Agenda item

In considering this application the Sub-Committee was obliged to consider theapplication in accordance, in particular, with both the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings)Regulations 2005 (asamended) and the rules ofnatural justice.

Due regard was been given to the statutory licensing objectives, the statutoryguidance, andthe CityCouncil’s adoptedstatement oflicensing policy.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Section 17, the Human Rights Act 1998, and theEquality Act 2010 had each been borne in mind by the Sub-Committee whilstmaking its decision.

The Sub-Committee hasconsidered verycarefully thereport ofthe ServiceDirector– Communities, Culture and Homes.The application had received one representation from Planningand nopublic representations.

The Sub-Committee noted the conditions, as set out by Hampshire Constabulary,and agreed by the Applicant, to be attached to the licence should the variation of thelicence been granted. The Sub-Committee considered all verbal representations atthe hearingincluding two witnesseswho spokein favour ofthe application.

In lightof allof theabove, the Sub-Committee:

RESOLVEDto grantthe variationto the premiseslicence asper theapplication.

Reasons

The Sub-Committee was mindful that the legislation specifically restricted the groundson which it might refuse an application for a variation of a premises licence or imposeconditions. The legislation provided for a presumption of grant of an application for a  variation of a premises licence, subject to the determination of the application with a view to promoting the licensing objectives in the overall interests of the localcommunity. Indoing so, the sub-committeemust giveappropriate weightto:

•  the steps thatare appropriateto promotethe licensing objectives.

•  the representations (includingsupporting information)presented byall theparties.

•  its own statementof licensingpolicy

•  the Statutory Guidance

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the Applicant clarified that alcohol sales would  be ancillary to food sales from the restaurant and that customers would not bepermitted totake alcoholoff site.

The Sub-Committee queried the position of the Applicant’s business being situated  directly beneath a residential dwelling but was assured that no one lived in thedwelling.

The Sub-Committee was content that restaurant was already operating to midnightwithout complaint. The Sub-Committee considered carefully the views of thePlanning Officer and the issues raised in relation to the potential for noise and public  nuisance in the area. The Sub-Committee received legal advice confirming that itneeded to be satisfied that there was a causal link between noise and nuisance andthe application for variationbefore it.

The Sub-Committee wascontent withthe trainingto beoffered tostaff.

An application for variation of a premises licence whose application had beenrefused, or who was aggrieved by conditions imposed, may appeal against the decision  to the Magistrates' Court. Any other person, who made a valid representation, mayappeal to the Magistrates’ Court against the decision to grant the application oragainst anyconditions imposed.

Members of the public should be assured that where a licence was granted, anapplication fora reviewof thatlicence couldbe madewhere therewas evidencethat the  objectives were notbeing met.

There was a right of appeal for any party to the Magistrates’ Court. All parties wouldreceive written notification of the decision with reasons which would set out that right infull.