Agenda item

Purpose.

The committee is asked to determine this matter.

The simplified hearing procedure was followed.

In attendance:

Kailasanathan Madanlal, the applicant

Professor Roy Light, advocate for the applicant

Richard Baker, agent for the applicant.

Other persons

Jacqueline Smith

Patrick McEwan

Roy Smallwood

Steve Furmedge

Councillor Neill Young

DECISION

Licensing Act 2003 "Victory News" 261 Copnor Road, Portsmouth PO3 5EE- application for variation of the current premise licence - the following elements of the application were granted:

·           The sale of alcohol and late night refreshments until 00:00 hours seven days a week with both activities commencing at 08:00.

·           That the schedule of offered conditions at page 68, number 7 be amended to read that training should be updated annually.

·           That save for newspaper delivery there be no deliveries between 23:00 and 07:00 hours seven days per week.

·           That conditions in page 83 should be removed as was accepted that they were no longer relevant.

REASONS

The committee heard the representations of the applicant together with the detailed representations from the applicant's representative and considered all the papers put before it along with the annexes attached to each document.

The Responsible Authorities make no assertions or comments with respect to the application.

This committee was seized of this application by reason of there having been a range of formal complaints received by the Licensing Authority from a PPC Member together with local residents - the consequence of that fact being that the committee will determine this application according to the facts and upon merit each case being looked at on an individual basis.

The alleged failing upon the part of the applicant was that the application should be refused as there was no basis for it to be concluded that the relevant licensing objectives were being promoted.  The theme of the written representations is that a grant of the application would lead to greater risk of there being a nuisance along with there being a failure to prevent crime and disorder and a potential issue as to public safety. 

The committee look to all the Responsible Authorities but mainly the police for guidance and assistance in determining the effect of a licensing activity in terms of all the licensing objectives, but principally in terms of the police, prevention of crime and disorder - the committee should, but is not obliged to accept all reasonable and proportionate representations made by the police.  It was noteworthy that the police and all other responsible authorities had made no representations to this committee.

The above stated, the committee balanced within their consideration all representations made by the applicants through their advocate and by way of comments made by the current licensee/ applicant along with all representations made.

It was felt that whilst many of the representations were clearly highly relevant to the complaints that they failed to establish that the licensing objectives were not being promoted as the potential failings are by and large based upon what "may happen" as opposed to showing a failure to promote a licensing objective. 

The committee would encourage full engagement between the licence holder and all residents within the immediate location.

In considering the application the committee was mindful of the following and considered that having heard all matters today could conclude that the following is relevant:

As stated before, there were no representations from any Responsible Authorities.

·           The committee considered the relevant case authorities and the statutory guidance as stated in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

·           The committee considered that whilst there was a right of review available that given the concerns of the residents when balanced with the conditions in the operational schedule that they were able to consider the application and balance all matters.                        

·           It also noted that there were other avenues available to residents to redress difficulties, in addition to the right of review.

Whilst the applicant put forward a range of conditions in an attempt to assuage the concerns of local residents and having considered the evidence produced to this committee and having reviewed all aspects of the case on balance with due regard being given to all the circumstance of the case the committee are entitled to refuse the application for variation.

The committee stated that each application for a licence or a variation shall be considered on merit and with due consideration as to the specific facts of each case.

In addition and for the avoidance of doubt, the committee considered the ability under the 2003 Act to consider a review and how and by whom a review could be initiated and were of the mind that this was an additional safety mechanism.

The applicants have a right to appeal this decision as do all the others who made representations today.