fully aware that if even if we do achieve that, we would have to come back and make a variation with 28 days consultation.
And the final final point is I agreed a further condition with Charlie, which I forgot to mention that there is a small outside area at the rear of the assembly room entrance.
and we have agreed a similar limit to that outside space.
It could be called the external space adjacent to the assembly room
to distinguish it from the space at the rear of the restaurant.
We would agree to a limit of 2300 hours other than for smokers as well.
That could actually be amended to our condition four
because the principles are the same.
But we've agreed that with Mr Robinson earlier.
Thank you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:44:46
Thank you very much for that as we go back to the agenda. But I'm going to just take
my chairman's privilege because I'd like to ask a question before I allow the licencing
officers to come in to ask questions. I just found it quite frustrating that you changed
the application yesterday just to aim at the bar area and you took out the rest of the
And so I understand part of that, but for us to do some background work, it's been a little bit difficult.
But you just said in the in your sort of deliberation there was that you would apply for a TENS if something was required for that room.
So on one hand, you do one thing. Could you just explain that a little bit more, please?
No, I didn't say that, Chair, with respect.
I don't think I mentioned turns in my address to you.
Applicant's Representative - 0:45:39
But yes, apologies for the late.
It's never good sending in stuff late.
We were left with a position where we were hoping for an agreed position,
but it became clear that we weren't going to get that
because EHO still had concerns.
And we did know that some weeks ago,
But it became a bit of a legal challenge to reach a solution where the deregulation,
which is by its nature an exemption, it's difficult to discipline an exemption.
So it required a little bit of thought to come up with a solution of effectively de -licencing the whole room.
And that thought, I'm afraid, only came to me rather late in the day.
So if anything, it's my fault for the fact that, but it is, I think, a solution, albeit has arrived somewhat relatedly.
In relation to TENS, I don't think I mentioned TENS, obviously, are something that Joe can still use.
It's not possible to disapply TENS. But what would happen if Joe was applying for TENS,
he wouldn't apply for TENS for regulated entertainment because EHO would object to them as they already have done.
they would object unless we sort the issue out.
He could apply for TENS for later trading,
as any operator of any licenced premises or premises could,
but that will be viewed by the police and the
if that application is made.
He certainly won't need to apply for as many TENS
if the assembly room is licenced.
Thank you very much for the explanation.
I appreciate it. Thank you.
No problem.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:47:22
Okay, so we go back to the routine that we're on.
Does the licencing officer have any questions to put to the applicant or their agent?
No thank you chair. Very kind. So now I move down to all the interested parties below.
Have they got any questions they'd like to put to the applicant or to their agent? If you do have,
put your hand up please.
please.
Kerryann Ashton - Licensing Officer - 0:47:51
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:48:01
OK, Kieran, if you'd like to address the agent and sorry for calling your first name, I can't find your surname, but I'm sure you don't mind too much.
But if you'd like to address them, please do.
Thank you chair. This is to Joe Autojames and Dennis.
Interested Party - 0:48:11
I refer to an acoustic report that was undertaken by your consultants last year.
I don't believe that's been submitted as part of this application.
It may well have been submitted previously and considered or looked at by Environmental Health.
Can you explain why you haven't submitted your report that was commissioned to justify
the suitability of that property for use as part of this application?
Question one and link to that is within that report, as you refer, there are five recommendations
for physical modifications to the building, but it suggests would need to be undertaken
to make the premises suitable for holding events with regulated music and or other events.
You say that Joe has undertaken a certain amount of work within the building, which I believe
you've provided photos of, but in that report it provided a hierarchy of the works that needed to
be undertaken in your consultant's opinion to address the nuisance within the building.
You've undertaken the task, I believe, number four on that hierarchy,
not items one, two and three or five.
And I was just wondering if there's a reason for that.
And finally, is it your intention to complete all five recommendations
within your own acoustic report,
prior to making a new application at some point in the future?
I'll start, Mr London, and I'll bring Joe in.
Applicant's Representative - 0:49:51
So we didn't, you're right, we didn't include the Acoustic Report.
It's a technical report, it has gone to you and it has gone to the Council.
We didn't think that it would be particularly helpful because it's 35 pages and it is very technical.
The EHO asked for a noise management policy, which we did prepare and have submitted,
and they are happy with that, which is more of a day -to -day thing.
We accept that the report indicates that the assembly room is not suitable as it currently stands for the provision of regulated entertainment.
And that is why we have offered a condition that prevents us doing so.
In terms of the work, I think it's probably right to say I'm not an expert,
that the single biggest provision we could do is the wall, which we have done.
And we have done the work that has removed high intensity noise, EHO, accept that.
So we've done part of the job. The other work I will pass on to Joe as to what needs to be done.
And there are challenges within the building because it is listed.
But I will, Joe, if you could just come back, please, on Mr Lonergan's points about the work that needs to be done or whether it will be done.
Applicant - 0:51:17
Please, if you can. Yeah, of course, of course. Yeah. So I believe I mean, you can correct me if I'm wrong here, and I did mention this to you in a message a while back.
I don't have a hand and I'm sure I can dig it up, but I wanted to implement it in stages.
Obviously, we'd stopped all events, cancelled all events for January and February.
And we, I wanted to see, obviously, there's a cost impact on all of this as well, quite a large one.
And the wall obviously is the sort of, from the opinions that we got from people, would be the first point of call
to see whether it did resolve the issues before we implemented the others.
Obviously, the interior glazing aspect is one that requires
quite a large budget because all of the windows would need to be scribed.
You know, everything's a little bit on the wonk in these old buildings
and also it would require planning as well.
So our first call was to see if the ball would do it.
Obviously, the environmental health have come back, and I'm sure you were present
when they were running their tests, and it hasn't resolved it.
Hence the changes to our plans.
If we do continue to pursue it, and we do put an application, of course,
the other points that our acoustician raised will obviously be the next things
we try to address.
I think the flooring probably is one that got raised by another specialist, as it appears
that that's a lot of the transmission of noise and vibration through to your bedroom.
So yeah, there are things that we'll look at and probably implement and ask Environmental
Health to kind of come down and run some more tests.
And slowly, slowly, hopefully we'll get there, you know, but until that point, you know,
will abide by the conditions that we've set out.
Thank you.
May I come back in, Joe?
Very good.
Yeah, of course.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Joe.
Just on a couple of things,
Interested Party - 0:53:28
the report sets out a hierarchy.
You haven't followed the hierarchy.
I was just trying to understand why you felt
that it was more important to do something
that was lower down the hierarchy
that would have less of an impact in resisting the noise than something higher up the hierarchy.
You chose for whatever reason, I think you said it might be a commercial reason actually,
I think you might just have said, but you've chosen to do something that's lower down,
which therefore has less impact in reducing the noise and nuisance that comes through
the building.
I just, that seems to be, I don't understand why you chose something lower down.
Is it purely a cost matter?
Is it purely commercial?
Applicant - 0:54:16
I think, sorry, go ahead Joe. Yeah, I think, I think, prior to any of this, we, prior to
yourself moving into number 10, we had never had any complaints. So my mentality was the
direct impact that's causing the complaints is between the room and your bedroom. And
through the wall?
As Mr.
Ligon, as a businessman, I think I'm just picking up on what Joe said.
Applicant's Representative - 0:54:44
He he he was reluctant
to pick the bigger spend and the the the the the items
that need planning permission, which would be tricky.
So he's he invested his funds because it's not been cheap
in trying to sort the problem through the wall and the other measures
I've outlined in the hope that they would work.
because if he had achieved a fix with doing the wall, as he may have done,
so that you were not disturbed, then he's achieved a fix without applying for planning
and without spending as much money. I mean that's what I respectfully suggest many
business people would do in those circumstances. And he is an independent trader, he's not
you know, he's not full as he's not young, he's got a budget.
So when that has not worked entirely, then we are in the current situation
where we accept that at the moment we cannot do any entertainment.
But we have done some of the work which the noise report said would be helpful.
OK, so we'll move on.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:56:00
Anyone would like to ask the applicant any of the other interested parties to ask any questions?
Wow okay so as I move on then if that's the case do any members have questions to put the applicant
or agent? I'm sure they have, yes they have. Councillor Griff if you'd like to ask please.
Cllr Paul Griffin - 0:56:29
Thank you, Chair. I'm off mute. Just either Joe or James, I hope you don't mind using your first
notes. Not at all. Would it be fair to assume that the longer term objective will be to have the
whole of the assembly room as part of the fully licenced premises so that you could have bands,
discos, whatever, wedding receptions, etc. in that part of the pub restaurant.
I think, Joe, ideally, but we don't know, I think is probably where we are. Would you agree, Joe?
Applicant's Representative - 0:57:02
I mean, we are controlled and governed by the suitability of the building. And if the building
is suitable to have and bands, maybe a stretch. I mean, it's a relatively small space and it is
old building but some form of live, amplified live entertainment, if that can be achieved
without disturbing Mr. Lonergan then why not? But if it can't then Joe will have to modify the space
to use it for a different style event. It's as simple as that and he'd be happy I think Joe
because it's still an addition to his existing business. Yeah we're just trying to diversify
Applicant - 0:57:43
if need be. Yeah, the ultimate aim would be to try and, you know,
maximise the Gryphons potential, but ultimately without, you know, disturbing our neighbours and
Cllr Paul Griffin - 0:58:08
fellow businesses. Okay, thank you. I just noticed on page 15, I don't know if this was verbalised
by Sarah and I report, I'm not sure. Top of page 15 on the copy I've got,
vary the ground floor plan to reflect alterations to the ground floor bar
and the addition of a temporary bar in the external area. Now I'm not too worried about
the very first part of that sentence, but the addition of a temporary bar in the external area
within an area that is really heavily, quite heavily,
from my recollection, you know, lots of residents nearby,
and I do appreciate you've got residential support
as well as opposition, but that is just,
that's a disaster waiting to happen
if you've got a lively event.
How can you possibly control the noise in an external area?
I mean, I used to have a list, it's great to listed part.
So I know some of the challenges that you're up against, but that's in the open air.
So how are you going to manage that noise control?
There won't be any events in it.
So the external area, Councillor Griffiths, is at the rear of the restaurant
Applicant's Representative - 0:59:20
through some French doors, which are shown in the photographs we've submitted.
So it's some sort of 20 or 30 metres away from the assembly room entrance.
So that's already existing. The bar is existing, frankly.
OK, so that's been trading in that way without any complaint or issue, as far as we know, for some time.
So it's a summer restaurant trading area, really. It's nothing to do with the assembly room.
And the only reason that's a part of the application is because there is a bar there which isn't
on the plan and should be.
It's only a small bar.
The bar simply enables jet -to -surface customers more easily rather than having to go into
the premises.
It's just an additional point of sale.
OK, thank you for that.
Let me make it easy for you to remember my surname.
It's the same as your pub.
Oh, I do apologise.
It's abbreviated on my...
I know.
I apologise, Mr. Griffith, Councillor Griffith.
That's fine. Yeah. Sorry. Joe, did you want to say something?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:00:22
Applicant - 1:00:25
Yeah, I just wanted to add that that space is predominantly tables and chairs, and we use it
for dining also. It's a sort of sit -down area. It can have up to 28 people out there in the garden,
but it's predominantly sit -down. We don't have any sort of large, you know, it's not bonkettes
or sort of like a hangout zone where people drink. People do drink out there. I'm not going to say
they don't. And the bar is more to facilitate the distance of running the drinks from the
bar internally. And, you know, a member of staff potentially, you know, spilling drinks
or dropping glaze, it's quite the distance. It's not, you know, on a wedding or a gathering
or something like that that we would host in the Gryphon. We would potentially use it
for arrival drinks. But much like the noise mitigation plan that we've submitted, you
we very much intend to apply that and we've been very sort of forthcoming and with curfews for the
garden space as well in the Gryphon. So I don't see it being a huge problem.
I'm just adding Councillor Gryphon, forgive me for keep putting it. We have offered two conditions
Applicant's Representative - 1:01:30
which will actually make the operation of that area more restrictive than it currently is. It's
currently unrestricted so the garden can trade till 12, Joe's hours. We've offered a limit of 11
and a limit of 10 on the use of the bar.
So this application actually makes that external area
more restrictive than it currently is
and it currently trades without any issue.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Gryphon, thank you very much.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:02:00
Councillor Hind.
Yeah, Joe, I'm interested to know
Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:02:06
why you haven't looked to open up the upstairs
as a food area as well.
I mean, is that a long term plan?
Sorry, Councillor Hynan.
Applicant - 1:02:19
It's just it's logistically from where the kitchen is in the building.
Yes, quite. We did trial run this initially.
