Licensing (Activities) Sub-Committee – 10 July 2008
Chair: To be appointed
Venue: Council Chamber, Pittwood House, Ashby Road, Scunthorpe
1. Appointment of Chair.
2. Declarations of personal or personal and prejudicial interests, and significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (lobbying), if any.
3. Licensing Act 2003 – Notice of Hearing
- Application for variation of a premises licence, Der Schnapps Bar, Frodingham Road, Scunthorpe
4. Any other items which the chair decides are urgent by reason of special circumstances which must be specified.
PRESENT: Councillors Ellerby, L Foster and C Sherwood
The sub-committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.
720 CHAIR – Resolved – That Councillor L Foster be and he is hereby appointed chair for the meeting.
Councillor L Foster thereupon took the chair.
721 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AND SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS, OBJECTORS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) – There were no declarations of personal or personal and prejudicial interests.
722 (15) LICENSING ACT 2003 – APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF A PREMISES LICENCE, DER SCHNAPPS BAR, FRODINGHAM ROAD, SCUNTHORPE – The Service Director Neighbourhood and Environment submitted a report advising members of an application to vary the premises licence at the Der Schnapps Bar, Frodingham Road, Scunthorpe.
Details of the application were outlined in the report, together with the variation application form and supporting documents submitted by the premises licence holder, as well as documents submitted by Humberside Police objecting to the variation application.
The Licensing (Activities) Sub-Committee received a request from Mr Ley-Morgan (Humberside Police as a Responsible Authority) to dis-continue with this hearing. This was on the grounds that members previously heard an application to review the licence on 9 April 2008 whereby all licensable activities were reduced to 01:00 hours each day of the week as well as additional conditions attached to the licence. Therefore, as no new evidence had been submitted for the variation application by the applicant, no new decision could be made as insufficient time had elapsed since the last hearing. This decision would support Section 182 paragraph 11.11 of the Licensing Act 2003 legislation which stated that repetitious representations were to be avoided.
Mr Pascoe (on behalf of the applicant) submitted that there was nothing in the Licensing Act 2003 legislation that prevented a Premises Licence Holder from submitting an application to vary a licence even though a review application was heard three months ago. The application to vary the licence was neither frivolous, vexatious nor repetitious.
The meeting was adjourned to enable the members of the sub-committee to seek legal advice, whereby it was agreed –
That having considered the representations made by both parties and the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the sub-committee was mindful that only a short period of time has elapsed since the earlier review.
Therefore, having considered the matter, the members felt that they should only be considering evidence of any change of circumstances since the last decision was made. Members invited both parties to present such evidence and were mindful to allow cross-examination on the new evidence.
Consequently, Mr Ley-Morgan and Mr Pascoe requested the sub-committee vary the procedure for the hearing. An extension to thirty minutes for presenting the evidence and calling witnesses and twenty minutes to sum up the evidence was requested, as well as a joint request to allow cross-examination.
The Chair invited the council’s legal representative to comment on the request to vary the procedure.
The council’s legal representative informed the meeting that variation of the procedure was at the sub-committees discretion and any decision should be based upon whether or not the variation would further assist the sub-committee in reaching a decision.
It was unanimously agreed that cross-examination be allowed and that each party have a maximum of thirty minutes to present their case and a maximum of twenty minutes to sum p their case.
Consequently, the meeting would proceed.
The Premises Licence Holder and their representatives as well as Humberside Police and their representatives addressed the sub-committee and responded to questions.
The Service Director in his report reminded the sub-committee that the options available to it under the Licensing Act 2003 when considering such applications were:
- To modify the conditions of the licence;
- To reject the whole or part of the application
Following the summary of the case of the applicant as well as Humberside Police, the meeting was adjourned for deliberation by members and then reconvened when the decision of the sub-committee was stated as follows: –
Resolved – The Sub-Committee resolved unanimously to refuse to vary the application as applied for.
|Prevention of Crime and Disorder||Yes|
|The Prevention of Public Nuisance||Yes|
|The Protection of Children from Harm||Yes|
That from the evidence put forward today, the conditions which were imposed by this sub-committee on 9 April 2008 had clearly had a positive effect.
Therefore, the sub-committee unanimously agreed that there had been insufficient evidence put forward at this hearing to suggest that this positive effect would continue with the variation to the licence as applied for.