Which branch would you like to contact?

Nottingham 0115 953 8500 London 020 3859 7760

Managing a premise licence variation which involved improvements to the external terrace and beer garden area of a local pub

How we proved representations over noise and unacceptable behaviour were unfounded

Pub Beer Garden

Poppleston Allen licensing solicitors had submitted a premise licence variation as part of a major refurbishment programme which involved improvements to the external terrace and beer garden area of local pub.

However, local residents made representations (objections) to the application and, despite several attempts by Poppleston Allen, refused to engage in any negotiation.

The representations were based upon allegations that the premises had been operating beyond the hours permitted by their premises licence, alleged noise nuisance, alleged drug taking by customers and general anti-social behaviour in the car park area and beer garden of the pub.

During the hearing, the local residents sought to rely upon mobile phone video footage to substantiate their allegations. Our licensing solicitors, who appeared as advocate in what was a highly charged licensing hearing due to passionate local residents, successfully argued that the mobile phone footage and other evidence presented by the residents was irrelevant to the application and did not substantiate any of their allegations.

Furthermore, the pub had its own CCTV, along with mobile phone footage from the manager, showing very little noise or bad behaviour in the car park.

The legal value we added:

Poppleston Allen licensing solicitors successfully convinced the licensing sub-committee that the premises were operated responsibly and that there was no evidence of noise nuisance or unacceptable levels of crime and disorder.

The premises licence variation application was granted as applied for.

This was a very important case as the refurbishment work had already started prior to the hearing to consider the application. If the residents had been successful at the hearing and the application had been refused, the operator would have been required to reinstate the premises to its existing layout which would have involved a substantial amount of cost in addition to the already substantial costs of the refurbishment.

Back to case studies

Join over 7,000 professionals already getting a free legal 'heads up'

Can’t find what you’re looking for?

Speak to one of our friendly team