Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Scott Payter- Harris was duly appointed as Panel Chair.

There were no declarations of interest.

Supporting papers have not been published in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, on the grounds that the report contains information defined as exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under the following exemption paragraph numbers:

1. Information relating to an individual

2. Information that is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

The Sub-Committee will be required to determine whether the public interest test is met in accordance with Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Regulation 14, and whether the press and public should be excluded from the hearing.

(Members are asked to hand in their confidential papers to the Democratic Services Officer at the end of the meeting.)

It was agreed that the following motion be adopted:

Supporting papers have not been published in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, on the grounds that the report contains information defined as exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972 under the following exemption paragraph numbers:

1.    Information relating to an individual

2.    Information that is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

3.    Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

The Sub-Committee determined that the public interest test was met in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Regulation 14, and that the press and public should be excluded from the hearing. 

The parties agreed that the exempt session would allow parties to give evidence freely and that the decision might be published if suitably worded and accordingly the decision for each item is attached.

The Sub-Committee is requested to determine the matter.

The Sub Committee had to determine whether the hearing ought to be held in private session, with the press and public excluded.  There was some discussion on the matter and on the basis that third parties are identified in the papers (as yet unpublished) and to enable parties to give evidence freely, it was determined that the meeting be held in private, and the decision be drafted and agreed by the parties with a view to release/publication.  It was determined this was in the public interest in accordance with regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.

The Sub Committee has considered very carefully the application for review of a premises licence at the Chimney Bar.  It gave due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance and the adopted statement of licensing policy.

The Sub Committee considered the relevant representations, both written and given orally at the hearing, by all parties.  Human rights legislation and the public sector equality duty had been borne in mind whilst making the decision.

The Sub Committee determined that it was appropriate, given all the circumstances and the history of failing to engage with various regulatory services and repeated breaches of the premises licence over a lengthy period, to revoke the premises licence.

Reasons

The application for review had been submitted by the Licensing Authority and representations had been received from the police, environmental health (regulatory services) and planning. Having heard from planning the Sub Committee noted and accepted legal advice that it was to focus upon the licensing objectives only but noted the irregularities and history. Correspondence from the premises licence holder offering means of settling the review in advance had been circulated to the Sub Committee.

The premises licence holder requested that the transcript of the interview of the premises licence holder be made available to Sub Committee and a short adjournment was allowed for this to be produced and read. The premises licence holder was also given an opportunity to take advice privately and this was taken up.

For the premises licence holder, the Sub Committee heard (amongst other points):

-               The premises and the business do not belong to the premises licence holder, but rather his brother.

-               The Hall & Woodhouse v Poole Borough Council case has established (in essence) that the premises licence holder is only liable if conducting the licensable activity - it is not automatic that the premises licence holder is liable.

-               Family problems at time of the issues were raised.

-               The operations manager was responsible for opening and sales after hours and was stealing from the business by privately purchasing alcohol and selling for private gain. He has now been sacked, although it was accepted he was kept on until after Christmas.

-               Only one sale of alcohol took place at these premises after authorised hours.

-               The premises licence holder had mistakenly understood that an amendment of the plan had been approved by variation.

-               The proposed steps  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The Sub-Committee is requested to determine the matter.

The Sub Committee had to determine whether the hearing ought to be held in private session, with the press and public excluded.  Noting that the point had been previously discussed and agreed it was determined that it proceed in private session with the decision worded in a way that might be published and this was in the public interest in accordance with regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005. This would enable parties to give evidence freely and prevent detail of third parties being released.

The Sub Committee had considered very carefully the application for review of a premises licence at The Sunday Post Lounge Cocktail Bar.  It gave due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance and the adopted statement of licensing policy.

The Sub Committee considered the relevant representations, both written and given orally at the hearing, by all parties.  Human rights legislation and the public sector equality duty had been borne in mind whilst making the decision.

The Sub Committee determined that it was appropriate to revoke the premises licence in this instance.

Reasons

The review application was submitted by the Licensing Authority and had attracted a representation from the police.

Issues raised relate to sales after hours on six occasions, the use of an unlicensed door supervisor and CCTV footage that was not entirely accessible.

Correspondence from the premises licence holder offering means of settling the review in advance had been circulated to the Sub Committee.

The premises licence holder had, in the previous agenda item, requested that the transcript of the interview of the premises licence holder be made available to Sub Committee and a short adjournment had been allowed for this to be produced and read. The premises licence holder was also given an opportunity to take advice privately and this was taken up.

For the premises licence holder the Sub Committee heard (amongst other points):

-               Objections at the time of grant of the licence had resulted in very restrictive hours for the type of venue.

-               The premises licence holder had been completely unaware of issues until the 1^st November 2022. On learning of them the manager had been warned.

-               Family problems at time of the issues prevented visits to the premises.

-               The operations manager was responsible for opening and sales after hours and was stealing from the business. He has now been sacked, although it was accepted he was kept on until New Years Eve.

-               The proposed steps to settle (e.g., removal of DPS and suspension etc.) are appropriate and proportionate as a response and would tackle the issues raised.

-               The premises had been closed since New Years Eve and would remain closed until sold.

-               No other issues had arisen until October and the manager was entirely responsible.

The Sub Committee must again assert that its function is not to determine guilt or liability for criminal offences. Accordingly the Hall & Woodhouse v Poole Borough Council case had limited  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.