Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chairman introduced the parties and explained the procedure to be followed. The Hearing Regulations 2005 stated that the Authority must allow parties an equal period of time in which to present their evidence. It was agreed that the maximum time for each presentation be ten minutes.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report and highlighted background information and representations received.

There were no questions for the Licensing Enforcement Officer.

The applicant's representative then presented the application as detailed within the report. He explained that the premises had been closed since 21st August 2008 and the previous licence holder had been declared bankrupt on 1st May 2009. Unfortunately, Admiral Taverns Ltd were not made aware of this bankruptcy and was not able to transfer the licence in the allowed time period, therefore the licence had lapsed. He stated that it was the brewery's intention to sell the premises and this was the reason for the application, there was no intention to re-open the premises before the sale.

The applicant's representative explained that the licence request was for similar activities to the previous licence, with a reduction of one hour to the operating hours on Fridays and Saturdays.

With regards to the representations received by local residents, the applicant's representative stated that the complaints made were in 2004 and it was unfair to assume that the same problems would occur with the new licence holder. With regards to the issue of parking, he stated that this was not within the licensing remit and would be a matter for the police.

The applicant's representative stated that the entertainment requested would not be for a large band as the premises simply was not large enough. He stated that he would be happy to include an additional condition regarding placing signs within the premises asking customers to be quiet when leaving the premises.

In response to questions from Members, the applicant's representative stated the following:

- Admiral Taverns Ltd as a vendor would not conduct any work required to improve the presentation of the front of the premises. He could not give assurances that the new licence holder would do this immediately.

- There was a maximum of four parking spaces at the premises plus the public car park across the road.

- the request for an additional hour when British summertime commenced was not required as the premises would not be open for business during that time in the early hours.

- There was no intention for Admiral Taverns Ltd to re-open the premises temporarily whilst it was on the market.

In response to a question from Mr Wood (local resident), the applicant's representative stated that there was no intention to repeat the history of problems that local residents endured and stressed that under the new licensing regime the residents could apply for a review of the licence at any time if problems occurred.

In response to a question from the Ward Member, the applicant's representative stated that he could not guarantee that the new licence holder would not have live entertainment every night but on his past experience, premises similar to this would not operate that way.

The Chairman explained that the panel could impose conditions to the licence if it was granted to limit the amount of entertainment in the premises.

Mr Gamble (local resident) presented his representation. He stressed that the premises was located in a residential area and directed Members to his letter within the agenda papers.

Mr Wood (local resident) presented his representation. He explained that in the past there was a number of problems in the area due to the premises, these included people urinating in the phone box, gardens and driveways, vomit and broken glass on the car park where children meet for school, and litter. He stated that taxis would arrive at the premises in the early hours of the morning and sound their horns and park across the zebra crossing which is unsafe for other customers. Finally he explained that he felt the Council had a duty of care for the young children in the adjoining property as they could not sleep whilst music was playing.

Mrs Hextall (local resident) presented her representation. She stated that her children were aged 3 years and 7 years, and if the licence was granted they would not be able to sleep whilst entertainment was taking place, in the past the family chose to stay at friends' houses at the weekends so that they could have some quiet.

Councillor R Woodward presented the representation on behalf of Mrs Smith. He stated that Mr and Mrs Smith had suffered from a number of problems in the past such as customers parking in front of their driveway and defecation in their garden. He stated that Mr and Mrs Smith would like to see the premises open for business but would like certain measures in place to stop history repeating itself. Councillor R Woodward asked the Licensing Enforcement Officer for clarification on the notice that was erected by the applicant as it did not mention the additional non-standard hours of operation as applied for. The Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that this was usual practice for the application notice as it would be very lengthy if all opening hours applied for were detailed on the notice.

Mr Wood and the applicants gave a brief closing speech reiterating the points raised earlier in the meeting.

At 7.40pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 8.28pm.

The Legal Advisor read out the Members decision, findings of fact and the reasons for the decision.