Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED that a Premises Licence be granted, subject to the amended hours and conditions as set out below – LICENSABLE ACTIVITY DAYS APPLICABLE TIME FROM TIME TO Provision of Live Music (Indoors only) Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07:00 07.00 22:00 22.30 Provision of Recorded Music (Indoors only) Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07:00 07.00 22:00 22.30 Supply of Alcohol (for consumption both on and off the premises) Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07:00 07.00 22:00 22.30 Hours that the premises will be open to the public Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07.00 07.00 22.30 23.00 CONDITIONS As put forward by the Applicant and set out in Appendix C to the report – · No outdoor customer activity or alcohol consumption after 21.00 · No live or recorded music outside the premises · Doors and windows to remain closed, apart from entry and exit, whenever amplified music is played · Installation and operation of a Council-approved noise limiter · Restrictions on waste collections, bottle disposal and deliveries between 21.00 and 08.00 · Customers to be actively supervised when leaving and prevented from congregating outside · A formal dispersal and taxi-management plan, including a designated collection point away from homes · A staffed residents' complaint number and a written complaints and incident log available for Council and police inspection · CCTV covering entrances, exits and the immediate external area, with recordings retained for at least 31 days · Suitable door supervisors whenever a higher-risk assessed event requires them ADDITIONAL CONDITION · the sale of alcohol shall be ancillary to the use of the premises as a padel sports facility and shall not be provided to persons attending the premises solely for the purchase or consumption of alcohol. The Chair conveyed the Sub Committee’s decision to all parties present. She also sympathised with local residents’ concerns regarding traffic and noise issues and encouraged them to utilise the appropriate complaints procedures and contact their ward councillors for support in pursuing those matters via the relevant channels. The Legal Adviser reported on the reasons for the decision as follows – The Sub Committee carefully considered the objections received from local residents and acknowledged the genuine concerns raised regarding the potential for noise disturbance, customer behaviour, customers arriving and leaving the premises and the impact of alcohol sales upon nearby residential properties. The Sub Committee noted, however, that following receipt of those objections, the Applicant substantially amended the application and accepted the mitigation measures proposed by residents. Members were encouraged by the openness of the Applicant and his willingness to engage with local members and the local community. In particular, the Applicant significantly reduced the originally requested hours, with the premises closing at 22:30 Sunday to Thursday and 23:00 on Fridays and Saturdays, with alcohol sales and live and recorded music ceasing 30 minutes before closing. The Sub Committee considered these revised hours to represent a substantial reduction from the original application. The Sub Committee were reassured by the inclusion of the condition that the sale of alcohol shall be ancillary to the use of the premises as a padel sports facility and shall not be provided to persons attending the premises solely for the purchase or consumption of alcohol. The Sub-Committee further noted that the Applicant had agreed to an extensive suite of conditions designed specifically to address the concerns raised by local residents. The Sub Committee was satisfied that these conditions directly addressed the concerns raised in relation to the prevention of public nuisance and were capable of being effectively monitored and enforced. In relation to the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety objectives, the Sub Committee noted that no evidence had been produced of any existing crime, disorder or public safety issues associated with the premises. The concerns raised were largely anticipatory in nature. Whilst the Sub-Committee recognised those concerns as sincerely held, it was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the licensing objectives would be undermined if the licence were granted subject to the amended operating schedule and conditions. The Sub Committee also noted that some concerns raised by residents related to traffic, parking, vehicle movements and congestion. Whilst these concerns were acknowledged, the Sub-Committee accepted the legal advice that such matters are generally outside the scope of the Licensing Act 2003 unless there is a direct evidential link to one or more of the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee was not satisfied that such a link had been demonstrated by the evidence heard and that any matters in relation to traffic may be an issue for the landlord who owns the entire site in any event. Accordingly, the Sub Committee concluded that the grant of the premises licence, subject to the conditions contained within the amended application and operating schedule, would promote the licensing objectives and represented the appropriate, proportionate and evidence-based outcome in all the circumstances. Members were encouraged by the conversation between the Applicant and objectors that they will look to create a liaison group, if required, in order to work closely and amicably together. All parties had a right to appeal against the Licensing Sub Committee’s decision to the Magistrates’ court within twenty-one days. The meeting concluded at 3.25 pm.
Councillor Gwyneth Ellis was appointed Chair for the meeting. The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and all present were introduced. The hearing procedures had been circulated previously to all parties and copies of the Statement of Licensing Policy were made available at the meeting.
No declarations of interest were raised.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED that a Premises Licence be granted, subject to the amended hours and conditions as set out below – LICENSABLE ACTIVITY DAYS APPLICABLE TIME FROM TIME TO Provision of Live Music (Indoors only) Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07:00 07.00 22:00 22.30 Provision of Recorded Music (Indoors only) Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07:00 07.00 22:00 22.30 Supply of Alcohol (for consumption both on and off the premises) Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07:00 07.00 22:00 22.30 Hours that the premises will be open to the public Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07.00 07.00 22.30 23.00 CONDITIONS As put forward by the Applicant and set out in Appendix C to the report – · No outdoor customer activity or alcohol consumption after 21.00 · No live or recorded music outside the premises · Doors and windows to remain closed, apart from entry and exit, whenever amplified music is played · Installation and operation of a Council-approved noise limiter · Restrictions on waste collections, bottle disposal and deliveries between 21.00 and 08.00 · Customers to be actively supervised when leaving and prevented from congregating outside · A formal dispersal and taxi-management plan, including a designated collection point away from homes · A staffed residents' complaint number and a written complaints and incident log available for Council and police inspection · CCTV covering entrances, exits and the immediate external area, with recordings retained for at least 31 days · Suitable door supervisors whenever a higher-risk assessed event requires them ADDITIONAL CONDITION · the sale of alcohol shall be ancillary to the use of the premises as a padel sports facility and shall not be provided to persons attending the premises solely for the purchase or consumption of alcohol. The Chair conveyed the Sub Committee’s decision to all parties present. She also sympathised with local residents’ concerns regarding traffic and noise issues and encouraged them to utilise the appropriate complaints procedures and contact their ward councillors for support in pursuing those matters via the relevant channels. The Legal Adviser reported on the reasons for the decision as follows – The Sub Committee carefully considered the objections received from local residents and acknowledged the genuine concerns raised regarding the potential for noise disturbance, customer behaviour, customers arriving and leaving the premises and the impact of alcohol sales upon nearby residential properties. The Sub Committee noted, however, that following receipt of those objections, the Applicant substantially amended the application and accepted the mitigation measures proposed by residents. Members were encouraged by the openness of the Applicant and his willingness to engage with local members and the local community. In particular, the Applicant significantly reduced the originally requested hours, with the premises closing at 22:30 Sunday to Thursday and 23:00 on Fridays and Saturdays, with alcohol sales and live and recorded music ceasing 30 minutes before closing. The Sub Committee considered these revised hours to represent a substantial reduction from the original application. The Sub Committee were reassured by the inclusion of the condition that the sale of alcohol shall be ancillary to the use of the premises as a padel sports facility and shall not be provided to persons attending the premises solely for the purchase or consumption of alcohol. The Sub-Committee further noted that the Applicant had agreed to an extensive suite of conditions designed specifically to address the concerns raised by local residents. The Sub Committee was satisfied that these conditions directly addressed the concerns raised in relation to the prevention of public nuisance and were capable of being effectively monitored and enforced. In relation to the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety objectives, the Sub Committee noted that no evidence had been produced of any existing crime, disorder or public safety issues associated with the premises. The concerns raised were largely anticipatory in nature. Whilst the Sub-Committee recognised those concerns as sincerely held, it was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the licensing objectives would be undermined if the licence were granted subject to the amended operating schedule and conditions. The Sub Committee also noted that some concerns raised by residents related to traffic, parking, vehicle movements and congestion. Whilst these concerns were acknowledged, the Sub-Committee accepted the legal advice that such matters are generally outside the scope of the Licensing Act 2003 unless there is a direct evidential link to one or more of the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee was not satisfied that such a link had been demonstrated by the evidence heard and that any matters in relation to traffic may be an issue for the landlord who owns the entire site in any event. Accordingly, the Sub Committee concluded that the grant of the premises licence, subject to the conditions contained within the amended application and operating schedule, would promote the licensing objectives and represented the appropriate, proportionate and evidence-based outcome in all the circumstances. Members were encouraged by the conversation between the Applicant and objectors that they will look to create a liaison group, if required, in order to work closely and amicably together. All parties had a right to appeal against the Licensing Sub Committee’s decision to the Magistrates’ court within twenty-one days. The meeting concluded at 3.25 pm.