And it's just the travel and distance of the food from the kitchen to upstairs.
Sure. You're talking about a couple of degrees.
But even in terms of my staff's sanity and having to run
what is already a busy restaurant, you know,
and now to facilitate upstairs, it just doesn't quite work.
So our intention was to host sort of canopy parties
and events that was standing up there.
And that worked for a while, but again, we'll look at,
we have a coworking area upstairs.
So we're looking at desk space,
we're looking at lots of other alternatives,
but ultimately, we'd still very much like to have
an event space, but we just,
you know, we we realised that there's some work ahead.
Wedding events, not wedding meals, in other words.
Yeah. Yeah.
Not what we've we've hosted weddings down in the actual Gryphon in the main
restaurant. It's too small upstairs to host any sort of large sit down area, you know.
So I think you'd probably sit about maybe twenty four people on a large table, you know.
So it's really not that big a space.
Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:03:38
And I'm intrigued that you think there's an opportunity to generate lots of two a week
events where it's just people drinking and chatting rather than dancing.
But you must have done the research.
Applicant - 1:03:54
Well yeah, I imagine it makes it a little less desirable, but we still have all the
inquiries that we put on pause for 2026.
You know, we've let them know the situation in the room and there are a few people that are quite happy with background music and a gathering and an earlier curfew.
So, you know, there's still some life in it. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Thanks.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:04:18
Very good, thank you very much. It's my turn if you don't mind before we go on to the rest
of our agenda. There's a few questions I'd like to ask if you, I don't mind who answers
them from either of you. Thank you. But I'd like to just draw back just to the room itself
as we look up there. How many people can you get upstairs in that room for a start if you
might be asking? No, we think of maximum according to fire risk of 70.
Applicant's Representative - 1:04:47
There's two exits, so it's 70 is what we consider to be the maximum.
Is that what the fire service have authorised to to go for that room?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:05:01
So sorry, James. No, you go, Joe.
Applicant - 1:05:04
That's fine. The last FRA we had, we suggested 60,
but the person who carried it out is looking into the doorways and the multiple exits.
So they haven't firmed up the number yet, but the guideline is 64 at the moment.
Sorry, 64?
It's 60, 60 capacity is the guideline for now, but they are adamant that there's some regulation on the
on the width of the doorway and the width of the staircase for the exits of the act where the actual fire exit is.
They think for BUCKS regulations, it's actually it will allow us to have up to 70 or 80, but for now it's 60.
So the fire service have looked at it. Have you got a certificate?
Yes, I've got a fire risk assessment, which I'm more than happy to submit.
OK, thank you. And then you mentioned earlier on, I know you got trouble to try and soundproof that room is going to be quite a job,
But you mentioned it was a listed building and we've listed building.
So the requirements you're there to do, I know you mentioned planning, but does that come under heritage at all?
Have you, you know, with the soundproofing, does that require heritage planning or authorization?
Well, the wall is a floating wall, so anything that we've put in is removable.
Nothing's been, the integrity of the building hasn't been touched.
You know, we haven't pulled or removed anything out.
So the building we've gone across the fireplace we added, the fireplace is not an original fireplace, we added it ourselves.
So we've actually built across the fireplace and boxed it in and the wall is removable, you know, it's not a fixed feature.
Thank you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:06:58
Mr. Anderson, during your statement, you said there had been some issues.
I don't know what you referred to by issues.
Was that to do with the sound of that or was it when you mentioned issues, was there?
Applicant's Representative - 1:07:17
Yes, the complaints which were made by Mr. Lonergan as outlined in his representation, essentially,
in relation to the noise when we were using the assembly room.
Those are the only issues that there's been in relation to the whole premises that I'm aware of.
All right, okay. Thank you very much for just clarifying. I pick up on things like that. I
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:07:35
could be quite irritating at times. Not at all, Jeremy. And another thing is we did get no
representation from the police. At any time have you had problems at all with police? Have they
not in the time that we've been here. Thank you.
And then you mentioned you don't have enough account in the garden that's just typical
garden activity when people are out there and and eating and that looks quite a nice garden.
Down the side there and you don't have no entertainment out there at all either. So when
we see the report now it goes on about a noise management plan and management you know and I see
from some of the um the um the objectors and the supporters that you're well managed but for it to
be well managed how did this problem ever you know with the sound and that why wasn't it monitored to
try and prevent this from happening a bit you know why didn't you have a noise management plan
Why wasn't you looking after the volume of the entertainers while they were there?
Why, when you had complaints, you said you would deal with it and it's clear that you didn't.
So I have to probe you on that one because it's quite something to consider. Would you like to answer that?
Yeah, I'd quite like to answer that, James, if you don't mind.
Applicant - 1:09:08
Sorry, earlier on, it said that I think Sarah said that the noise complaint started in October 2024.
To my knowledge, the first complaints we had were in August 2025.
So I'm not quite sure, you know, and I've checked back on emails because I saw this
in the reporting as well.
Yes, I would have, you know, in hindsight, I would have liked to have reacted quicker.
We had we had events booked up, we had temporary event notices approved.
And you know, it wasn't that I disregarded it at all.
You know, it was one of those where we're running a day to day business and it's busy
and we're trying and prior to the current tenants of Mr. Lonergan and Mrs. Lonergan
moving in, we've never ever had any other issues.
So my argument is that we've always managed to maintain peace.
I mean, we've had one, I think back in 2020, I think beginning of last year, 2025, we had
a resident above who lives above what is now Lavera.
And she had actually complained about noise and I'd gone over personally and tried to
remedy the situation again because of windows open.
So it does show an issue raised by Mr. Lonergan that it's not just him.
and I'm not trying to single him out.
I understand that the biggest impact is on his room next door,
his bedroom is next door.
And again, back to the reason why we stuck the wall in
and tried to sort of deal with that side of things
rather than what was maybe potentially moving out
through the windows.
But again, we've addressed that.
But the person that was disturbed by this
has since had her own party at the Gryphon
and we've smoothed things over
and we've always managed to keep things good with neighbours.
And it's unfortunate this has happened,
but again, it's one of those that
with everything that has happened,
having a noise mitigation plan has actually,
it's educated me a little bit
and it's something I do want to implement.
And when you think about it
for the safety of everyone as well,
and even for my own staff's wellbeing,
it's not a bad thing to have,
and I guess it's a bit of naivety on my behalf
and not having one implemented.
But like I said, we've always sort of taken responsibility of the building.
