WAVERLEY councillors have successfully brokered a compromise between a Farnham publican and nearby residents despite having to satisfy two conflicting and contradictory laws. At a meeting of the Waverley licensing sub-commit ee Beverley McDonald-Good, publican of The Prince Alfred Public House on Bishops Road applied for a variation on her licence to extend the time patrons could use the smoking area in the beer garden from 10pm to midnight. Originally the applicants had requested that the council remove condition seven of their licence, which stated that the beer garden must not be used by anyone other than customers and for anything other than the consumption of alcohol with all bottles and glasses cleared away by 10pm. They wanted it to be replaced by a condition stating that the beer garden be cleared of all bottles, glasses, and customers consuming alcohol and food by midnight. However, during the meeting, the applicants drastically changed their proposal simply saying that all they wanted was an extension to the time allowed for smokers in the small smoking area in the beer garden to midnight. Residents objecting to the change in use of the beer garden were taken aback by the significantly reduced proposal, but still believed that their objections were valid as they felt that it wasn't the alcohol or the food which made the noise, but the people themselves. Ashley Morgan, a nearby resident and a frequent patron of the pub, said: "Mrs Good only wishes to extend the smoking area limit to midnight in the decked area. We will rope off the rest of the beer garden so as to prevent customers from using the area. "The application is to cover the rare occasion the pub is open to midnight as the licence allows her to, but she chooses not to do that regularly. We refute the picture painted by objection letter one sent to the council which claims that most of our patrons are in their mid 20s, drunken yobs, the unwanted and the banned. "In fact the opposite is true. Most of the regulars are in their 50s and are generally respectable people." Chris Pincher brought pictures of the pub and the surrounding area to the meeting to help explain why any extention to the licence would cause more misery for nearby residents. Mr Pincher said: "We have genuine concerns regarding the application. As you can see from the photograph taken from our bedroom window, there are four houses visible behind the beer garden. We are all in close proximity. W are subjected to a lot of noise when we are trying to sleep and we have had to close the windows at nighttime so that our children don't have to hear the fowl and abusive language. "As you can also see from the picture, if customers smoked in front of the pub it would actually be further away from us than if they smoked in the beer garden/car park." After more than 50 minutes private deliberation, councillors agreed to grant the extension, but with a number of new conditions. The licencee must partition off the smoking area between 10pm and midnight as well as erect signs asking patrons to keep the noise to a minimum while smoking. After 10pm there will be no alcohol, food or glasses permitted anywhere in the beer garden. Finally, management and staff must monitor the smoking area 'frequently and randomly' to ensure compliance by smokers with the licence. A spokesman for the council said: "Since the introduction of the new smoking law it has created conflict with the licensing law. The smoking ban pushes people outside and creates a need to generate outside smoking areas for customers. "This puts pressure on councils to allow extended smoking times outside to coincide with the length of time customers are allowed to buy and consume alcohol. It's not a legal requirement to provide smoking areas, but the need is there. However, the licensing act says publicans must keep nuisance and noise to a minimum and people standing outside a pub talking late at night while smoking could present a nuisance. "So this creates conflict between the two laws and we have to be flexible. It is better for all parties to come up with a solution before it ends up going to court, because in court there is a lot less flexibility to compromise. "Since the smoking law was introduced we have had received five appeals, four of which were dropped before an adjudication was made and the fifth our decision was upheld, so I think that shows our approach seems to be working."