The Licensing Officer submitted a report by the Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services (previously circulated) upon – (i) an application having been received from Keystone Law on behalf of their client Court De Padel Prestatyn Limited for a new Premises Licence in respect of Court De Padel, Unit 1 – 5 Prestatyn Business Park, Warren Drive, Prestatyn (Appendix A to the report); (ii) the Applicant having originally requested authorisation for provision of the following – LICENSABLE ACTIVITY DAYS APPLICABLE TIME FROM TIME TO Provision of Live Music (Indoors) Monday – Sunday All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day 07:00 01:00 Provision of Recorded Music (Indoors) Monday – Sunday All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day 07:00 01.00 Provision of Late Night Refreshment (both Indoors and Outdoors) Monday – Sunday All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day 23.00 01.00 Supply of Alcohol (for consumption both on and off the premises) Monday – Sunday All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day 07:00 01:00 Hours that the premises will be open to the public Monday – Sunday Opening hours shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day 07.00 01.30 (iii) no representations having been received from any Responsible Authority; (iv) one relevant representation having been received together with a petition originally signed by sixty-three local residents raising concerns relating primarily to noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour, public safety and alcohol-related nuisance (Appendix B to the report); (v) in response to representations received the Applicant having agreed to amend the application to incorporate all of the recommendations and mitigation measures proposed within the petition (Appendix C to the report) including a reduction in hours, restrictions on outdoor activities, measures to minimise noise breakout, customer dispersal arrangements, controls relating to waste handling and deliveries and implementation of management and monitoring measures to promote the licensing objectives; however, twenty-seven petition signatories having confirmed they were still not satisfied with the amendments; (vi) further comments having been received from Other Persons as a result of the proposed amendments offered by the Applicant (Appendix D to the report); (vii) some representations having raised concerns regarding traffic generation, speeding cars, and the impact of additional vehicles on residential roads which were generally matters regulated through separate regimes and not ordinarily matters for determination under the Licensing Act 2003; (viii) mediation having been offered to all parties but no formal agreement having been reached between the Applicant and the Other Persons; (ix) the need to consider the application taking due account of Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy; other relevant legislation and relevant representations received, and (x) the options available to the Sub Committee when determining the application. The Licensing Officer summarised the report and facts of the case. Members were also advised that the Applicant leased the premises and did not own the land or building and therefore certain requests made by the petitioners were beyond their control. Since publication of the report the Applicant had proposed an additional condition restricting alcohol sales to those using the padel sports facility, along with a request for any additional conditions from the petitioners. While further comments were received from petitioners, the condition did not satisfy their concerns, and any additional conditions suggested had already been agreed by the Applicant or included within the report. APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION In attendance for the Applicant were Mr Joan Francisco Ferrras Quintero (the Applicant) and his representative, Mr Marcus Lavell of Keystone Law Limited. Mr Lavell advised that the Applicant operated similar padel facilities elsewhere and was seeking to expand the business nationally. He explained that the principal purpose of the business was the provision of padel courts, with income derived primarily from court hire, while the sale of alcohol formed a secondary source of revenue intended to enhance the customer experience. He highlighted the employment and economic benefits associated with the business and submitted that the conditions proposed, including the additional condition restricting alcohol sales to those using the padel facility, demonstrated the Applicant's commitment to operating the premises as a sports facility rather than a drinking venue. Mr Lavell further argued that the nature of the premises and activities undertaken limited the potential for public nuisance, particularly in relation to noise, and that the conditions offered had been developed in response to concerns raised by local residents and discussions with licensing officers. He contended that the proposed conditions provided appropriate safeguards to promote the licensing objectives. Mr Quintero explained that the business operated as a padel sports facility, with alcohol sales being ancillary to that operation. The premises were designed primarily for padel activity, with six courts and a social seating area for players, and that substantial investment had been made in the sporting facilities. Reference was made to the operation of similar venues where alcohol was available to players as part of the overall customer experience rather than as a standalone activity. Mr Quintero emphasised that the business did not hold events or operate in a manner associated with licensed drinking venues, advising that no New Year's Eve events were held and that the premises closed early on that occasion. He also referred to his experience as a licence holder without previous issues. The community benefits provided through engagement with local schools and other groups were highlighted, with the premises promoting sport, wellbeing and social interaction. He argued that the provision of alcohol was intended to complement these activities by allowing customers to socialise responsibly following participation in sport. The Applicant and his representative responded to members' questions as follows: · no outdoor seating was proposed and measures were in place to monitor and minimise noise disturbance to neighbouring properties · only small speakers would be used within the premises for announcements and low-level background music, and it was considered unlikely that these would generate noise sufficient to cause nuisance to nearby residents · a dispersal and taxi management plan would be implemented, with staff expected to monitor customer behaviour and address any issues. Customers were required to book through an App, enabling records to be kept of those using the facility, and those who failed to comply with site rules could be refused future bookings · the premises would close early on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve and remain closed on Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day, reflecting the reduced demand during the holiday period · there was no specific intention to provide live music on a regular basis, although the application sought flexibility to accommodate occasional promotional events · similar premises in Norwich and Hull had operated under the same business model and premises licence arrangements without issue, and further sites were planned in other locations across the UK. With regard to former use of the site, officers advised of its use as a supermarket headquarters and distribution centre which was likely to have generated significantly greater traffic and footfall than the current operation, although no definitive evidence was available. Mr Lavell responded that customers attended the premises to play padel rather than consume alcohol and, as such, any traffic movements would not be directly attributable to the licensable activities proposed. He submitted that matters relating to traffic, parking and use of the site were considerations for the planning regime rather than the licensing objectives. REPRESENTATIONS FROM OTHER PERSONS One relevant representation together with a petition signed by sixty-three local residents had been received (Appendix B to the report), raising concerns relating primarily to noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour, public safety and alcohol-related nuisance. Following mediation twenty-seven petitioners having confirmed their continued support for the petition. Eight petitioners were in attendance: K. Stafford, P. Stafford, S. Fox, A. Fox, C. Ward, P. Loftus, J. Loftus and J. Galer. The petitioners had elected a spokesperson to represent them and address the Sub Committee on their behalf, Mr Andrew Fox. Mr Fox apologised for the lower than expected attendance of residents, explaining that a number were unable to attend due to work, appointments and holidays. He described the location of the premises within the former Kwik Save site and referred to the proximity of residential properties and other commercial premises in the area. In outlining residents’ concerns, Mr Fox emphasised the close-knit nature of the local community and explained that their properties were built on sandy ground which increased noise transmission. Reference was made to existing noise experienced from nearby commercial activities, including a gym operating from 5.00am. Concern was expressed that the proposed license to 1.00am could result in additional noise and disturbance associated with customers leaving the premises late at night, including conversations, taxi collections and vehicle movements. Mr Fox referred to existing traffic activity in the area during restricted hours and argued that additional movements associated with the premises would exacerbate the disturbance experienced by residents. While acknowledging the Applicant's intention to operate the premises responsibly, he submitted that it would not be possible to control the behaviour of all customers once they left the venue. Mr Fox argued that the cumulative impact of existing activity in the area, together with the proposed licensed operation, could adversely affect residents' amenity, wellbeing and ability to enjoy uninterrupted rest, and he therefore objected to the application for alcohol sales until 1.00am. The Chair reminded those present that the Applicant had amended the application in response to residents’ concerns, reducing the proposed opening hours from 1.00am to 10.30pm