Top

Top

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE

 

Minutes of a meeting held on 19th September, 2013.

 

Present: Councillors Mrs. P. Drake, A.G. Powell and J.W. Thomas.

 

Also present: Licensing Officer.

 

 

(a)       Appointment of Chairman

 

Councillor J.W. Thomas was elected Chairman for the duration of the hearings.

 

 

(b)       Declarations of Interest – 

 

No declarations were received.

 

 

(c)        Licensing Act 2003 – Application for a Premises Licence – The Cordelia, Holm House, Marine Parade, Penarth

 

Also present: Mr. S. Simpson (Applicant) and Mr. M. Phipps (Representing the Applicant) together with Mr. A. Gray, Ms. A. Morgan and Mr. M. Heath (Interested Parties).

 

The Chairman took the opportunity to remind those present of the procedure for the Hearing as contained within the agenda, and following introductions all round, welcomed those present to the meeting.

 

The Licensing Officer then proceeded to outline the Application by advising that the Application was for the grant of a Premises Licence in respect of The Cordelia, Holm House, Marine Parade, Penarth. 

 

There had previously been a licence in force for the premises, but the licence had lapsed in 2013 when the Licence Holders went into administration. 

 

The current Application requested permissions as follows:

 

·         films available to hotel guests in their rooms – 24 hours 7 days a week

·         recorded music – 09:00 to 00:30 7 days a week

·         late night refreshments – 23:00 to 00:30 7 nights a week

·         supply of alcohol – 09:00 to 12 midnight 7 days a week

 

from the start of Licensing Hours on New Year’s Eve to the end of Licensing Hours New Year’s Day.

 

24 hours to residents and bona fide guests.

 

Under the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises and Club Premises Certificates) Regulations 2005 an Interested Party or a Responsible Authority may make relevant representations at any time during the period of the 28 day consultation period.

 

Four representations were received from local residents during the consultation period.

 

The Applicant was then afforded the opportunity to present the Application.

 

Mr. Phipps, on behalf of the Applicant, advised that the premises had been previously licensed (as Holm House) and that this Application had arisen because the previous Licence Holder became insolvent and in those circumstances, the previous Premises Licence had lapsed.  The Application itself sought permission for the sale of alcohol to be permitted to customers until midnight, seven days a week, and for residents to have the benefit whilst they resided at the hotel.  There were twelve proposed hotel rooms.

 

Whilst there would be a small bar facility, there was also proposed to be a quality restaurant and 12 midnight was proposed as that was "broadly" standard restaurant hours.  It was not the Applicant’s expectation that the premises would be accommodating customers all the time during the whole of the licence period and it was anticipated that this would serve customers departing through the course of the later evening.

 

Late night refreshment involved the sale of hot food and hot drinks after 23:00.  Mr. Phipps observed that the sale of alcohol was previously permitted at the premises until midnight (seven days a week) and late night refreshment was permitted until 00:30 (seven days a week) as well. 

 

Mr. Phipps stated that those elements of the Application were not fairly described as extensions as they broadly mirrored the previous permission.  Mr. Phipps pointed out that this was a new Application and in no way was it connected to the previous operation.

 

Mr. Phipps stated that he was aware that parking was a particular concern and one which his client recognised.  Indeed, one of the directors of the client company lived on Marine Parade and was committed to ensuring that there were no inappropriate or inconsiderate parking problems caused by the operation of the premises.  For private functions, a member of staff would monitor and supervise those arriving at the premises to ensure that parking was conducted suitably and appropriately. 

 

The Application proposed a number of conditions to restrict and control the way in which the premises would operate.  Mr. Phipps identified a number of conditions that he believed would address the concerns raised by the Interested Parties, i.e.:

 

1.         Checks during regulated entertainment to ensure no noise outbreaks at the nearest noise sensitive premises.

 

2.         The Licensee will maintain arrangements with delegated taxi, mini cab or limousine companies to collect patrons from outside the premises.

 

3.         A telephone number for the management of the premises would be made readily available to residents to use should they wish to report any issues.

 

4.         All waste was to be properly presented and placed out for collection no earlier than 30 minutes before the scheduled collection times.

 

5.         Noise and vibration would not be allowed to emanate from the premises so as to cause nuisance to nearby premises.

 

Insofar as smoking and / or litter was concerned, the Applicants proposed an additional condition that the exterior of the premises and the immediate curtilage be checked and cleansed by the premises to ensure that no cigarette or other litter was left as a result of the operation of the premises, each day.

 

The Chairman offered the Interested Parties an opportunity to ask questions of the Applicant, and the following ensued.

 

Mr. Gray enquired as to the closing time and was advised that the time would be 00:30 hours.

 

Ms. Morgan expressed the view that patrons should not be standing outside of the premises after 23:00 hours, and Mr. Phipps advised the Sub-Committee that his client would accept a condition that no drinks would be permitted to be taken outdoors after 23:00 hours. 

 

Ms. Morgan referred to the issue of parking in the street and stated that this was a huge problem, exacerbated by the fact that the street was also a bus route.

 

The Chairman advised that parking was not an issue that could be taken into consideration at the Hearing.

 

Ms. Morgan, in referring to the licence held by the previous Licence Holder stated that the current Application had been tweaked slightly and that the hours had been extended slightly.

 

In reply, Mr. Phipps stated that this was not the case.

 

Mr. Gray interjected that the finish time for the playing of recorded music had been increased from 23:00 hours to 00:30 hours.  Mr. Phipps concurred with this statement.

 

The Chairman then invited the Interested Parties to outline their representations. 

 

Mr. Gray advised the Committee that he had heard evidence three times in recent years to the same effect.  Each of the previous applications for a Premises Licence for the property had stated that the premises would be"up market" and that there would be no noise.  In each case this had not been so. 

 

In referring to the application for recorded music to be played until 00:30 hours, Mr. Gray stated that this would encompass weddings.  Mr. Gray expressed the view that recorded music should be played only until 23:00 hours. 

 

Mr. Gray noted that the application for licensing hours were the same as had existed previously but Mr. Gray expressed the view that wedding guests could drink all day from 09:00. 

 

Mr. Gray, in referring to the four licensing objectives, stated:

 

"The prevention of crime and disorder" – Mr. Gray referred to the lane running alongside the premises which was covered in graffiti.  Furthermore, staff at the former premises used to smoke in the lane. 

 

"Public Safety" – Mr. Gray stated that seeing people standing in the lane could be intimidating.

 

"Public Nuisance" – Mr. Gray referred to the problems with parking in the area and stated that for the premises to operate successfully there would need to be much coming and going of patrons and deliveries.  There was no parking space within the hotel curtilage to accommodate the delivery vehicles.

 

Mr. Gray stated that the hotel would devalue the surrounding properties.

 

Mr. Gray requested refusal of the application as it would take away the peace and tranquillity of the area for the surrounding properties.  At the very least, Mr. Gray requested that the hours of music should be restricted. 

 

As for the opening hours for the public, these should be restricted between the hours of 10:30 and 22:30 hours.  Bona fide guests should not receive the same privileges as the residents. 

 

Mr. M. Heath, Interested Party, stated that his issue with the application was not one of a planning nature.

 

Mr. Heath enquired of the Sub-Committee Members if they would wish such a premises to be next to where they lived.

 

Mr. Heath stated that the Sub-Committee had heard from the Applicants how the premises would be run and Mr. Heath referred to the fleet of vehicles that would used.  Mr. Heath stated that these statements were not legal, and could be withdrawn by the Applicants at any time. 

 

Mr. Heath pointed out that the nearest neighbour to the premises was an elderly lady. 

 

Mr. Heath stated that he did not object to the licence as a whole and observed that the "old" licences had been tweaked.  Mr. Heath was happy with the way the previous premises had been run. 

 

Mr. Heath understood that the Sub-Committee was restricted in its remit but requested the Sub-Committee to grant the same conditions as had applied to the previous premises.  Mr. Heath thought that this would be fair. 

 

Ms. Morgan, Interested Party, advised the Sub-Committee that her mother had owned the original building and had sold it for it to become an hotel.  Ms. Morgan’s fear now was the business meetings and weddings that may be held at the premises and Ms. Morgan feared being disturbed seven nights a week. 

 

Ms. Morgan ventured that there needed to be a compromise between all parties. 

 

In summing up, Mr. Phipps referred to Mr. Gray’s concerns about there being dancing every night of the week and advised that there had been no application for a licence for dancing.

 

Mr. Phipps stated that, in his belief, the Application was realistic in that originally, the licence had permitted the sale of alcohol up until 00:00 (12 midnight). 

 

Regarding smoking outside of the premises, the Applicants would willingly accept a further condition to the licence in that the curtilage of the premises should be checked at given intervals.

 

Mr. Gray had expressed concerns about residents and staff smoking in the nearby alley way.  This could be controlled by the management of the premises in that the hotel could insist that the residents and staff did not smoke at that location. 

 

In referring to comments that had been made about delivery vehicles at the premises, Mr. Phipps stated that should the access point be too small, it could be made bigger.  There was not sufficient room for a full turning circle, but vehicles may on occasion have to reverse out of the premises. 

 

Ms. Morgan, in summing up, acknowledged that it was possible to seek a review of the licence if it were thought to be necessary. 