It's just never sort of having this,
you know, something written down an actual manual to say,
right, this is what we do, which, you know, I think in one way,
we're quite grateful for this because it's something that's going to,
you know, serve us quite well, I hope, in the future.
Thank you. And then pulling that up, Councillor Hine,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:11:59
I see you got your hand up, but just bear with me please while I just go through mine.
So I appreciate that, that there were complaints in late 2025 and that's why you ended up with
the team coming out to monitor you and you know, so you're aware of those complaints
but they still continued. I'm only just probing because it's my job to do so, but I do understand
you run a business trying to keep it efficient. But you know even after when you were advised
a few times by the environment team of some issues it still continued. You know they sort
of got ignored therefore they were back and in the end they end up you know retracting
your Thames licences you had. So I'm just a bit concerned that this has happened and
sure there's reason for it, but when I look at it like that and then to follow that up even again,
you had some events there without TENS licences. So there's concerns that go across that we have
to consider. Can you answer a question to that please? Can I just, Joe do you mind if I just go,
Applicant's Representative - 1:13:13
so I think part of the problem that Joe had and he started, he instructed me in around November is
that some of the he he'd taken bookings and obviously bookings around
Christmas time it's difficult to cancel them I mean that's the reality of it he
was in a commercial agreement and you know if you're cancelling a booking for
a Christmas party or whatever it is then you're going to be at risk of you know
frankly being sued and also reputational damage and they probably won't get in
anywhere else. As soon as he realised, as soon as he he then had some events without a ten,
because I advised him in writing that he was able to do that lawfully, either through provisional
off sales from the Gryphon or pre -selling the alcohol. And Sarah at that point got involved
in that. But he then did cancel some events and realised that it wouldn't be appropriate to
continue that decision he made, I think, at the end of December 2025.
And he hasn't had any events since then.
So it's not I think it's right to say it's not a question of,
you know, sticking two fingers up if I can use that expression.
He was he was commercially bound by events which had been pre -booked.
And he obviously had to cancel the events when the tens were refused.
I understand that,
Mr. Izzo, if you'd like to respond back?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:14:47
Applicant - 1:14:49
Yeah, I was just going to say that we actually sold about four or five of the, well I say sold,
we found new locations up the road at the King's Arms and we actually transferred some of the
business over to them in December. Unfortunately there was, it's a very difficult and sticky
situation and again, you know, it's one of those where, you know, in hindsight it would have been
cancel all the deposits, it's not something that I wanted to do and yes, we sort of utilised
the fact that we could serve these people from downstairs and still utilise the space
under James' advice, but you know, it's not something that I wanted to do. I didn't want
to bend the rules to be able to operate and do this stuff and quite rightly at the end
December and Jan and Fed we we cancelled everything you know and we still have cancelled and put
everything on pause for this year you know we are that's that's my answer. I do understand trust me
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:15:53
I totally do understand um you know like with the cancelation policy and I'm not pulling you know
pulling you here but you know some event insurance you could get event insurance to cover you for
that sort of stuff as you would you know but you've learned the lesson so uh it goes to the
I got one more question then Sarah's got her hand up, Councillor Haynes got his hand up.
If we did agree, like, you know, as you move forward, would you also be happy, I know you've got to do some soundproofing and stuff, which is quite a task,
would you also be keen to have a noise limiter put in the venue to help control?
So just jumping in. Yes.
If it were necessary, of course.
Applicant's Representative - 1:16:37
But it may not be the solution.
But
if if your own health and all those experts will or Charlie considered
that that would be a way forward, then of course we would.
Yeah. OK, thank you very much.
It's just a just another point.
No, no, we have we have considered it,
but we need to know that it's it's it's going to work.
Yeah. OK.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:17:01
Councillor, just bear with me a second because the licencing officer would just like to come
in. Sarah Coates.
Sarah Coates - Licensing Officer - 1:17:09
Sorry, I just wanted to clarify with regard to the complaints and obviously October 2024.
So originally the first complaint we received was in October 2024 in relation to an event
that was held in the Assembly Room and passed 11pm on the 7th of September 2024 and I did
actually initially write to Joe on the 6th of November 2024 regarding the complaint that was
received. So it was it was October, September, October, November 2024 that we initially sort
of got in touch to start advising about the the events in the Assembly Room. Thank you very much
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:17:48
for clarifying that on behalf of Mr Uzzarell. I wasn't referring, I was looking at the later
complaints that come in but thank you very much for clarifying that. Councillor Hind.
Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:18:02
Yeah Joe, I'm intrigued that you're at number 12 for the Broadway, Kieran's at number 10
and number 14 is Martin Day who's in favour of it. I'm guessing his bedroom doesn't back
on to the gathering rooms, is that the case? No it doesn't. The impact on number 10 is
Applicant - 1:18:21
is obviously nowhere near as the impact that it is on on Kieran and Patsy, you know, so I don't
think it's nowhere near equally having said that we have had events in the Gryphon and
it doesn't seem to impact them. So I don't know maybe whether it's a soundproofing thing their
side or I'm not too sure but you know we have a very good relationship with them and you know
we let them know when something's going on and, you know, touch wood as of yet.
We haven't we haven't upset them.
OK, very good. Thank you very much.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:18:56
Members, are you finished with your questions?
OK, thank you.
Kieran, I know you've got your hand up, but we've passed the point of yourselves.
You know, you can address something when we come into the next section.
I'd now like to invite the interested parties to present their case
in the following order. Mr Charlie Robinson from the responsible authority, would you like to take
over please? Yes thank you Chairman and as you'd have seen my written submission is available at
Charlie Robinson - Licensing Manager - 1:19:31
appendix 8 so I'll give a brief summary of that and then maybe address a couple of bits that have
come up since the beginning of the hearing. So Environmental Health have a current and ongoing
noise nuisance investigation in relation to the premises, the Gryphon, specifically or
most pointedly relating to events as part of the Assembly Room, but also some wider
aspects. Just for clarity, as I appreciate that Sarah's confirmed when licencing were
first informed, I believe Environmental Health's first complaint in relation to noise from
the Assembly Room was in October of 25 rather than the 24 dates, but we had visited the
premises prior to that in the summer when Jo first submitted some temporary event notices.
A number, as the nature is of temporary event notices, you can submit a handful all at once
for future dates. So just as a proactive measure, we visited the premises at that point to discuss
the potential issues that might come up as a result of that type of event.
