Issue - meetings

Report No: LSC/WS/23/001

Report No: LSC/WS/22/007

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) welcomed all present to the Hearing, reported that no declarations of interest had been received and introductions to all parties were made.  He also drew attention to the procedure for the conduct of the Hearing as attached to the agenda.

The following parties were present at the Hearing:

(a)        Applicant

(i)           Thomas Janes, Director, HiFields Limited 

(b)        Interested Parties

(i)           Henry Hopking, Chair of Nowton Parish Council (objector)

(ii)         Brian Wilson, Neighbourhood Watch (speaking on representations made in objection to the application)

(iii)        Ian Bowers, local resident (objector)

(iv)        Pat Lees, local resident (objector)

(v)         Julie Morrison, local resident (objector)

(vi)        Prof. Gillian Schofield, local resident (objector)

The Licensing Officer presented the report which explained that an application had been made by HiFields Limited, for the grant of a premises license to run events at Nowton Park, Bury St Edmunds where they currently held events under a Temporary Event Notice.  However, for the premises licence application HiFields Limited had included weekdays for flexibility in case new events were added to the calendar.  A copy of the application was attached at Appendix A to Report number LSC/WS/22/007 together with a site plan and event management plan at Appendix B and C.

The licensable activities being proposed under the license were:

-      Supply of Alcohol (Supply of alcohol (on sales))

Monday – Sunday  11:00 - 00:00

-      Provision of Recorded Music (Outdoors)

Monday – Sunday  11:00 – 00:00

-      Provision of Live Music (Outdoors)

Monday – Sunday  11:00 – 00:00

-      Provision of Films (Outdoors)

Monday – Sunday  11:00 – 00:00

-      Provision of Performance and Dance (Outdoors)

Monday – Sunday  11:00 – 00:00

The Licensing Officer referred to paragraph 1.5 on page 2 of the report and advised that an error had been made relating to the consultation period.  She confirmed that the paragraph 1.5 should read as follows:

“A statutory 28-day consultation period started on 17 May 2022 16 June 2022 and ended on 28 June 2022 13 July 2022…”

The application had been served on all Responsible Authorities.  No comments had been received. However, the officer reported that discussions had been held between the Council’s Environmental Health Team with the applicant and certain conditions had been agreed (attached at Appendix E) which satisfied the Environmental Health Team under the Licensing Objective of Public Nuisance, which included limiting the number of events to 10 per year.

A total of 31 valid representations had been received from “other persons” in the statutory time frame objecting to the application and the details of these representations were attached at Appendix F.  The Sub-Committee was advised that contained within the representations were a number of issues which did not fall within the criteria of the Licensing objectives.

In making their decision, the Sub-Committee was advised that they should seek to focus on the steps considered appropriate to promote the particular licence objectives or objectives that had given rise to the specific representations and avoid straying into undisputed areas.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

Report No: LSC/WS/22/006

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) welcomed all present to the Hearing, reported that no declarations of interest had been received and introductions to the Panel were made.

The following party was present at the Hearing:

(a)Applicant - Brett Little

The Licensing Officer presented the report which explained that an application had been received for a new premises licence in respect of 5 All Saints Road, Newmarket.  A copy of the application was attached at Appendix A to Report No LSC/WS/22/006 together with plans at Appendix B.

The Officer advised that the application had been served on all Responsible Authorities.  The Council’s Private Sector Housing and Environmental Health team requested additional conditions to mitigate concerns around sound disturbance.  The applicant had consented to the additional conditions, as set out in Appendix C.

Two representations from local residents had been made objecting to the application. One party subsequently withdrew their objection as their concerns had been addressed by the agreed additional conditions. The details of the one remaining representation were attached as Appendix D.

If the Licensing Authority decided that this application should be refused it would need to show that the grant of the licence would:

1.   Undermine the promotion of the licensing objectives; and

2.   That appropriate conditions would be ineffective in preventing the problems involved.

If the Licensing Authority could not show the above, then the application should be granted.

In making their decision, Members were also advised to consider the Licensing Act 2003, the Guidance on the Act and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, with particular reference to the adopted Cumulative Impact Assessment within the Council’s Policy.