 

Mr. Heath enquired for how long the licence would operate should it be granted, and was advised that the licence would be granted indefinitely until such time as it may be reviewed or be surrendered.

 

Finally, Mr. Phipps stated that the Applicant would accept a condition which stated that drinks could not be consumed outside of the premises after the hours of 23:00 hours.

 

There being no further questions, Members of the Sub-Committee retired to consider the matter in private.

 

Having considered the application and representations by the Interested Parties and having considered the Home Office Guidance, the objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of the Licensing Policy, the Sub-Committee

 

RESOLVED – T H A T the Application as applied for be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

(1)       The conditions set out in the Applicant’s operating schedule.

 

(2)       That no supply of alcohol is to be made under the Premises Licence:

 

(a)       At a time when there is no designated premises supervisor in respect of the Premises Licence, or

(b)       When the designated premises supervisor does not hold a personal licence or his personal licence is suspended.

 

(3)       Every supply of alcohol under the Premises Licence is to be made or authorised by a person who holds a personal licence.

 

(4)       The management will ensure that the exterior of the premises and the immediate curtilage will be cleaned of smoking detritus and litter on a regular basis sufficient to maintain cleanliness.

 

(5)       Conditions as appropriate will be taken from the list appended as Appendix 1 to the Application and worded to ensure that they are achievable and enforceable.

 

Reason for decision

 

The Sub-Committee have taken into account the concerns of the Interested Parties.

 

It looked particularly at the hour that recorded music should cease.  It felt that with the conditions offered regarding noise break out and taking into consideration the fact that dancing has not been applied for, this should not cause a nuisance to local residents.

 

Although the Sub-Committee has sympathy with the concerns of residents regarding parking, this is not a matter for the Sub-Committee.  It notes however that the Applicants have offered to address this issue in various ways.

 

The Sub-Committee felt that with good day to day management this Application should not cause a problem to the neighbourhood and would remind the Interested parties that they should report any breaks of Licensing Conditions and that a review of the licence can take place if the licence causes concerns.

 

 

(d)       Licensing Act 2003 – Application for a Premises Licence – Penarth Pier Pavilion, The Esplanade, Penarth

 

Also present: Mr. G. James, Mr. P. Bussell and Mr. V. Trotman (Applicants).

 

The Chairman took the opportunity to remind those present of the procedure for the Hearing as contained within the agenda, and following introductions all round, welcomed those present to the meeting. 

 

The Licensing Officer then proceeded to outline the Application by advising that the Application was for the grant of a Premises Licence in respect of Penarth Pier Pavilion, The Esplanade, Penarth.

 

The current Application requested permission as follows:

 

·         regulated entertainment – plays, films, live music and performance of dance – 10:00 to 23:30 seven days per week

·         recorded music – 10:00 to 00:00 (12 midnight) seven days a week

·         late night refreshments – 23:00 to 00:00 (12 midnight) seven days a week

·         supply of alcohol – 11:00 to 23:30 seven days per week

·         additional hours for New Year’s Eve.

 

Under the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises and Club Premises Certificates) Regulations 2005, an Interested Party or a Responsible Authority may make relevant representations at any time during the period of 28 day consultation period.

 

A representation against the above Application had been received from a local resident and copy was attached at Appendix B to the report.

 

The Applicants were then afforded the opportunity to present the Application and Mr. James stated that the Application was on behalf of Penarth Arts and Crafts.  The Company was a private limited company registered as a Charity and was run by the community for the community.

 

The premises had been dilapidated but the Company had raised over £4 million towards the community facility.

 

Mr. James reminded the Sub-Committee that a period of public consultation on the Application had been held which had resulted in a letter of objection. 

 

In referring to the letter of objection, Mr. James stated that everything would be done to mitigate any undue influences. 

 

Should concerns be expressed, an appropriate review could be undertaken by the Authority. 

 

It was noted that the Interested Party was not present at the Hearing. 

 

There being no further questions, Members of the Sub-Committee retired to consider the matter in private.

 

Having considered the Application and representations by the Interested Party and having considered the Home Office Guidance, the objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of the Licensing Policy, the Sub-Committee

 

RESOLVED – T H A T the Application as applied for be granted.

 

Reason for decision

 

The Sub-Committee granted the Application having taken into account the following:

 

·         The representation from Mr. Graham Smith, but it was felt that the nature of the Application would not lead to any of the scenarios which Mr. Smith described actually occurring.

 

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the Application had been consulted upon locally and that here had been no representations from any of the residents groups or other residents.

 

It was also noted that the Applicants were aware that should this not be the case, the Licence could be reviewed.

 

 

 

Share on facebook Like us on Facebook