So throughout our investigation, Environmental Health have actively engaged with the premises
management and licencing colleagues as part of the investigation. And as I've said in my
submission, we've undertaken monitoring during events that have been covered by
TENS. Noise generated as part of the premises in those previous events that we have monitored and
that we have received evidence of submissions for are in our opinion not conducive of the promotion
of the Prevention of Public Nuisance licencing objective, which obviously the applicant has
acknowledged at this point. The licencing holder, as again already mentioned, instructed an
acoustician in the past to assess the impacts of such events at the premises on the neighbouring
properties and the wider area. And the acousticians findings supported our concerns through sound
level readings being taken within the neighbouring property being essentially at an unacceptable
level and music being audible, I believe in the report stated, music being audible up
Charlie Robinson - Environmental Protection Team Leader - 1:21:49
to 100 metres down the road from the premises during an event. So as such, Environmental
to help essentially feel that the management
and controls in place for those previous events
in the assembly room were insufficient.
And as such, we objected to a number
of temporary event notices,
some of which were counter noticed,
some of which were withdrawn.
And you can see our response to those temporary event notices
at appendix four of your pack.
And so following further engagement with the premises,
Joe, along with some support, I believe,
from the acoustician and potentially James at Poppleston,
developed a noise management plan,
which we see as a positive step.
It's something that we've encouraged
from the beginning of our involvement
towards the end of last year.
The content of the first draught was reviewed
by myself and my colleagues,
and we fed back to the applicant on those.
We've now received an amended version.
I would say I don't believe we've officially agreed
in writing to confirm that we're happy
with the full extent of that noise management plan,
but I think we are much closer with, you know, maybe with one or two further tweaks
I would need to review.
But we feel it's a very positive step in the right direction.
The premises, as again, as already mentioned,
has put a number of physical mitigation measures in place
in an attempt to reduce the noise transmission to the neighbours.
And whilst this has had some positive effect, it has not rendered
the assembly room suitable for loud amplified music.
as in line with what we've seen in the previous events that we've witnessed.
So in our response to the consultation, you'll see that we suggested a number of conditions
to assist with the promotion of the licence and objectives.
Following this, the applicant has submitted some slightly amended suites of conditions
as part of their further submission to there, basically based on our suggestions.
conditions. Overall, we are in agreement with those amended conditions. Some of them are
for practicality reasons in terms of numbers of SIA staff, the wording of the noise management
condition, that sort of thing. We've got no concerns with the rewording of those. And
as a result of that, obviously, there's now been this further amendment to the premises
plan and the additional condition introduced to restrict any music to background level.
That amendment which disapplies the regulation is a large step from our perspective in the
right direction. From an environmental perspective it's very difficult. We are consulted on an
application for the sale of alcohol and obviously in this case there's no addition to include
regulated entertainment as parts of that assembly room.
However, in the original form of the application,
with that sale of alcohol comes that deregulation
Charlie Robinson - Environmental Protection Team Leader - 1:24:45
and that exemption in order to allow music to be played.
And that was a key concern for us.
So the amendment to the plan to essentially remove
that exemption, we feel is a good step.
And with the additional condition to suggest
their only background music can be played in the area as a whole, provides us with confidence
and a regulatory tool to ensure that the premises comply with their promises essentially.
What I would say is, and again we're difficult because we're confined by the nature of the
application and the nature of the Licencing Act itself, in that we must only comment on
application in front of us and therefore in the proposal that's put forward now our concerns in
relation to the sale of alcohol from that assembly room we are limited in terms of the sale of
alcohol activity. That doesn't mean that we haven't got wider concerns about the use of the premises
moving forward and the management of the premises in terms of those events and therefore as a
authority and in our regulatory role as environmental health, we will be very keen to continue our nuisance investigation and continue our active and proactive engagement with the premises operators to ensure that as we move forward in terms of the potential
use of the premises and that we get the controls right in the first place so that if we do end up
at another variation in the future that we are in a strong position to understand what controls are
necessary or if it's appropriate for the premises at all. So I just thought it was worth giving that
sort of wider context but to bring me back to my original point we are restricted to comment on the
taken are considered very positive from Environment Health's perspective in ensuring the promises
must be kept by those conditions. So from Environment Health's view and just the addition
of the concerns in relation to the outside bar, we suggested condition in relation to
the closure of that and the additional condition in relation to, that Mr Anderson mentioned,
in relation to the smaller outside space associated with the assembly room, the clearance of that
So we would welcome those conditions as part of the variation.
So in our view, we feel that the suite of conditions are proportionate and reasonable to be applied to the premises licence in order to promote the licencing objectives if the committee deemed it appropriate to grant the licence today.
This essentially, the application allows the premises to regularise the use of that space
and then issues of music moving forward is a matter that we can then look
at if it's deemed appropriate for further works.
So if granted, we will continue to work with the premises licence holder.
However, we will reserve the option to review the premises licence should issues arise
in the future and we would always consider our statutory nuisance action for the powers under the Environmental Protection Act.
So I think I'll probably leave it there, Chair, and open to any questions in case there's any from interested parties.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:28:26
Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson. Questions will come at the end, actually, so you can have a little break.
I've got a list to go through and then I'm going to come back as a whole. But Gee -Ran
Verde, you've got something to ask on legal.
Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer - 1:28:37
Yes, just a very quick one, Chair. Thank you very much for allowing this. Just thank you
also, Mr Robinson, for your report. Just on the question of the conditions, I just wanted
to ensure that all parties are clear. I think, Mr Anderson, you mentioned that some had been
amended and that you were going to sort of share them. I wonder whether it's possible
to share those conditions in the chat function so that the panel members and Environmental
Health Officers may have a look at those and consider those just to assist should all parties
feel that that's something that would be helpful. So that's the only point I wanted to raise
on that, Chair. Thank you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:29:22
Will we be looking for an answer?
Yes, I can do that.
I'm sorry, Mr Anderson.
Applicant's Representative - 1:29:32
Yes, I think I can do that.
It's going to push my typing skills to the limit,
but I shall learn.
I shall do my best.
We like to test you in these meetings.
I know, I know.
Thank you, Mr Anderson.
That's all right. Just for transparency, I think it'll just be easy for everyone to have a look at what's been amended.
It's in everyone's interest. So we're going to get them passed on. Yeah. Yeah. You happy with that, do you, Vette?
Yes, thank you, Chair. OK, everybody, just to let you know, what we're going to do is go through everybody of the interested parties list,
and then I go through an order, the licenced officer will ask any from that group, and then we move on and move on that way.
So rather than keep stop, start, stop, start.
OK, Mr. Keiran Lonergan, have you got anything you'd like to say as we present your case?
Chairman, can you hear me? Yeah.
Thanks very much for giving me this opportunity.
Interested Party - 1:30:32
Just to clarify what Sarah was saying and the environmental health officer was saying,
Mr Robinson, I don't know whether there was still conviction going on there.
We first contacted Bucks County Council in autumn 2024 and submitted some evidence in relation to a nuisance that was occurring on I Street while we were talking to some neighbours.
People lived opposite.
But the licencing team and the environmental health team then advised that we keep a record of those things,
diarise it and try and engage with the Gryphon in relation to that.
I wrote a letter to Joe in November 2024 setting out my concerns and asking him to take advice from an acoustic engineer
in relation to the level of nuisance as a way forward.
We never received the reply to that request.
Throughout 2025, events continued.
We kept contact in the Environmental Health Department
and the licencing team.
They kept recording our correspondence,
which led to them coming out and visiting the premises
on several occasions and still no testing of the acoustic nuisance from the premises.
The acoustic testing occurred in November 2025, a year after we wrote to it, first asked him for it
and that only occurred I believe because the Environmental Health Officer prevented the
licensee from holding events with withheld tens. On the matter of tens, in that period
over the past 18 months, I've recorded 23 events at the Gryphon with the sale of alcohol
and with music after 10 o 'clock at night. The Griffiners applied for 10, not 25. They've
had four rejected and contrary to what Joe has said, there was an event held on the 28th
February this year. So nothing ceased last year. There was an event on New Year's Eve
that went on till 1 .30 in the morning. So it didn't cease when we were led to believe.
I think it's important to say that because if this were purely an application to extend
the existing use of Joe's restaurant, we wouldn't object. We've used Joe's restaurant, it's
place to go out and enjoy yourself. It's a nice experience. But that's not, he has stated
himself, what he's proposing to use the assembly room for. He's proposing to use the assembly room
as a revenue generator. So hire out to other people. Now throughout the last year there have
been times when I've spoken to Joe on the nightly events when things are going wrong. And only to
be told, can you not do that any more?
And you go, no, unfortunately they put their own PA system in.
And I say, well, go up there and tell them to turn it down.
Well, I can't do that.
It's their own PA system.
I said, Joe, close the windows.
I've sent you messages and asked Joe to close the windows.
Windows haven't been closed.
So in Maristair, we've tried to be reasonable,
and we wish to continue to be reasonable.
I wish Joe every success.
But you can't fit what he's trying to fit into that room.
room. With House, and I think he's identified, a probably significant investment. To make
that room probably suitable for what he wants is going to take a lot of work. And there
isn't a shortcut to that. And unfortunately, I think to date, Joe has tried to take the
shortcut. And it's been at our expense. And no time has had Joe tried to engage with us.
He just gives short answers, replies to my messages.
You know, it's been incredibly frustrating.
It's took all the way to this point, making an application for him to engage with us.
And that's disappointing.
So I hope that be a guide to the Licencing Committee when they make their decision on this matter.
That what has occurred in the background should be a guide for the way things may be managed in the future.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:35:16
Thank you very much for passing it on. Okay, as we move on, Mr Alan McCarthy, do you wish
to speak?
Interested Party - 1:35:29
Yes, my wife and I, well, my wife, Una and I, we live at about 20 yards away from the
Gryphon, if even that, we're at number six, the Broadway. And we've a large investment
in our home on the High Street and the Broadway. And we definitely wouldn't be supporting an
application, a licenced application like this, if it was to be detrimental to the value of
property and I think it enhances the local community, it brings employment, brings opportunities
for people and we've never experienced any issues with noise or anti -social behaviour
or anything in respect to the premises.
Okay, thank you very much.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:36:23
Are you speaking on behalf of your wife or would she like to?
Okay, thank you very much.
Next is Mr. Bill Yellowford -Teddon.
Yes, hello.
Thanks very much for having the hearing.
Interested Party - 1:36:40
I think it's important that we get a chance to share our views.
First, I'd like to amplify everything I said in my letter and strongly support this application.
I'm a resident of High Street, I've been here since 2008, and I can only say that Joe and
his team have brought a really vibrant and strongly regarded, highly regarded establishment
to life and it is not just a place of getting some good food and a drink but really a really
central part of the community.
The Gathering Rooms is aptly named.
It is, it reflects again the spirit of the Gryphon and I think the spirit of the team
that is managing the Gryphon, Joe and the rest of his crew.
And quite simply you would not have such a successful business without strong leadership.
And I've seen that directly from Joe on many of the meals and events I've attended there.
So from that perspective, the last point I'll make is living in a small town, living in
a town with buildings as old as they are and the like, is very different than living in
the countryside and living completely isolated in the lake.
And we all put up with compromises of small town living,
whether that be parking,
whether that be noise from neighbours
and where those neighbours are restaurants or not, or pubs.
But in that case, it's again,
it's part of the deal we make
when we buy a property here too.
So I would suggest that anyone buying a property
next to an establishment and a successful establishment
should have some consideration and some tolerance for that.
And I think that Joe and his team have gone out of their way
from my understanding to make that possible.
So I just wanted to, as I said,
amplify my strong support for the variation
and clearly with the amendments that have been proposed
by Mr. Anderson and by Joe today,
mitigation and willingness to work forward
and make a solution that works for everyone
is clearly on the table.
so I encourage everyone to take that up. Thanks very much.
Thank you very much. Then we move on to Miss Sally Brown.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:38:57
Chairman, I don't believe Sally Brown is in attendance.
Thank you for letting me know. And now to Mr Peter Collins.
Mr Collins, your microphone.
Interested Party - 1:39:12
I think I've managed to unmute it. I'm not very good with technology, sorry.
Thank you all.
I would like to just echo what a few other people have said.
We are fortunate enough to live in an old town.
I live along the high street and have known Joe and have been to the Gryphon a number of times since it's opened.
And what it adds to the town, you simply can't comprehend if you don't live here or frequent it.
without the Gryphon being in existence.
Before the Gryphon was there,
there was another restaurant in town
and it didn't draw other visitors to Old Amersham,
which also helped other businesses.
Stupidly, for my sins, I recently purchased a shop
in Old Amersham to try and help keep the high street alive
and save it from being turned into a residential property.
