Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report and outlined
the application.
Member Questions
In response to Members’ questions, the
Licensing Enforcement Officer made the following statements:
i.
The premises was
not in a cumulative impact zone.
ii.
The Out of Hours Noise Service had
received 2 calls about the premises in the last 12 months. Visits had not been
made because the noise had stopped or the complainant had not requested site
visits. The Licensing Enforcement Officer was not aware of any substantive
noise from the premises. The complaints had been made in the last 3-12 months.
Officers had discussed some intermittent noise complaints with the licence
holder.
iii.
Statutory consultees had been
contacted and made no objections. The Police had suggested some conditions. The
premises owner had negotiated some conditions upon application for a licence
and at a subsequent variation hearing. He appeared to be a fit and proper
person.
iv.
Some representations were made
during the previous licence application and variations objections were
addressed through conditions. There was usually a positive reaction towards the
premises.
v.
Officers had checked notices were
on display in the premises window to ensure they were in-place and visible. It
would be recorded if they were not.
Applicant
Mr Fraser made the following points:
i.
His licence had been granted on
the first day of the Live Music Act (2012) this had led to some confusion hence
the applications for a variation.
ii.
He ran a community café which was
also a jazz venue. There were no noise problems.
iii.
He had spent £3,000 in the last
two months on ceiling acoustic measures to mitigate any noise issues.
iv.
One complainant had raised various
issues and behaved in an anti-social behaviour towards the premises and the
licensee.
v.
The licence extension was sought
so that drinks could be served until 23:00. Music should stop 22:30.
The
Legal Advisor said music could be played until 23:00 without a licence under
the Live Music Act 2012.
vi.
Complaints about noise had reduced
over time.
Mr Fraser tabled some notes to address points made in representations.
The Committee adjourned to read these.
Applicant’s Assistant
Mr Lynch made the following points about incidents of anti-social behaviour
that he had witnessed:
i.
A meetup event was held 6 June. Mr
Lynch heard a noise at closing time and saw a man he recognised as raising a
representation against the current application to vary the licence. There was
spit on the door. The same man kicked and rattled a bike belonging to the café
(which was parked at the top of the street).
ii.
This kind of behaviour happened
several times before. The same individual had also made rude gestures to staff.
iii.
Staff found the individual’s
complaints of anti-social behaviour about the shop odd due to his own behaviour
towards them.
Applicant
Mr Fraser made the following points:
i.
The café was a safe community space.
ii.
He had applied for various temporary event notices to
show these could go ahead without disturbing others.
iii.
There was no intention to become a rock club, just
a low key jazz club.
Member Questions
In response to Members’ questions, Mr
Fraser made the following statements:
i.
He was applying for a licence variation
from 22:30 to 23:00 to give greater scope for events and more variety of beer
to offer (including coffee with beer). Pubs could open until 23:00 so Mr Fraser
would like the opportunity to do so too, to extend customers’ enjoyment longer
into the evening.
ii.
The intention was to remain a
café, not become a pub. There would be 1-2 bar machines that could sell draught
beer, wine and coffee.
iii.
Live music was proposed Thursday
and Friday nights, Sunday afternoon and possibly Saturday evening.
iv.
The intention was to stop music
circa 22:30 so there was a buffer before a rigid cut off at 23:00.
Members said that if a licence were granted, it would apply to the
premises not the licensee. Mr Fraser asked if it could be time limited so that
it would only apply to him (as a ‘responsible’ person) if Members were worried
the licence would transfer to someone who was not a fit and proper person.
Members said a licence could not be granted on a time limited basis.
Decision
The Sub Committee resolved:
i.
To
grant a variation to the premises licence to permit the sale of alcohol between
12:00 and 23:00 Monday to Sunday;
ii.
To
allow the removal of conditions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 from the current premises
licence but to refuse the request to remove condition 8 from the current
premises licence, namely that “there
shall be no sale and / or supply of alcohol off the premises.”
Reasons for
reaching the decision were as follows:
The Sub-Committee refused to remove condition 8 from the
current premises licence to reduce the probability of customers purchasing
alcohol to drink outside, in the vicinity of the premises.
The Sub-Committee reached this decision with a view to
promoting the licensing objectives, namely:
i.
The
prevention of crime and disorder;
ii.
Public
safety;
iii.
The
prevention of public nuisance.
iv.
The
protection of children from harm.
Supporting documents: