Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Cllr Lufkin was duly elected to chair the meeting.

2.1  There were no apologies for absence

3.1  Cllr Patrick declared a non-pecuniary interest for agenda item 5- Ground Floor, 331 Wick Road – advising that she was acquainted with the report author who was her work colleague.     

4.1  The Chair outlined the hearing procedure at the meeting.

Decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision from the information presented to it within the report and at the hearing today has determined that having regard to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:

• The prevention of crime and disorder;
• Public safety;
• Prevention of public nuisance;
• The protection of children from harm;

the application be refused in accordance with Licensing Policy LP4 and LP5 within the Council’s licensing statement.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee, having heard from the licensing authority and other persons, and responses given by the applicant believed that granting the variation application was likely to result in the public nuisance/crime and disorder licensing objectives of being undermined.

The Sub-committee heard from other persons’ that they did not have confidence in the applicant as a result of the running of the premises for non-licensable activities.  The applicant’s response was to explain that the only way to resolve these non-licensable issues was to re-development the whole premises and occupy the same with good occupiers.

The Licensing Sub-committee asked questions of the applicant regarding their proposals for the premises which included two outside areas which would require acoustic fencing the details of which were not available.

The Sub-committee therefore asked questions regarding the capacity limits for the outside areas, but the applicant’s representative said that he could not give details regarding the same until the acoustic report had been completed.

The Sub-committee was provided with a dispersal policy, which was considered by the licensing authority who in closing said that the policy should be discussed with them as public transport was very poor resulting in dependence on private hire vehicles and taxis.

The Licensing Sub-committee had already heard from other persons’ the noise disturbances they already experience from people using private hire vehicles and taxis.

The Sub-committee also heard from other persons and responsible authorities about other concerns regarding the proposed operation at the premises, but were not provided with detailed information and measures to address the same.

The Licensing Sub-committee were also surprised that the applicant did not bring any proposed DPS or persons with experience of managing one of the applicant’s other licensed premises so that information could be given to the Sub-committee regarding the measures and steps that could be taken to ensure the operation of the premises did not undermine the licensing objectives.

On balance, the Licensing Sub-committee were not therefore satisfied that the applicant had proposed adequate measures to address the issues arising from the use of the premises as a music venue nor any confidence that the applicant would adhere to the same with their previous experience of not doing enough to resolve existing problems with the premises.

The assurances given by the applicant’s representative were considered, but the Licensing Sub-committee noted that the representative on the application form was not the representative at the hearing.

5.1  NOTED the additional information circulated at the meeting.

5.2  Mike Smith introduced the report and outlined the variation application to include films, live and recorded music, two outside areas included in the licensable area, and the supply of alcohol on and off premises.  The licensee had an existing premises licence.

5.3  Mr Smith advised that representations had been received from the Police, Licensing, Environmental Protection and Other Persons, however, the Police and Environmental Protection were unable to attend the meeting.  Members noted their written representations.

5.4  Mr Peter Conisbee, agent on behalf of the Licensee outlined the application and advised that the licensee had the lease on the property for over 6 years.  The Licensee was aware that the premises was an eyesore and the public nuisance associated with the previous tenant, which the licensee had no connection with.  To address these nuisance issues the licensee planned to redevelop the venue. There had been no licensing activities occurring at the premises for many years due to the issues associated with the previous business.  The current premises licence was too restrictive for the proposed redevelopment of the building and a variation application had been submitted to include regulated entertainment. The proposal included inclusion of the outside areas with unlimited capacity and acoustic fencing surrounding the outside areas to minimise noise nuisance for local residents.  The licensee was a responsible person that had already invested over £2000 on this proposal and had engaged with the responsible authorities and residents to address their concerns.  If the variation licence was granted a responsible occupier would be sought to operate the licensed premises.  The potential operator would be given training and expected to operate the premises responsibly complying with licensing conditions so that the premises did not contribute to the public nuisance in the area and adversely impact on local residents.

5.5  David Tuitt outlined Licensing’s representation to the variation application on the grounds of the prevention of public nuisance. The premises had historically operated as a pub since 1930s and a premises licence had been granted in 2006 with licensable operations ceasing in 2010.  A variation premises licence application had been submitted and refused in 2014 and a planning application to convert the building into residential flats had been rejected in 2015 due to concerns relating to public and noise nuisance, pollution and current and future occupiers.  The proposed two metre high acoustic fencing was subject to planning approval and no details of the table and seating arrangements had been provided.  In addition, the provision of private hire vehicles and taxis would cause a nuisance especially when the tube closed at midnight and patrons relied on taxis to disperse from the areas. Mr Tuitt enquired the off sales and highlighted that the plan of the premises at page 35 of the submitted report was inaccurate and a revised plan needed to reflect the premises away from the kerb. 

5.6  The Chair sought clarification regarding the off sales, dispersal plan and premises plan.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The application was withdrawn.

6.1  The application was withdrawn.

There were no temporary event notices.  

7.1  There were no temporary event notices.