As more and more businesses close, it makes it that much harder for any other
business to survive and to breathe life into the town. And I'm sure you've all
seen other towns and environments where businesses have failed. And all I would
ask the committee to consider is that should Joe not be able to continue and
grow business at the Gryphon, what will happen to the rest of the town and will
it just become a residential high street that has no businesses in it, which is not somewhere
that I would choose to live. You know, we chose to live on a high street that is a mixture
of residences and businesses. It's not without its obstacles. I live opposite a pub and we
have to be tolerant that a pub needs to survive and there will be occasions where things aren't
as quiet and peaceful as we want, but I don't want to live in a cottage in the middle of nowhere
with no neighbours. I want to live in a town that thrives with a community that is social,
considerate to one another, and supportive of one another. So I really hope that people will see that
part of what Joe is trying to do with the gathering rooms historically, I believe
formerly in history, some famous people have heard had speeches and presentations there
and that's something as a town that we should cherish and hang on to. So I'm mindful that
we all make noise but we also all need to be considerate of one another. So other than
that I really don't have anything to add but just would really like to continue to breathe
life into our town.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:41:58
Thank you very much Mr Collins. Mr Yousa, I see you've got your hand up but you'll be coming up in a second.
You'll be asked questions. I've just got to go through my order. If I don't, I get told off and we don't want that.
Does the licencing officer have any questions to put to any of the interested parties?
No, thank you, Chair.
Very kind. Now we come on to does the applicant or their agent wish to put any questions to any of the interested parties?
No, thank you, chair.
Mr. Izzo.
Yeah, sorry.
Applicant - 1:42:30
I just would like to address what Kieran said earlier.
He's quite right.
When he moved in, he did mention to me about soundproofing and he did mention an acoustician.
At this point, we'd already spent about £80 ,000 restoring the assembly room.
They were new neighbours.
I did not know at this point the impact that it would have on them.
You know, I very much don't want to have this relationship where we're not talking to each
other at all.
And he's quite right.
They did pop in the restaurant.
And I equally, you know, I remember when, you know, we had great empathy for when he
was carrying his works out on the building.
And I know that's not relevant.
I'm not going to go into, but that went on for some time.
And we were very neighbourly dropped in some pizzas for him and his guys.
never ever wanted it to come to this. But the way never once was I asked Joe come and listen to this
from my bedroom, come and hear the impact that it's having. We never had that kind of conversation
and so now the council have been notified rather than me directly and yes there are some WhatsApp
exchanges where he's asked me to close windows. I'm not sure about the audio one but
And I have tried to enable, like to get my staff to close the, we've resolved that situation now with the window since the reports from the acoustician.
And they're lockable, but people were opening the window because of body heat up there.
I mean, the next thing we would have to do is get planning for aircon if we were to pursue it.
So it's another big challenge.
But never ever did we set out to ignore what was happening
to Mr. Lonergan, it was never an intentional,
we had traction with the business.
And I feel a little bit like him suggesting
that it's just a revenue thing.
We're very proud of what we do,
we're hospitality through and through.
And I think you've heard that in testimonies
testimonies from people here today and other testimonies that were submitted for evidence.
And we create, I know it sounds a bit cheesy, but we create memories. People have great
times here, whether it's a birthday, and that includes within the restaurant, or whether
it's a wedding. And, you know, I take on board that there is responsibility in terms of managing
that and managing it maybe a little bit more cohesively where all of the team understand
their obligations and we have something, you know, almost like a Bible to go by. I understand
that now, you know, but it was never just a right, how can we squeeze more money out
of the Gryphon? We're not that kind of establishment. We're trying to obviously maximise our asset,
you know, and I can't tell you how hard it is nowadays, particularly in our sector, to try and do that, you know, the high streetism was what it was.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:45:41
So I just wanted to address that. Yeah. I'm going to allow Kieran to come back on that because you were directing it towards him.
Would you like to come back on that quickly or?
Interested Party - 1:45:54
Thank you, Jim. Can you hear me? Yeah. So, I just wanted to address this to Joe. Joe,
thank you very much for your words. They're accepted in the way I think you intend them
to be. I'm sorry too, it's got to this. I'm hoping we can resolve this going forward.
But we need to engage to be able to move forward. That's all I'd say. Thank you, Jim.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:46:18
That's very good. It's really nice that the two of you have committed that to each other.
So I'd like to say on our behalf, thank you very much. That's really good to hear. So
where was I? I've lost myself a little bit now. I haven't. Do members have any questions
they'd like to put to interested parties? Nope. Some microphones are on. Could they
be turned off please. I'm getting some echo at this end that tends to make it a little
bit harder for me. Okay are there any other points the interested parties wish to make?
I believe we've covered most of that so if we continue. We can now move to closing submissions
should you wish to make any and I'll go through those in the order of licencing officer, applicant
agent and an interested party. So firstly on closing submissions, Ms Coates, have you
got anything you'd like to say to bring us to an end?
No, Chair, I don't think I've got anything else to add. Thank you very much.
Sarah Coates - Licensing Officer - 1:47:20
Very good. And then on to closing submissions for Mr Izzo or Mr Anderson.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:47:23
Applicant's Representative - 1:47:28
Thank you, Chair. Just briefly, I think I echo what Joe said towards the end, which
I think he expressed himself probably more eloquently than I. And our position remains
that, yes, I mean, Kieran is right. I mean, we've obviously, you know, on occasion disturbed him,
and that is regrettable. Whatever the reason for that, Joe said earlier that, you know,
with the benefit of hindsight, he'd probably done things differently. But you don't build
a successful restaurant, as Mr Yelberton and Mr Collins and others have referred to,
which gets on well with neighbours, if you aren't a good operator and a responsible operator.
So I would ask the committee to look at that in terms of assessing
who is going to run the assembly room and how well it will be run.
And you are also aided in that by the extra conditions which we offer
in terms of promoting the licencing objectives.
Two more points, if I may.
The key one is that if we were making this application without any restriction,
I think it would be very difficult for us with an ongoing noise problem.
But we are not.
You know, we have addressed the fundamental issue and we always see it now
is an opportunity, hopefully, for Joe to use the space that he's already invested in
in a way that will benefit the community, as those in support have mentioned,
will not disturb Kieran. He should not be disturbed in any way because we can't do any
entertainment and in terms of dispersal and other things it's not a late licence and we have a
dispersal policy in order to encourage people to leave as quickly and quietly as possible.
