Venue: Council Chamber, The Forum. View directions
Contact: Corporate and Democratic Support on 01442 228209
To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting
The Minutes of the previous meeting will be signed at the next meeting.
Apologies for absence
To receive any apologies for absence
There were no apologies for absence.
Declarations of interest
To receive any declarations of interest
There were no declarations of interests.
Premises Licence application under the Licensing Act 2003
The Sub-Committee were required to consider an application to review a premises licence for the following premises:
Closure Order granted on 4 February 2022 until 25 February 2022.
The Chairman introduced everyone.
The Chairman asked if all legal requirements had been complied with. P. Wortley confirmed that they had. The Chairman asked P. Wortley to introduce the application.
This application had come before the Sub-Committee as a result of the Closure Order. On 21st January 2022 (Friday), P. Wortley, Security Industry Authority investigators and the Police visited the Tudor Rose regarding unlicensed door staff. When they arrived it was a shambles, there was nobody in charge, customers were helping themselves behind the bar, although one person said he was serving. They couldn’t contact the DPS and nobody appeared to know who was doing what. They refused to provide details of names and addresses but the Police did manage to obtain some information. As a result it was decided that they would leave the Police presence through the evening and contact the Licence Holder on the Monday morning. P. Wortley contacted the Area Manager, Kate Halloway, and she explained that the Licence Holder had been given Notice to Quit the premises on 25th February and that they had done everything they could to try to get him out of the premises, as he hadn’t paid rent, he was buying beer out and not from the brewery which was in breach of their conditions. The problem was that he was not named on the Licence as a DPS therefore there was very little the Licensing Team could do in respect of him and it was purely down to the Licence Holders. It was decided that they would remove the DPS from the Licence to prevent alcohol being sold and this was done via application to the Council on 1 February 2022. This meant that there was no DPS and legally no alcohol could be sold. On Tuesday evening there was a type of party, travellers arrived at the property and alcohol was being sold and because of this a Closure Order was applied for. Stonegate were aware of all parts of this investigation and on Friday 4 February the Closure Order was granted, the premises was boarded up, therefore no one could enter the premises except the owners and the Licence Holder. The tenant wouldn’t speak with the Licensing Department and therefore they were unable to get any details from him. It did appear that he was walking away from the business. The reason it had to come before the Sub-Committee is because Licensing Act 2003 regulations state that it must be determined by the Licensing Committee within 28 days.
Councillor Sutton asked if the routine checks are carried out when officers are called out. P. Wortley replied that they do routine checks and this one was highlighted by the SIA.
Councillor Bassadone asked who the Security Industry Authority were and ... view the full minutes text for item 13.
When determining a review of a premises licence (under section 167 of the Licensing Act 2003), the Sub-Committee must, having regard to the closure order and any relevant representations made, take such of the following steps (if any) as it considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
(a) modify the conditions of the premises licence;
(b) exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence;
(c) remove the designated premises supervisor from the licence;
(d) suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months; or
(e) revoke the licence
The Sub-Committee has decided to not to take any of the above steps and therefore to allow the premises licence to continue in its current format.
The Sub-Committee notes that whilst the closure order confirms that there was crime and/or disorder at the Premises, this was done so under the occupation and control of the Tenant who has now vacated the Premises. The Sub-Committee further notes that there were no representations from responsible authorities.
The Sub-Committee is satisfied that the premises licence holder had co-operated with the police and the Licencing Authority to promote the licensing objective of preventing crime and disorder. The premises licence holder had terminated the lease with the Tenant, removed the Designated Premises Supervisor from the premises licence to prevent the sale of alcohol at the Premises and supported the closure order. The Tenant had also not paid any rent under the lease to the premises licence holder (Ei Group Ltd) and breached further covenants including purchasing obligations with the Stonegate Group.
The Sub-Committee notes that the premises licence holder has confirmed that it will now look to seek a new tenant for the Premises and will liaise with the police to ensure the new tenant is suitable and carry out the necessary due-diligence checks accordingly and continue to co-operate with all responsible authorities. The premises licence holder shall also carry out a refurbishment of the Premises and has given assurances to the Sub-Committee as to the future running of the Premises.
The Sub-Committee confirms that the Licensing Authority has statutory responsibilities under the Licensing Act 2003 to review the premises licence, at the request of a responsible authority or any other person, should there be relevant grounds concerning one or more of the licensing objectives in the future.
A right of appeal is conferred by the Licensing Act 2003. The time within which any such appeal may be brought to a magistrates’ court shall be 21 days from the date on which you were notified by the Licensing Authority of this decision.
If an appeal is lodged and the appellant is successful in their appeal, it is the intention of the Licensing Authority to resist any application for costs.
If an appeal is lodged and the appellant is unsuccessful in their appeal, it is the intention of the Licensing Authority to apply for full costs to be awarded to the Licensing Authority in respect of ... view the full minutes text for item 14.