Agenda and draft minutes

It was moved by Councillor A Barker, seconded by Councillor R Johnson and

RESOLVED THAT:

Councillor J Legrys take the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

There were no apologies received.

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest, registerable interest or other interest.

There were no interests declared.

PREMISES: The Flag, 32 Borough Street, Castle Donington, Derby, DE74 2LA

APPLICANT: Ms Christine Westbrook

To determine an application for a new premises licence in respect of the above. Representations have been received from various parties. A notice of hearing inviting them to attend has been sent to each of them. If they fail to attend, the hearing can be held in their absence or adjourned.

The following documents are attached:-

a)    Report of the Licensing Enforcement Officer.

At the beginning of the Hearing, the authority shall explain to the parties the procedure it is proposed to follow. The Hearing shall take the form of a discussion led by the authority and cross-examination shall not be permitted unless it is required to consider the representations.

The Chair introduced the parties in attendance and outlined the procedure to be followed. It was agreed that the maximum presentation time would be 15 minutes.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented their report.

The Applicant presented her application. She noted that the issue of her partner’s bankruptcy, when previous Licence Holder, had nothing to do with The Flag, which was and remained a viable business venture; she added that she had had little direct interaction with the previous venture. She had undertaken the relevant training, and her previous life experience as a teacher, foster parent and successful businesswoman were also indicative of her ability to successfully manage the venue. The previous Licence Holder would continue to play a small role in the running of the business, mainly around managing stock and maintaining the cellar. She felt that the complaint put in by her neighbour was hyperbolic and vexatious, and her application had in fact received extensive public support. She also set out some measures she had taken so to ensure the success of the business and the compliance with the licencing regime in the future; she was happy to comply with all conditions requested by the Licensing Team.

The Chair cautioned that the claims which had been made about the neighbour who wrote in opposition to the application had not been evidenced.

Members asked the Applicant for further clarification about the role she envisaged the previous Licence Holder playing going forwards, and expressed some concern that it would be inappropriately large, considering his history of flagrant licence violations and his bankruptcy. The Applicant said that the previous Licence Holder was a good salesman, ‘real ale’ enthusiast, and personable with customers. His role in business would reflect this, and she would do most of the administrative and management work. The venture would be unviable if he was entirely barred from aiding her in running the business.

Members asked if the Applicant had spoken or written to her neighbours regarding the new licence application. The Applicant said that she had tried to speak to them, unsuccessfully, but had not written to them.

The Licensing Team Leader noted that a pavement licence application had been received but had already been rejected.

The representative from the Leicestershire County Council Highways Team presented his representation. He set out the historical issues with regards to the previous Licence Holder’s violation of street furniture regulations. He stressed to Members that the issue had ended up in the Magistrates Court, and advised that this was an extremely severe and out of the ordinary approach from Leicestershire County Council and was reflective of a pattern of repeated disobedience. This had therefore cost a lot of time and money for Leicestershire County Council and had entailed a court mandated costs order. He would strongly advise Members not to grant the licence without a corresponding pavement licence. 

In response to a query from a Member, it was established that a large volume of correspondence had been sent by the Highways Team  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.