Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
Resolved that, having regard to the merits of this matter, including the promotion of the four Licensing Objectives, it was appropriate and proportionate to Grant the Licence, subject to conditions consistent with the operating schedule. The permissions are: a. Opening hours i. Monday to Sunday, 08:00 hours – 21:30 hours; b. Sale of alcohol (on the Premises only) i. Monday to Sunday, 11:00 hours – 21:00 hours. c. Recorded music (both indoors and outdoors) i. Monday to Sunday, 09:00 hours – 21:30 hours. d. Live music (indoors only) i. Friday to Saturday, 17:00 hours – 21:30 hours. Reasons: In reaching a determination, the Sub-Committee concluded the following: 1. Overall, the Sub-Committee considered the representations and evidence from the Responsible Authorities, the Applicant, and Other Persons were compelling and relevant. 2. The Police and Legal Regulatory Service did not object to the grant of the Licence. The Environmental Health Section made no representations. There were no current outstanding objections from the Responsible Authorities. 3. Members considered that the robust conditions had been agreed upon with the Responsible Authorities and that the grant of the Licence did not cause them any sufficient concern. The Licence was in-line with the Council Policy and s.182 Guidance. 4. Members were satisfied the that Applicant appeared responsible and had demonstrated a willingness to take steps to prevent, so far as possible, issues arising at or from the Premises that may undermine the Licensing Objectives. The Sub-Committee recognised that the rear of the Premises was a residential area; however, it was satisfied that the Applicant was aware of the concerns and was committed to ensuring no noise nuisance. Thus, the Licence should be granted. 5. The Sub-Committee was grateful to the Other Persons for raising their concerns. 6. The best and most efficient solution was to accept all the conditions proposed by the Police, the LRS, and the Applicant – as tight controls were required – to protect the residents residing in the vicinity. 7. The Sub-Committee considered the Licensing Objectives paramount and that the Applicant had met the standards of those Objectives. The conditions proposed and attached to the Licence were proportionate. 8. Members noted the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 for a review of a premises licence. A review is the way a decision on a licence can be changed or challenged. Should subsequent issues arise that undermine the Licensing Objectives, a formal review process could be undertaken, allowing Other Persons or a Responsible Authority to apply for a review of the Licence at any time. The Other Persons can find information about the licence review process themselves. 9. All the parties were encouraged to open a line of communication to address any potential noise issues. Communications in writing may be more persuasive than reports of verbal conversations if the matter is contested again in future.
The Chair welcomed all to the meeting.
There were none.
There were no urgent items.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that, having regard to the merits of this matter, including the promotion of the four Licensing Objectives, it was appropriate and proportionate to Grant the Licence, subject to conditions consistent with the operating schedule. The permissions are: a. Opening hours i. Monday to Sunday, 08:00 hours – 21:30 hours; b. Sale of alcohol (on the Premises only) i. Monday to Sunday, 11:00 hours – 21:00 hours. c. Recorded music (both indoors and outdoors) i. Monday to Sunday, 09:00 hours – 21:30 hours. d. Live music (indoors only) i. Friday to Saturday, 17:00 hours – 21:30 hours. Reasons: In reaching a determination, the Sub-Committee concluded the following: 1. Overall, the Sub-Committee considered the representations and evidence from the Responsible Authorities, the Applicant, and Other Persons were compelling and relevant. 2. The Police and Legal Regulatory Service did not object to the grant of the Licence. The Environmental Health Section made no representations. There were no current outstanding objections from the Responsible Authorities. 3. Members considered that the robust conditions had been agreed upon with the Responsible Authorities and that the grant of the Licence did not cause them any sufficient concern. The Licence was in-line with the Council Policy and s.182 Guidance. 4. Members were satisfied the that Applicant appeared responsible and had demonstrated a willingness to take steps to prevent, so far as possible, issues arising at or from the Premises that may undermine the Licensing Objectives. The Sub-Committee recognised that the rear of the Premises was a residential area; however, it was satisfied that the Applicant was aware of the concerns and was committed to ensuring no noise nuisance. Thus, the Licence should be granted. 5. The Sub-Committee was grateful to the Other Persons for raising their concerns. 6. The best and most efficient solution was to accept all the conditions proposed by the Police, the LRS, and the Applicant – as tight controls were required – to protect the residents residing in the vicinity. 7. The Sub-Committee considered the Licensing Objectives paramount and that the Applicant had met the standards of those Objectives. The conditions proposed and attached to the Licence were proportionate. 8. Members noted the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 for a review of a premises licence. A review is the way a decision on a licence can be changed or challenged. Should subsequent issues arise that undermine the Licensing Objectives, a formal review process could be undertaken, allowing Other Persons or a Responsible Authority to apply for a review of the Licence at any time. The Other Persons can find information about the licence review process themselves. 9. All the parties were encouraged to open a line of communication to address any potential noise issues. Communications in writing may be more persuasive than reports of verbal conversations if the matter is contested again in future.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting, made introductions and outlined the procedure to be followed. Mr N.Chapple, Legal Regulatory Services Officer, introduced the report and outlined the key points in relation to the application. The applicant and five residents in objection were present to give their representations. Decision: The Sub-Committee Resolved that, having regard to the merits of this matter, including the promotion of the four Licensing Objectives, it was appropriate and proportionate to Grant the Licence, subject to conditions consistent with the operating schedule. The permissions are: a. Opening hours i. Monday to Sunday, 08:00 hours – 21:30 hours; b. Sale of alcohol (on the Premises only) i. Monday to Sunday, 11:00 hours – 21:00 hours. c. Recorded music (both indoors and outdoors) i. Monday to Sunday, 09:00 hours – 21:30 hours. d. Live music (indoors only) i. Friday to Saturday, 17:00 hours – 21:30 hours. Reasons: In reaching a determination, the Sub-Committee concluded the following: 1. Overall, the Sub-Committee considered the representations and evidence from the Responsible Authorities, the Applicant, and Other Persons were compelling and relevant. 2. The Police and Legal Regulatory Service did not object to the grant of the Licence. The Environmental Health Section made no representations. There were no current outstanding objections from the Responsible Authorities. 3. Members considered that the robust conditions had been agreed upon with the Responsible Authorities and that the grant of the Licence did not cause them any sufficient concern. The Licence was in-line with the Council Policy and s.182 Guidance. 4. Members were satisfied the that Applicant appeared responsible and had demonstrated a willingness to take steps to prevent, so far as possible, issues arising at or from the Premises that may undermine the Licensing Objectives. The Sub-Committee recognised that the rear of the Premises was a residential area; however, it was satisfied that the Applicant was aware of the concerns and was committed to ensuring no noise nuisance. Thus, the Licence should be granted. 5. The Sub-Committee was grateful to the Other Persons for raising their concerns. 6. The best and most efficient solution was to accept all the conditions proposed by the Police, the LRS, and the Applicant – as tight controls were required – to protect the residents residing in the vicinity. 7. The Sub-Committee considered the Licensing Objectives paramount and that the Applicant had met the standards of those Objectives. The conditions proposed and attached to the Licence were proportionate. 8. Members noted the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 for a review of a premises licence. A review is the way a decision on a licence can be changed or challenged. Should subsequent issues arise that undermine the Licensing Objectives, a formal review process could be undertaken, allowing Other Persons or a Responsible Authority to apply for a review of the Licence at any time. The Other Persons can find information about the licence review process themselves. 9. All the parties were encouraged to open a line of communication to address any potential noise issues. Communications in writing may be more persuasive than reports of verbal conversations if the matter is contested again in future.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.