on weekdays and 11.00pm at weekends. Licensable activities, including the sale of alcohol and music, would cease 30 minutes before closing. Mr Fox confirmed that he was personally content with the compromise on hours, although some of his neighbours did not share that view. Members noted that the submissions in objection to the application had largely focused on concerns relating to existing activities and wider issues associated with other businesses on the site, rather than the impact that the grant of the premises licence itself might have on the licensing objectives. Issues relating to traffic management, including the operation of a one-way system and vehicle movements, were general estate concerns not directly attributable to the proposed licensed activities, and were more appropriately addressed via other regulatory processes. During questioning, the Applicant asked whether any issues had been experienced since the premises had commenced trading. In response to comments raised, and further questions from members, he and his representative responded as follows – · regarding staffing and how incidents with customers would be managed should alcohol be available on the premises, staff operated in accordance with Lawn Tennis Association requirements, CCTV was installed, risk assessments were undertaken, and appropriate procedures were in place to deal with any issues · customer management was based on membership controls and behavioural standards rather than physical security measures, and customers could be identified through the booking system and prohibited from returning if their behaviour was unacceptable · alcohol had been sold under Temporary Event Notices (TENs) at the premises for a number of weeks without complaint, and no issues associated with those licensable activities had been reported · traffic management issues were not directly linked to the licensable activities proposed. However, customers were encouraged to follow the estate’s one-way system, signs had been displayed within the premises, but control of estate infrastructure remained a matter for the landlord and relevant authorities · with regard to a complaint regarding music noise, CCTV footage had been provided to the landlord to demonstrate that the premises had been closed at the time the complaint was made · in response to concerns the licence could attract young people to the premises primarily for the consumption of alcohol, it was explained that the business model was focused on padel activities, with food and drink representing a small ancillary element of the operation. Only beer, wine and prosecco would be sold and alcohol sales would not be the primary focus of the business · a member suggested that a liaison group between the business and local residents may be beneficial to discuss future concerns, and the Applicant and some objectors indicated they would be willing to participate in such discussions · with regard to customer numbers, all court bookings were made through an app-based system, providing a record of users attending the premises. The layout of the premises did not readily accommodate groups of spectators and a maximum occupancy of 50 persons within the premises had been proposed · customers entered via a staffed reception area enabling arrivals to be monitored and managed. Challenge 25 procedures, staff training and other licensing controls would be in place to ensure compliance with licensing requirements. Officers also responded to members’ questions as follows – · a premises licence would require a Designated Premises Supervisor and appropriate authorisation arrangements for the sale of alcohol · the Fire and Rescue Service had not raised any concerns during the consultation period regarding occupancy levels or fire safety matters · an additional condition offered by the Applicant restricted alcohol sales to those ancillary to padel activities taking place at the premises. APPLICANT’S FINAL STATEMENT In a final statement, the Applicant advised that he was willing to accept and comply with all proposed licence conditions. He emphasised that significant investment had been made in the business and explained that the provision of alcohol was intended to enable the premises to compete with similar facilities in the area and meet customer expectations. He stressed that the business was not intended to operate in such a manner as to cause disturbance to neighbouring residents. Mr Lavell stated that concerns had been raised regarding the potential attraction of young people to the premises for the consumption of alcohol. However, he emphasised that alcohol sales would be ancillary to participation in padel activities and that the typical demographic for the sport was adults (30 – 45 years of age) rather than younger drinkers. He added that younger attendees were typically accompanied by family members and the proposed licence conditions would ensure the premises could not operate in the manner of a traditional drinking establishment. The Applicant confirmed that persons under the age of 16 would not be permitted to attend and play at the premises unless accompanied by an adult. ADJOURNMENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION At this juncture (3.00 pm) the Licensing Sub Committee adjourned to consider the application. DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION RESOLVED that a Premises Licence be granted, subject to the amended hours and conditions as set out below – LICENSABLE ACTIVITY DAYS APPLICABLE TIME FROM TIME TO Provision of Live Music (Indoors only) Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07:00 07.00 22:00 22.30 Provision of Recorded Music (Indoors only) Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07:00 07.00 22:00 22.30 Supply of Alcohol (for consumption both on and off the premises) Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07:00 07.00 22:00 22.30 Hours that the premises will be open to the public Sunday – Thursday Friday – Saturday 07.00 07.00 22.30 23.00 CONDITIONS As put forward by the Applicant and set out in Appendix C to the report – · No outdoor customer activity or alcohol consumption after 21.00 · No live or recorded music outside the premises · Doors and windows to remain closed, apart from entry and exit, whenever amplified music is played · Installation and operation of a Council-approved noise limiter · Restrictions on waste collections, bottle disposal and deliveries between 21.00 and 08.00 · Customers to be actively supervised when leaving and prevented from congregating outside · A formal dispersal and taxi-management plan, including a designated collection point away from homes · A staffed residents' complaint number and a written complaints and incident log available for Council and police inspection · CCTV covering entrances, exits and the immediate external area, with recordings retained for at least 31 days · Suitable door supervisors whenever a higher-risk assessed event requires them ADDITIONAL CONDITION · the sale of alcohol shall be ancillary to the use of the premises as a padel sports facility and shall not be provided to persons attending the premises solely for the purchase or consumption of alcohol. The Chair conveyed the Sub Committee’s decision to all parties present. She also sympathised with local residents’ concerns regarding traffic and noise issues and encouraged them to utilise the appropriate complaints procedures and contact their ward councillors for support in pursuing those matters via the relevant channels. The Legal Adviser reported on the reasons for the decision as follows – The Sub Committee carefully considered the objections received from local residents and acknowledged the genuine concerns raised regarding the potential for noise disturbance, customer behaviour, customers arriving and leaving the premises and the impact of alcohol sales upon nearby residential properties. The Sub Committee noted, however, that following receipt of those objections, the Applicant substantially amended the application and accepted the mitigation measures proposed by residents. Members were encouraged by the openness of the Applicant and his willingness to engage with local members and the local community. In particular, the Applicant significantly reduced the originally requested hours, with the premises closing at 22:30 Sunday to Thursday and 23:00 on Fridays and Saturdays, with alcohol sales and live and recorded music ceasing 30 minutes before closing. The Sub Committee considered these revised hours to represent a substantial reduction from the original application. The Sub Committee were reassured by the inclusion of the condition that the sale of alcohol shall be ancillary to the use of the premises as a padel sports facility and shall not be provided to persons attending the premises solely for the purchase or consumption of alcohol. The Sub-Committee further noted that the Applicant had agreed to an extensive suite of conditions designed specifically to address the concerns raised by local residents. The Sub Committee was satisfied that these conditions directly addressed the concerns raised in relation to the prevention of public nuisance and were capable of being effectively monitored and enforced. In relation to the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety objectives, the Sub Committee noted that no evidence had been produced of any existing crime, disorder or public safety issues associated with the premises. The concerns raised were largely anticipatory in nature. Whilst the Sub-Committee recognised those concerns as sincerely held, it was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the licensing objectives would be undermined if the licence were granted subject to the amended operating schedule and conditions. The Sub Committee also noted that some concerns raised by residents related to traffic, parking, vehicle movements and congestion. Whilst these concerns were acknowledged, the Sub-Committee accepted the legal advice that such matters are generally outside the scope of the Licensing Act 2003 unless there is a direct evidential link to one or more of the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee was not satisfied that such a link had been demonstrated by the evidence heard and that any matters in relation to traffic may be an issue for the landlord who owns the entire site in any event. Accordingly, the Sub Committee concluded that the grant of the premises licence, subject to the conditions contained within the amended application and operating schedule, would promote the licensing objectives and represented the appropriate, proportionate and evidence-based outcome in all the circumstances. Members were encouraged by the conversation between the Applicant and objectors that they will look to create a liaison group, if required, in order to work closely and amicably together. All parties had a right to appeal against the Licensing Sub Committee’s decision to the Magistrates’ court within twenty-one days. The meeting concluded at 3.25 pm.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Dyw'r cyngor ddim wedi cofnodi presenoldeb ar gyfer y cyfarfod hwn.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.