But I think the final point is that already mentioned, I think Peter Collins mentioned it in
in terms of the impact on the high street,
the impact on hospitality, which Joe has mentioned,
and the relevance of that.
Now, that was not particularly relevant recently,
rightly or wrongly, but of course, the guidance,
which Sarah has referred to, the Home Office guidance,
does now indicate, I'm sure you're familiar,
I'll just mention it if I may,
when making decisions, licencing authorities should consider
the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits.
So that is not a licencing objective, but it is something that committees now with the guidance
being something that you have to consider, it is now in the guidance. I think respectfully this
application is absolutely on all fours with that. Is it a balanced application? Yes, it is a balanced
application. It allows a proven operator to expand his business and it protects local people,
including the nearest neighbour from being disturbed. Thank you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:50:23
It's very good Mr Anderson, thank you very much. And continuing about interested
parties with close insubmissions, Mr Robinson do you have any?
No thank you Chairman, I think I've covered everything I need to from an
Charlie Robinson - Environmental Protection Team Leader - 1:50:38
environmental perspective, thank you. Very good. There's a few mics on,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:50:43
Mr Anderson, your mics are still on please. It only echoes by ends, it's quite. Kieran
Larkin, have you got any closing submission or are you happy where you are? Very good, sir.
Alan McCarthy? I think I'd just like to echo what others in support of this application have made.
Interested Party - 1:51:00
I mean, we've chosen to live on the high street. We love the vibrancy of it, we love the activity
that's there. We didn't choose to live out in a rural setting and it's just a wonderful place to
live. As I said, we live 20 yards away from the Gryphon. It has never been an issue. We just love
having them there. They bring a great benefit to the town and it's, as I said earlier, great
employment and opportunities for people as well and it's a great asset to the town and if we can
enhance it in any way, then I'm fully in support of it, yes.
Okay, and next is Bill Gibrelton.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:51:44
Interested Party - 1:51:48
Just echoing what I said before, but I am glad to hear that, one, the provisions have
been put in place and the stipulations that Joe and the Gryphon are agreeing to should
go a long way toward hopefully resolving this positively.
And again, I think all we all want are good neighbours.
So thanks very much for the committee for taking the time to listen to us.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:52:08
Very good. And Peter Collins.
Microphone, Mr. Collins.
Interested Party - 1:52:19
Sorry, I'm trying.
We try every day, Mr. Collins, and we still don't get it right.
I just want to echo everything else. But also, I would, I know this has been stressful,
probably both for Kieran and for Joe, but I would like to reassure both of them
that Joe you run a great business and we wouldn't all be giving up our afternoons
in support of you and Kieran just we really hope that it can something can
work out that it works for both of you but but without Joe working as hard as
he works and as long as he works that that does add so much to our town and
and the businesses that he's moved along the high street
and done different things with to get to where he is.
And what he adds is just,
unless you've been and you've seen happy faces
in a restaurant, my mum's 95,
you know, she can barely walk,
but she will walk down the high street
to go and have a Sunday lunch with Joe.
And for me, that is a motivation
that you can't really comprehend.
So anyway, I can't add anything.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:53:37
Yeah, I'm going to say something. I know it's got quite close between Joe and Ken but it's
not directed at Kiran there at all because our environment team and council got involved
not because of just that it was because of other complaints and issues had come in so
I just want to make that clear. I noticed that Mr Anderson's got his hand up but Jeevan
the oh she's taken her hand down or up i've just sorry chair thank you for the opportunity i've
Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer - 1:54:03
just taken it down because i'm assuming that miss randerson might be responding um just for the the
purposes of the rest of the hearing i've just popped in the chat um some slightly tweaked and
re -worded um conditions so miss randerson very kindly shared the amended conditions that he was
referring to earlier. So I have had a look at those conditions and just to ensure
that they're in line with the pool of conditions of the licencing authority.
They've been tweaked slightly. So I don't know whether Mr Anderson is responding to
that or whether he was going to make another point. But that was the point
that I was going to make. So thank you. Just to flag that to all parties.
Thank you. Mr Anderson.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:54:45
Well, it was that just to point out that I put the two conditions that the second
Applicant's Representative - 1:54:50
one, I think, is perfectly clear and the the meeting has been aware of that
from the beginning that the first one for the purposes of condition four is
an abbreviation, it's not the wording of the condition,
because that refers to Charlie Robinson's and my agreement that the the two external
areas, so the external area at the rear of the restaurant we've discussed and
fine. There is a small external area adjacent to the assembly room door which is not on the licence
plan. But my intention of that, because the restriction on that will be the same as condition
four and that's my condition four in my bundle, so all of my conditions I think would be on the
licence if you were minded to grant as they have been printed one, two, three, four, five and six.
The no amplified music would be added as condition seven,
but rather than add an eighth condition,
four could be amended to add the second external area
because the rest of it would then apply
to both external areas.
So that would effectively do the same job.
That was the purpose of it.
So both external areas are limited to 11
rather than having two conditions.
One condition does the limits both areas.
That was my thinking.
Jeevan Virdi - Legal Officer - 1:56:15
Are you happy with that Gina? Thank you Mr Anderson for clarifying that so it won't be
if granted so yes that's good thank you for the clarity on that point. Thank you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:56:29
Thank you very good microphones. Okay so that concludes the evidence in this matter and I
So before I conclude the hearing,
is there any party present who does not consider
they have had a fair hearing?
Everyone seems okay.
So I'm going to close down very shortly,
but before I do, I've only got a few more words to say,
but on behalf of Councillor Gryphon
and Councillor Hyndon and myself,
we'd like to thank everyone for coming to today's meeting
with our officers.
I would like to say how professional you've all been,
understanding each other and it's been quite a good meeting when it comes to that.
I hope you do find a sort of resolution between yourselves out there. It sounds like you will do,
that's for sure. I don't know how the committee is going to bear on this, but that's another issue.
But sounds like you've got a lovely community out there and all of us wish you all the best,
whatever as I say the outcome is. So once again thank you so much for attending our meeting.
from there. So the subcommittee will now retire together with the legal officer and democratic
services officer for this matter to be determined. The subcommittee will come to decision which will
be sent to the applicant or all other parties who submitted relevant representations within the time
limit set out in regulations together with details of any right to appeal. Please get all parties
other than members, the legal advisor, democratic services now leave the virtual hearing. Once again
Thank you everybody for your time. Thank you very much.