Issue - meetings

Report No: LSC/WS/24/003

Report No: LSC/WS/23/006

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 parties were present at the Hearing:

(a) Applicant – The Reverend Dennis Coburn

(b) Accompanying applicant – Susan Meader

(c) Interested Party – Councillor Jools Savage (District Councillor               for Brandon Central Ward)

(d) Interested Party – Councillor Phil Wittam (District Councillor                 for Brandon East Ward)

The Licensing Officer presented the report which explained that an application had been received for a new premises licence in respect of St Peter’s Church Institute, Brandon.  A copy of the application was attached at Appendix A to Report No LSC/WS/23/006 together with a plan at Appendix B.

Five representations had been made objecting to the application, three from local residents and two from Brandon District Councillors, copies of which were attached as Appendix C.

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.

The Sub-Committee then heard the submissions from the individuals present.

In presenting his case as applicant, The Reverend Dennis Coburn explained that the rationale behind applying for a premises licence was to remove the necessity for the Church Institute to apply for Temporary Event Notices (TENs) when seeking to host family, charity and social functions. As such, the nature and frequency of events was unlikely to change as a result of achieving a premises licence.

The Reverend stated that he was very mindful of the licensing objectives and despite not having received any complaints directly from residents, he had taken it upon himself to take sound recording measurements of events which had taken place at the premises. He concluded by reading out a letter of support from the Church Institute’s closest neighbour.

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

In responding on behalf of the applicant, Susan Meader stated that she had never witnessed parking issues with any of the many events which had been held at the Church Institute.

The Interested Parties present were then each given opportunity to speak on their representations made in response to the application.

Councillor Phil Wittam referenced social media posts made by The Reverend and the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) interjected and reminded Councillor Wittam to focus on the content of his representation.

Councillor Wittam explained that he had been contacted by approximately 18 residents in response to the licence application. Concerns were raised particularly in relation to music taking place in the outside garden space. Reference was also made to the nuisance caused by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58

Report No: LSC/WS/23/004

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 parties were present at the Hearing:

(a) Applicant – Gemma Bailey

(b) Applicant – Stewart Gibson

The Licensing Officer presented the report which explained that an application had been received for a new premises licence in respect Bridgelands Farm, Cowlinge.  A copy of the application was attached at Appendix A to Report No LSC/WS/23/004 together with plans at Appendix B.

Members were advised that nine representations were initially received from local residents objecting to the application. However, following amendments made to the application seven withdrew their objection, copies of the remaining two representations were attached as Appendix C.

The Licensing Officer also drew attention to the document attached as Appendix D, which set out drafted conditions in relation to the prevention of public nuisance. Furthermore, the applicant had also agreed to install a sound limiter for all music and amplified speech.

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.

The Sub-Committee then heard the submissions from the individuals present.

In presenting his case for the applicant, Stewart Gibson drew attention to the two representations attached to the agenda and highlighted that the only remaining matter referenced by the local residents was their concern with the request for licensable activities to be permitted until 11.30pm Sunday – Thursday and their wish for it to terminate at 10.30pm instead.

He assured the Committee that there was no intention to operate events seven days a week and referenced the restrictions that were in place as a result of the planning permission that was granted for the premises.

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

Following which, the applicant was given the opportunity to sum up.

The applicants, the observing Members and the Licensing Officer then 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 together with the proposed conditions, the operating schedule and assurances of the applicant was sufficient to promote the licensing objectives. The application was therefore GRANTED as applied for.

The Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) concluded the Hearing by advising on the Right of Appeal against the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53

Report No: LSC/WS/23/002

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 parties were present at the Hearing:

(a) Applicant – Andrew Woods

(b) Applicant – Gavin Hughes

(c) Interested Party – Councillor Tom Murray

The Licensing Officer presented the report which explained that an application had been received for a new premises licence in respect Basement, 3 Charter Square, Bury St Edmunds.  A copy of the application was attached at Appendix A to Report No LSC/WS/23/002 together with plans at Appendix B.

Attention was also drawn to the supplementary late paper that was issued after the agenda was published and which set out supporting promotional literature supplied by the applicant.

Two representations from local residents had been made objecting to the application, copies of which were attached as Appendix C.

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.

The Sub-Committee then heard the submissions from the individuals present.

In presenting his case as applicant, Andrew Woods explained that the sale of alcohol only accounted for roughly 10-12% of turnover across the Everyman cinema chain.

He highlighted that no responsible authorities had objected to the application and that Everyman did not experience anti-social behaviour in connection with its existing premises. Attention was drawn to the high price point operated by the chain.

Members were also advised that Everyman had sought to work with local residents and had made amendments to the application in light of some concerns.

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

In response to questions regarding live music, it was explained to the Sub-Committee that each of the three screens had a mini stage area where for specific showings a short, related pre-performance of live music would take place prior to the film.

Members were also advised that each of the auditoriums was thoroughly soundproofed and independently acoustically sealed.

Following comments made by Councillors in relation to offsite sales, the Business Partner (Litigation/Licensing) confirmed that the application seeking determination was purely for onsite sales.

The Interested Party was then given opportunity to speak on their representation made in response to the application.

