Agenda item

Purpose

The purpose of this report is for the committee to consider an application for the variation of a premises licence pursuant to Section 35 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The committee is asked to determine this matter.

Present

Niall McCain, Solicitor

Mark McFadyen, Operations Director

Matt Chapman, Designated Premises Supervisor.

The Principal Licensing Officer introduced the report and added that he had visited the premises and seen the alterations that had been made.  He drew members' attention to the supplementary information from the applicant that had been circulated to members.  The applicant had written to all the residents who had made representations to explain the application and two had subsequently withdrawn their objections. 

It was noted that three written representations had been omitted from the pack.  These were circulated to members to read.

There were no questions from the applicants.

Niall McCain included the following points in his representation:

·         The following changes to the layout had been made:

o   The women's' toilets are with the others, which enabled the kitchen to be enlarged so that the food order could be extended. 

o   The brass vats are on display.

o   There is a fire pit with tables and chairs around it.

o   Outside there is an extensive decking area and beach huts which have heaters. 

·         Planning issues were not relevant to this hearing.

·         The statutory authorities did not made any representations. 

·         There was some understandable confusion from residents regarding this application.  He had contacted those who had submitted objections to explain that they were not seeking to increase the hours.  Two then withdrew their objection and another Mr Ritchie sent him a substantive response.

·         The huts have soundproofing.

·         He proffered the following conditions:

1.    No drinks be taken outside after 11pm Sunday to Thursday and midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.

2.    The garden policy be incorporated onto the licence via condition.

3.    The garden policy be displayed prominently so patrons can see the obligations clearly.

·         The premise is not in a Cumulative Impact Zone.

·         The residents are between 50 and 100m away from the premise.

·         Temporary Event Notices have been used in the past and no problems arose.

In response to questions from members, he explained that:

·         Mr Ritchie had maintained his objection regarding the use of heaters because of concerns about possible smells and pollution.  Mr McCain reassured members that the kitchen had been fitted with new equipment including an extractor fan and the heaters are basic electric ones and so there would be no smells.

·         They do not expect to have an increased footfall, so there would be no impact on parking in the area.

The Principal Licensing Officer added that he had visited the premise and had no concerns.  He reminded members that the responsible authorities had not raised any concerns either.

Mr McCain had nothing to add to his representation.

DECISION

In the matter of the Licensing Act 2003.

In the matter of the application for variation of the current premises licence - Brewhouse and Kitchen, 51 Southsea Terrace, Southsea PO5 3AU.

The committee heard the representations of the applicant together with the detailed representations from the applicant's legal representative and considered all the papers put before them along with the annexes attached to each document.  Additionally, the committee viewed all written objections produced today.

The Responsible Authorities had made 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 form local residents - the consequence of that fact being that the committee would 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 was that a grant of the application would lead to greater risk of there being a public nuisance along with there being a failure to prevent crime and disorder and a potential issue as to public safety.  Some of the comments were based upon all of the relevant licensing objectives not being promoted.

The above stated, committee balanced within its consideration all representations made by the applicants through their advocate.

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

It was clear that the current licensing operating schedule adequately promotes all the relevant licensing objectives and that the current application is limited to a re-configuration of the current premise by way of alteration.  The question to ask is how such a variation in the current licence has an impact upon any of the relevant licensing objectives.

In considering the application, the committee was mindful of the following and considered that having heard all matters today could conclude that the following facts had been established:

The current position was that the permitted hours of trading were not being utilised and that the application was not one dealing with a change in terms of licensable activity.  The application is to amend the premise layout plan.

The applicants had engaged with the complainants to the extent that two had withdrawn their initial complaints.

There were no representations from any of the Responsible Authorities.

Such comments about usage of the garden and the potentiality of the escape of smells from a newly refurbished kitchen were such that the committee on balance was of the view that such current concerns were speculative in nature.  Additionally, should incidents arise these could be raised with the appropriate Statutory Agencies, for example Environmental Health or the police.

With respect to this application the committee was satisfied that the applicant had shifted the burden sufficiently to promote by way of their current operating schedule and current future plans the licensing objectives and as such the application was granted subject to the following conditions as proffered being accepted.

1.    No drinks shall be taken outside after 11pm Sunday to Thursday and midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.

2.    The garden policy be incorporated onto the licence via condition.

3.    The garden policy be displayed prominently so patrons can see the obligations clearly.

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

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

The applicants have a right to appeal this decision.