The Sub-Committee then heard the submission from the individual present.

In presenting his case as applicant, Brett Little explained that his intention was to provide a relaxed, sophisticated venue where patrons could enjoy a drink and Spanish food in a wine bar style setting.

He explained that the premises was small and only light bites would be served in terms of the food offer.

The Sub-Committee was then given the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant.

In response to questions regarding food preparation and storage, the applicant was permitted to table a detailed plan which set out these areas within the premises.

The applicant was then given the opportunity to sum up.

Following which the applicant and the Licensing Officer retired to another room to allow the Sub-Committee to give further consideration to the matter.

Following all parties’ return to the meeting room the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) advised on the Sub-Committee’s decision.

With the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

That, having taken into account all representations received both in writing and orally, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the granting of the licence in accordance with the conditions contained in the operating schedule and at Appendix C would promote the licensing objectives.

The application was therefore GRANTED as applied for with the additional conditions requested the Council’s Private Sector Housing and Environmental Health team.

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) concluded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86

Report No: LSC/WS/22/005

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) confirmed that in the absence of the applicant, who had opted not to attend the meeting, the Sub-Committee were still able to carry out the Hearing and determine the application before them.

He also drew attention to the procedure for the conduct of the Hearing, as attached to the agenda, and advised that this would be followed excluding those parts allocated to the applicant.

The Licensing Officer then presented the report which explained that Members were requested to determine an application for a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence under the provisions of Section 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Members needed to be satisfied that that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence issued by the Council. 

The Officer drew attention to the documentation submitted at Appendices 1 – 7 of Report No LSC/WS/22/005.

Members posed some specific questions on the matter before them which the Licensing Officer responded to.

Following which the Licensing Officer retired to another room to allow the Sub-Committee to give further consideration to the matter.

Following the Licensing Officer’s return to the meeting room the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) advised on the Sub-Committee’s decision.

It was

RESOLVED:

That, having taken into account all representations received both in writing and orally, considered alongside the Licensing Authority’s duty to protect the public, Members were satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to be granted a licence.

Accordingly, THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE/PRIVATE HIRE LICENCE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED. 

Prior to closing the meeting the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) stressed that the applicant should be warned as to their future conduct, particularly in respect of their standard of driving and their obligations to comply with the terms and conditions of their licence.

Report No: LSC/WS/22/004

Report No: LSC/WS/22/003

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) welcomed all present to the Hearing, reported that no declarations of interest had been received and introductions to all parties were made.

He also drew attention to the procedure for the conduct of the Hearing as attached to the agenda.

The Licensing Officer presented the report which explained that Members were requested to determine an application for a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence under the provisions of Section 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Members needed to be satisfied that that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence issued by the Council. 

The Officer drew attention to the documentation submitted at Appendices 1 – 9 of Report No LSC/WS/22/003.

The applicant attended the meeting to present their case and answer Members’ questions. The applicant’s previous operator was also in attendance who spoke in support of their character.

In response to comments made by the operator in attendance, some related questions were raised by Members in connection with the clarity of the application process and the support that some applicants could benefit from.

Following which the applicant, their previous operator and the Licensing Officer retired to another room to allow the Sub-Committee to give further consideration to the matter.

Following all parties’ return to the meeting room the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) advised on the Sub-Committee’s decision.

It was

RESOLVED:

That, having taken into account all representations received both in writing and orally, considered alongside the Licensing Authority’s duty to protect the public, Members were satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to be granted a licence.

Accordingly, THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE/PRIVATE HIRE LICENCE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED. 

Prior to closing the meeting the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) addressed the applicant and reminded them of their responsibility to promptly notify the Council of any matters in relation to their licence.

Report No: LSC/WS/22/002

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) welcomed all present to the Hearing, reported that no declarations of interest had been received and introductions to all parties were made.

He also drew attention to the procedure for the conduct of the Hearing as attached to the agenda.

The Licensing Officer presented the report which explained that Members were requested to determine an application for a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence under the provisions of Section 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Members needed to be satisfied that that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence issued by the Council. 

The Officer drew attention to the documentation submitted at Appendices 1 – 6 of Report No LSC/WS/22/002.

The applicant attended the meeting to present their case and answer Members’ questions. The applicant’s legal representative was also in attendance and also spoke on their client’s behalf.

Approval was sought by the applicant to submit a letter of reference from their previous employer, the Sub-Committee accepted the supplementary documentation and it was tabled to the meeting, the Chair subsequently permitted a short adjournment in proceedings in order to allow all Members time in which to read the letter.

Following which the applicant, their legal representative and the Licensing Officer retired to another room to allow the Sub-Committee to give further consideration to the matter.

Following all parties’ return to the meeting room the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) advised on the Sub-Committee’s decision.

It was

RESOLVED:

That, having taken into account all representations received both in writing and orally, which were corroborated by their employment/driving record, considered alongside the Licensing Authority’s duty to protect the public, Members were satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to be granted a licence.

Accordingly, THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE/PRIVATE HIRE LICENCE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED. 

Report No: LSC/WS/22/001

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) welcomed all present to the Hearing, reported that no declarations of interest had been received and introductions to all parties were made.

He also drew attention to the procedure for the conduct of the Hearing as attached to the agenda.

The Licensing Officer presented the report which explained that Members were requested to determine an application for a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence under the provisions of Section 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Members needed to be satisfied that that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence issued by the Council. 

The Officer drew attention to the documentation submitted at Appendices 1 – 9 of Report No LSC/WS/22/001.

The applicant attended the meeting to present their case and answer Members’ questions. The applicant’s previous operator was also in attendance who spoke in support of their character.

Following which the applicant, their previous operator and all Licensing Officers retired to another room to allow the Sub-Committee to give further consideration to the matter.

Following all parties’ return to the meeting room the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) advised on the Sub-Committee’s decision.

It was

RESOLVED:

That, having taken into account all representations received both in writing and orally, considered alongside the Licensing Authority’s duty to protect the public, Members were satisfied that the pattern of offending had ceased, and was not likely to resume.

And, after careful consideration, the Sub-Committee decided that the applicant was a fit and proper person to be granted a licence.

Accordingly, THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE/PRIVATE HIRE LICENCE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED. 

Prior to closing the meeting the Chair addressed the applicant and reminded them of their responsibility to promptly notify the Council of any matters in relation to their licence.

Report No: DEV/WS/21/003

(On commencing this agenda item it became apparent that the applicant had not connected to the meeting after having indicated to the Licensing Authority that they intended to. The Chair allowed an adjournment to enable the Democratic Services Officer to attempt to reach the individual via telephone. However, prior to the Officer presenting the report the applicant joined the meeting via Microsoft Teams.)

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) welcomed all present for this item, reported that no declarations of interest had been received and introductions to the Panel and accompanying Officers were made.

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) then outlined the procedure for the conduct of the Hearing as attached to the agenda and sought the applicant’s approval for Councillor Rachel Hood to remain in the meeting in order to observe proceedings.

The Licensing Officer presented the report which explained that Members were requested to consider an application for a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

The Sub-Committee needed to be satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence issued by the Council.

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) drew attention to the written statement that had been submitted by the applicant and which had been circulated as a supplement to the agenda papers.  Members were advised that the document contained a minor error in that it referenced the year 1986 when it should have read 1985.

The applicant attended the meeting to present their case and answer Members’ questions.

Following which the three Members of the Sub-Committee, the observing Councillor, the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) and the Democratic Services Officer withdrew from the meeting and joined a separate private meeting to allow the Sub-Committee to give further consideration to the matter.

Following all parties’ return to the main meeting the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) advised on the Sub-Committee’s decision.

It was

RESOLVED:

That, having taken into account all representations received both in writing and orally, considered alongside the Licensing Authority’s duty to protect the public, Members accepted that no deliberate concealment had taken place and the good driving record held since the applicant was first granted a driver’s licence by the Licensing Authority merited the granting of the application. Accordingly, THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE/PRIVATE HIRE LICENCE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED.