LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Sub-Committee held on 14
September 2011 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at
10.00am.
1
Sub-Committee
Mr B Smith (Chairman)
Mr B Jarvis
Mr R Shepherd
Officers in Attendance:
The Legal Advisor, the Licensing Manager and the
Democratic Services Team Leader
Also in Attendance:
Mr Rogers (for item 4), Mr Reynolds (for item 6)
APOLOGIES
None received.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
4
APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE – CAFÉ BAR, 9 FISH HILL,
HOLT
The Applicant, Mr Rogers, was present. No objectors were present.
The Licensing Manager informed Members that a valid application had been received
and could be heard in the objectors’ absence. Members had seen the objectors’
representations.
The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers. The Legal Advisor outlined the
procedure. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would withdraw to make
their decision. She would accompany them to provide legal advice and to assist them
to formulate their reasons but would not take part in the making of the decision.
The Licensing Manager outlined the application. He explained that additional
representations had been received within the consultation period but after the
agenda had been published. The representations were handed to Members for their
perusal.
A further objection dated 5 September had been received on 9 September after the
formal consultation period had closed. The Legal Advisor said that there was a
precedent in recent case law and that late submissions should not be taken into
Licensing Sub-Committee
1
14 September 2011
APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE – CAFÉ BAR, 9 FISH HILL,
HOLT
(Continued)
account after the deadline. Members decided not to take the submission into
account.
The Licensing Manager told Members that the application related to the intended
operation of the premises as a café bar and the application sought to include an
external area of public highway outside the front of the premises as part of the
licensed area. (The applicant had applied for planning consent which was currently
the subject of a separate parallel determination)
Key issues raised in the representations had included:
a) Potential for noise nuisance.
b) Crime and Disorder – if Members were minded to grant the licence they
would be adding extra conditions recommended by the Police and agreed by
the Applicant.
c) The area to be licensed.
Questions to the Licensing Manager
Mr R Shepherd asked if the Applicant had applied for planning permission. The
Licensing Manager explained that planning permission had been applied for, but that
Members should consider the application before them according to the Licensing
Objectives and not planning considerations.
The Case of the Applicant
The Applicant stated his connection with Holt and his lengthy experience in the
restaurant trade. He explained that it was his intention for his premises to reflect an
Italian café- bar: a relaxed family venue which was also suitable for local people to
meet up at after work for a drink. He also asked the Sub-Committee to consider
granting the Premises licence for the area outside his premises where he intended to
place tables and chairs for customers.
Questions to the Applicant
Mr B Jarvis asked about the extractor fans. The Applicant explained that the extractor
system was for the gas oven, not for deep fat fryers which would cause smells. In
reply to a question from the Legal Advisor the Applicant said he would be willing to
have additional conditions suggested by the Police and Environmental Health added
to the licence.
Questions were asked about the licensing of the outside seating area. The Licensing
Manager advised that Highways issues were a separate matter and shouldn’t be
taken into consideration by Members in determining the licensing application. He
suggested that the off licence would allow patrons to consume alcohol in the outside
seating area provided the alcohol was sold to them in a sealed container. The Legal
Advisor advised the Applicant to take independent legal advice about this.
The Applicant’s closing statement
The Applicant hoped that he had provided the Panel with a clear picture of what he
wanted to achieve – a high-class establishment where people could relax.
Licensing Sub-Committee
2
14 September 2011
APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE – CAFÉ BAR, 9 FISH HILL,
HOLT
(Continued)
The Legal Advisor explained the decision-making process
a) Members would consider the 4 Licensing Objectives.
b) They had heard the Applicant’s submission and would take into account the
letters of objection received in those areas that were relevant to the Licensing
objectives.
c) They would only attach conditions if they were relevant to the Licensing
Objectives.
The Sub Committee retired at 10.50 am to consider their decision and returned at
11.10 am
RESOLVED
to grant the premises licence as requested in the application, save for two points.
Firstly, the grant applies only to the interior of the premises and does not include the
area of highway at the front of the premises. Secondly, conditions be attached to the
Premises Licence.
The Sub-Committee attached the following conditions:
1. CCTV be installed and in operation during opening hours and for footage to be
available for a minimum of 28 days to the Police or the Licensing Officer on
request.
2. A Refusal/Incident book is to be kept on site to record any attempted purchases
by underage or intoxicated persons.
3. Staff training will be carried out in relation to the sale of alcohol and a record of
this training will be kept on site and available to Police or the Licensing Officer
on request.
4. A designated premises supervisor or nominated representative shall ensure
that no nuisance is caused by noise emanating from the premises by
implementing a Self Policing Policy which shall include sound checks inside
and out.
5
EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
Members decided that they wished to go into Private session for item 6 and to hear
fully from the Applicant and consider matters in confidence.
RESOLVED
That under S100 A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be
excluded from the meeting for Agenda Item No 4 on the grounds that it involved the
likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of
Schedule 12 (a) of the Act.
The Sub Committee adjourned at 11.40 am and returned at 12.05 pm.
6
WK110017261 – APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY
CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK
The Applicant was present.
Licensing Sub-Committee
3
14 September 2011
WK110017261 – APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY
CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK
(Continued)
The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers. The Legal Advisor outlined the
procedure. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would withdraw to make
their decision. She would accompany them to provide legal advice and to assist them
to formulate their reasons but would not take part in the making of the decision. The
Applicant needed to satisfy the Sub Committee that he was a fit and proper person to
drive a hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North Norfolk.
The Applicant had brought no witnesses and there was no new evidence.
The Licensing Manager outlined the application. There were endorsements on the
Applicant’s DVLA driving licence which merited further consideration.
The driving licence was inspected by the Sub Committee.
The Case of the Applicant
The Applicant informed the Sub-Committee of previous driving endorsements on his
DVLA licence. He had gained 15 points at the time of the most recent offence but
had succeeded in an exceptional hardship hearing before the magistrates resulting in
not being disqualified by them under the ‘totting up’ provisions.
Questions to the Applicant
In response to questions from Members the Applicant explained the reasons he had
put forward at the exceptional hardship hearing relating to his need to provide
transport to a family member attending hospital. He also explained that when you
committed the driving offences he worked for a company, where he drove for a living,
which put him under a lot of pressure.
The Legal Advisor explained the determination process
To grant a licence, Members must be satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper
person to drive a taxi in North Norfolk.
a) Members would need to consider the Applicant’s previous endorsements.
b) They must consider what the Applicant said in regard to the offences.
c) They must balance the right of the Applicant to earn a living with the right of
the public to be safe.
The Sub Committee retired at 11.55 am to consider their decision and returned at
12.15 pm
RESOLVED
The Sub Committee had taken into account the nature and circumstances of the
offences on the Applicant’s record. The Sub-Committee could not be satisfied that he
was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi and refused the application.
The meeting concluded at 12.15 pm.
___________________
Chairman
Licensing Sub-Committee
4
14 September 2011