An appeal against a proposed new nightclub in Penally has been dismissed.

The two day hearing which got underway at Haverfordwest Magistrates Court on Thursday, January 23 and concluded yesterday (Thursday, January 30) related to Pembrokeshire County Council granting a licence for the premises which is to be called Queen of Hearts.

The licensing conditions granted for the new nightclub were as follows: no licensable activities are permitted on Sundays, other than Sundays preceding a Bank Holiday Monday, licensable activities are to finish at 3 am, with the premises to close at 3.30 am; Supply of alcohol to be for consumption on the premises only and supply of alcohol to customers shall be in recyclable plastic containers only.

Opening the hearing PCC’s legal adviser Sally-Anne Martin argued that PCC’s decision to grant the licence was “proper just and reasonable” and that the person appealing must prove to the court that PCC’s sub-licensing committee was wrong.

During the initial meeting of the licensing sub-committee in August, the manager of Crackwell Holiday Park which is located next to the proposed site of the new nightclub, Mrs. Emma Thomas raised concerns about the plans which were granted approval subject to conditions.

Speaking against PCC’s decision Ms. Thomas representing herself, opened her argument by saying that her family had been business owners in Penally since the 1950s and her family had owned the caravan park for a number of years.

Ms. Thomas said that the road between the MoD base in the village and the Crackwell railway bridge is the national speed limit and there was no grass verge where the road runs past the proposed site, something she considered would be dangerous for those visiting such a nightclub.

She expressed her fears over people walking on the road at night with a potential increase in taxis and buses. “It only takes one,” she said.

During the first day of the appeal Magistrates heard from Nathan Miles PCC’s pollution control lead officer who said he had received an operations procedures manual regarding noise pollution and reviewed the plan with the police prior to the meeting.

He also said that a site visit was made on July 12 where a number of issues were found.

Keith Jenkins from Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service then provided evidence, stating that there were no issues as long as the applicants complied with the recommendations set out, but would have to do this before the premises opened.

However, Mr. Jenkins said he was still waiting on interior plans, which meant that the capacity of the venue could not be finalised and no risk assessment had been made.

At the hearing, Dyfed Powys-Police county licensing officer Nigel Lewis was asked if police can stop people from walking down the road to which he said “no” with the case hearing that currently there was a 210 metre stretch of unlit road which runs with a 74-metre section which has no verge for people to walk on.

Mr. Lewis confirmed that the road which runs past the proposed site between the MoD base in the village and the Crackwell railway bridge was dangerous.

He also told the hearing that there could be the possibility of increased accidents and injuries as a result of an increase in traffic and people walking on the road especially at night.

Giving evidence, Carmen Clemas, the license holder said that having transport from the club was part of the licensing conditions and talks had been made with bus companies.

“People know it was a nightclub,” she said, stating that she didn’t intend for history repeating itself and intended to do something about it.

Addressing Magistrates, Ms. Thomas then read a letter from one of the local villagers which said: “When the public notice was in the paper, I was not aware that was the old Chequers nightclub. I would have given my opinion otherwise.”

With there only being reference to Crackwell Farm - she pointed out that this was because the wrong post code was used in the application, and as a result, the public notice did not reach the attention of many residents - a breach of section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Ms. Thomas explained that by listing the wrong post code it had been confusing for residents living in the locality, and claimed that more letters of objections would have been made if residents had known the correct location of the club.

She also claimed that the plans were presented in the incorrect scale under Home Office guidelines.

Turning her attention to the road, Ms. Thomas said it was extremely hazardous for patrons of the club.

“I never walk that stretch of road day or night,” she remarked, also stating that she would not let her son walk down the road as it was too dangerous.

She said that when the former Chequers club was open at this site, Crackwell Caravan Park lost vital revenue because the caravans were placed at the back of the touring field reducing the amount of bookings.

The bench heard concerns from Ms. Thomas regarding a potential increase in crime through criminal damage, violence and public indecency.

She was also worried about people trespassing on the caravan park’s premises.

Closing the argument on day two for PCC, Mrs. Martin told the court that PCC followed all the relevant legislative manner under the Licensing Act 2003.

She said that there was no evidence of crime and disorder from Dyfed-Powys Police by Nigel Lewis in the premises and the licensing holder

Mrs. Martin added that the transport from the club must be provided and be set at a fixed price.

In relation to patrons potentially trespassing onto the caravan park and going into the play area, Magistrates were told the door staff that the door staff would be on hand to usher club-goers onto the buses.

Mrs. Martin also argued that the structure of the road past the proposed nightclub did not have a bearing on the granting of the licence.

However she said that the sub-licensing committee were satisfied with the noise management plan.

The legal adviser concluded her remarks by saying the court has to be satisfied that the sub-committee was wrong then and was wrong now.

“As a result the appeal should be dismissed,” she added.

Closing her argument, Emma Thomas said that the plans submitted to PCC had been wrong, and included the wrong post code for the premises.

She also added that the licence application was submitted under one person and not through a partnership.

Mrs. Thomas then claimed that there was no mention of the IDs being checked as part of the noise management plan.

However, during the initial meeting of the licensing sub-committee, applicant Faith Wooldridge told the panel that everyone’s ID would be checked regardless of how old they looked.

Mrs. Thomas criticised PCC stating that they had a “duty of care for people of the county” explaining that nobody could stop any of the patrons from putting their lives at risk along that dangerous road, and that numerous people would be walking along that stretch because of the club.

She concluded her remarks by saying the licence shouldn’t be granted as it would lead to a fatality waiting to happen.

Summing up the case, the chairman of the magistrates bench, Joan Morris said that in relation to the public safety aspect, it was stated that police supported the licensing application in principal, and that the licence only covered the building and the outer grounds, meaning that the applicants bore no responsibility for people who chose to walk on the road after they left the club.

Magistrates also said that issues in relation to child protection were addressed as the relevant bodies were consulted as required under the Licensing Act 2003.

As a result, the bench dismissed the appeal.

Ms. Thomas was ordered by the bench to pay PCC £1,000 in costs.

However, Magistrates noted that under the noise management plan, the word “consider” should be changed to ‘admit’.

Speaking after the appeal hearing Ms. Thomas admitted that she was ‘disappointed’ with the outcome, but added she was glad to have had the opportunity to question the decision to grant the licence in the first instance.After the decision Clr. Tim Evans, Chairman of the Licensing Sub-Committee, said: “The committee followed the required procedures in order to arrive at its decision and we note the decision of the magistrates to uphold that decision.”