Councillor Tom Murray explained that he actually welcomed the application and the jobs the cinema would bring to the town, however, his concerns primarily related to the late opening hours particularly on a Sunday to Thursday, which he felt would be more appropriate to conclude at 12am, as opposed to 1am as applied for, which is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42

Report No: LSC/WS/22/011

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)           Mr Azhar Ali (Applicant)

(ii)         Mr Majid (Employee) 

(b)        Responsible Authorities

(i)           Mr Malcolm McKessar (Licensing Officer), Suffolk Constabulary

The Licensing Officer presented the report which explained that an application for the grant of a premises licence was received on 11 August 2022 for USA Chicken, 94 High Street, Newmarket. 

The licensable activities being proposed under the licence were as follows:

-      Late Nigh Refreshments

Sunday to Thursday 11am to 2am; and

Friday to Saturday 11am to 4am. 

It was highlighted that although the applicant had applied for the activity from 11am, under the Licensing Act, late night refreshment was the supply of hot food and drink from 11pm to 5am and should the licence be granted, the licensing authority could only authorise the activity from 11pm.

The reason for this hearing was that relevant representations had been received from two Responsible Authorities within the consultation period, being West Suffolk Council’s Planning Development team and Suffolk Constabulary.  Details of the representations were attached at Appendix C to the report. 

In particular the written representation from West Suffolk Council’s Planning Development team set out the following planning conditions for the premises as follows:

-      Monday to Saturday: 8am to 11pm

-      Sunday: 8am to 10.30pm

-      Closed on Bank Holidays

Therefore, the proposed license application would be in breach of current planning conditions.

The premises was also located within Newmarket’s Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) and details of the CIA was contained within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

The Committee was therefore asked to determine the application, and in reaching a decision, Members were advised to consider the Licensing Act 2003, the Guidance on the Act and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy in relation to the adopted CIA.

The Sub-Committee then heard the individual submissions from each of the parties present.  

In presenting his case, the Applicant, Mr Azhar Ali (Applicant) explained that weekends, especially late nights on Saturdays were the busiest period for selling hot food, which was why he had applied for the extending licensing hours until 4am. 

Mr Malcolm McKessar (Suffolk Constabulary) then addressed the hearing in respect of the reasons for objecting to the application under the “prevention of crime and disorder” and “public nuisance” objectives.  He then set out the following three points:

1)   A licence to 4am was beyond the applicants previous suspended licence, and the hour of 4am was out of line with other similar premises in the vicinity.

2)   Under Section M of the application, there was insufficient detail provided that the licencing objectives would not be further compromised, and suggested the following 4 conditions be included:

i)             CCTV:

The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15

Report No: LSC/WS/22/008

The Lawyer (Litigation/Licensing) welcomed all present to the Hearing, 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

Colin Poole, Town Clerk for Haverhill Town Council and the premises licensee for Haverhill Recreation Ground.

The Licensing Officer presented the report, which explained that an application to vary an existing premises licence (Appendix A) was received on 11 July 2022 for Haverhill Recreation Ground.  This variation was to extend the hours for the licensable activities on the existing licence for a total of three event days per year and to add “alcohol on sales” for these three event days.  The current premises licence (Appendix B) authorised 20 events per year on the recreation ground, and the variation was to have 17 events as per the current premises licence, and just three event days with the extended hours and alcohol element. 

The licensable activities being proposed under the current licence was to extend the hours of licensable activities on a Friday to Sunday (which currently ended at 18:00) for a maximum of three events per annum being:

-      Alcohol On Sales

Friday 18:00 – 22:00

Saturday 12:00 – 22:00

Sunday 12:00 – 18:30

-      Performance and Dance

Friday and Saturday 18:00 – 22:00

Sunday 18:00 – 18:30

-      Live Music

Friday and Saturday 18:00 – 22:00

Sunday 18:00 – 18:30

-      Similar Entertainment

Friday and Saturday 18:00 – 22:00

Sunday 18:00 – 18:30

-      Performance Play

Friday and Saturday 18:00 – 22:00

Sunday 18:00 – 18:30

-      Recorded Music

Friday and Saturday 18:00 – 22:00

Sunday 18:00 – 18:30

The application had been served on all Responsible Authorities.  Comments had been received from West Suffolk Council’s Private Sector Housing and Environmental Health Team.  The authority had raised concerns around sound disturbance and requested additional conditions be added to the Operating Scheduled in order to conform to the positive promotion of the four Licensing objectives.  The applicant had consented in writing to the additional conditions (attached at Appendix C), and these would therefore be automatically applied to the licence, if granted.

A total of two valid representations had been received from “other persons” within the statutory time frame objecting to the application and the details of these representations were attached at Appendix D.

The Sub-Committee was therefore asked to determine the application and in reaching a decision, Members were advised to consider the Licensing Act 2003, the Guidance on the Act and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee then heard submissions from those parties present at the hearing.

In presenting his case the Applicant, Colin Poole explained that he had responded to representations received who had raised concerns about the sale of alcohol and the public protection order in place on the recreation ground.  He then explained the three-day family fun event had been moved from the Market Square in Haverhill to the recreation group  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10