|Place:||Wheel Room, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland PR25 1DH|
|Present:||Councillors Mrs A A Ball, Ms J Bell, Mr J Rainsbury|
|In attendance:||Tasneem Safdar (Senior Solicitor), Jennifer Mullin (Public Health Manager), Niky Barrett (Licensing Enforcement Officer), Gillian Strike (Senior Environmental Health Officer) and Dave Lee (Democratic Services Officer)|
Other Members: Councillor Ogilvie
Appointment of Chairman
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that Councillor Rainsbury be appointed chairman for the meeting.
Apologies for Absence
There were no apologies reported.
Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest declared.
Review of Premises Licence: Barristers Public House, 63-65 Towngate, Leyland
Appendix 2 (2M/bytes) attached
The Licensing Panel considered an application by Lancashire Constabulary for a review of a premises licence under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. This application was in respect of Barristers Public House, 63-65 Towngate, Leyland.
During the course of the meeting, the panel noted that following receipt of the application for review, Lancashire Constabulary, other responsible authorities and the Premises Licence Holder (and his legal representative) have come to an agreement to the revised recommendations to the existing conditions of the Premises Licence. Whilst copies of the revised conditions were circulated at the meeting there were still outstanding representations from local residents (represented by Councillor Ogilvie) for the panel to consider. As a result the council?s hearing procedure was varied accordingly.
With the permission of the panel, the applicant (the police?s representative, Sergeant Bushell) introduced the application and explained the reasons why the police had withdrawn their request for the removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). The panel noted that a new DPS had been appointed since the date of the application of the review. The police?s representative then clarified the revised recommendations agreed between the Premises Licence Holder, the police and other responsible authorities and questions were asked.
The other responsible authorities confirmed that they had supported the initial application for the review by the police, however, they now agreed that the revised recommendations would be sufficient to redress the balance.
The Premises Licence Holder (Mr Smurthwaite) and his legal representative then addressed the panel and questions were asked. Local residents (represented by Councillor Ogilvie) who supported Lancashire Constabulary?s application for review then addressed the panel and questions were asked.
Having fully considered all the representations (written and/or oral) made by the police, local residents (and their representative) and the Premises Licence Holder (and his legal representative), the panel retired to reach its decision.
In reaching its decision the panel took into account the following:
? both written and oral evidence presented in connection with the hearing
? Licensing Act 2003
? S182 Amended Guidance of the Licensing Act 2003 and taken into account the references to the guidance made by both parties
? South Ribble Borough Council?s Licensing Policy
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that the decision on the application to review the premises licence in respect of Barristers Public House, 63-65 Towngate, Leyland, be as set out below.
1. The panel noted that the police have withdrawn their request for removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), as a new DPS has been appointed since the date of the application of the review.
2. The panel observed that the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) had engaged with the police in attempting to resolve issues, albeit at the 11th hour.
3. The panel noted that the applicant and the objector stated during the hearing that there had been no further issues since the application of the review. However, the panel had noted that PC Thompson?s statement confirmed that on the 19th September, customers were seen spilling into the highway, as late as 2.10 in the morning. This indicates a flaw in the dispersal policy, which tends to support evidence provided by the residents.
4. The panel accepted that since the submission of the review, the PLH has installed CCTV with audio, covering the back of Spring Gardens and the smoking area. This will hopefully assist with identifying and deterring public nuisance and crime and disorder.
The panel initially considered whether any of the licensing objectives had been undermined. In respect of the objectives of preventing crime and disorder and preventing public nuisance the panel concluded that the objectives were being undermined. The panel felt that the licensing objectives had been undermined and additional/revised conditions were required to address the issues raised by the police.
The panel considered the revised recommendations agreed between the PLH, the police and other responsible authorities. They also took into account representations made by the residents. In view of all those representations, the panel were?of the view that the following conditions would be appropriate to redress the balance.
The conditions to be revised/added to are as follows:
1. Reduction in hours ?
a) Licensable activity until 1:00 hrs, Thursday, Friday , Saturday and Sunday
b) Open to the public until 1:30 hrs Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday
2. The PLH or his representative will employ a minimum of 4 door supervisors at the premises on Friday and Saturday from 22:00 hrs until the premises are closed and customers have dispersed from the area.
3. There shall be no entry to the premises to customers after midnight on Friday and Saturday
4. Customers shall be prevented from smoking or drinking at the front of the premises at any time, to reduce congregation at the front of the premises. Smoking should take place at the rear of the property. This should reduce any issues of public disorder and will allow management to keep a consistent approach with all customers.
The committee recommended that the PLH should not only make sure he is aware and fully understands the requirement of the new conditions but also those already in place on the premises licence. The panel hope that the PLH will continue to co-operate with the responsible authorities and will seek assistance if needed in the future.
The panel therefore concluded that the modification or addition of conditions would redress the undermining of the Licensing Objective.