|Place:||Wheel Room, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland, PR25 1DH|
|Present:||Councillors Ms J Bell, Mr J Rainsbury, Mr D H Suthers|
|In attendance:||Tasneem Safdar (Senior Solicitor), Niky Barrett (Licensing Enforcement Officer), Wajed Iqbal (Licensing Officer), Neil Martin (Environmental Health Officer) and Dave Lee (Democratic Services Officer)|
Other Members: Councillors Miss Hamilton and P Smith
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.
Application to Vary Premises Licence: Barristers Public House, 63-65 Towngate, Leyland
Report (a) attached
Appendix to (a) attached
Report (b) attached
Appendix to (b) attached
The panel considered two applications for the variation of a Premises Licence submitted under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003. These applications were in respect of Barristers Public House, 63-65 Towngate, Leyland for the following ?
(a) to increase the hours for the sale of alcohol and the playing of live and recorded music; and
(b) to remove three of the conditions added to the licence on 6 October 2014 following a review hearing.
With the permission of the panel and in accordance with the council?s hearing procedure the Licensing Officer introduced the application.
At this point of the proceedings ?
(i) the applicant circulated a personal reference from the Steward of Leyland Conservative Club in support of the applications, visitors? log notes and a recent record of sound checks carried out inside the premises; and
(ii) Lancashire Constabulary circulated a map detailing the locations of the clients of the pub in support of the applications.
The applicant (accompanied by his legal representatives), then addressed the panel and questions were asked. Lancashire Constabulary, other responsible authorities and local residents (represented by Councillor Miss Hamilton) objecting to the application then addressed the panel and questions were asked.
Having fully considered the representations (written and oral) made by Lancashire Constabulary, other responsible authorities and local residents (represented by Councillor Miss Hamilton) and the application made by the applicant, 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 that the decision in respect of the two applications submitted by Barristers Public House, 63-65 Towngate, Leyland, be as set out below ?
The panel ?
1. noted that the evidence of the residents and the other representatives had been extremely helpful in reaching their decision. Residents living in the area, are the ?eyes and ears? of the community. In that respect, it was noted that since the review hearing on the 6 October 2014, the residents? standard of lifestyle had improved. They stated as part of their evidence this is due the reduction in hours and imposition of conditions.
2. noted that Mr Miller is an experienced Licence Holder and has a reputation for robust management. This was endorsed by the Police and Licensing Authority. Further, the panel found that Mr Miller has cooperated with the relevant authorities, this is the opposite style of the previous licence holder.
3. however, observed that although there had been no formal complaints to the relevant bodies, it was concerned to hear that ?heavies? were being brought in to deal with any incidents. The panel would request Mr Miller to contact the police in relation to any incidents; this is in line with the Licensing Objectives.
4. noted that Mr Miller had taken over the establishment in January 2015 and things seem to have been working well for the last 6 months.
5. however, noted that the clients of the pub, in support of the applications were in the majority residing to the west of the pub, which would mean that they would disperse in general down Spring Gardens and through residential areas.
In light of the above, the panel has decided to refuse the application to vary the licensable activity at the premises by way of an increase in hours for the sale by retail by alcohol and the playing of live and recorded music; as the panel are of the view that the Licence Holder has not shown just cause/proposed steps in how the increase in hours would be appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. The panel are of the view that the current hours are working well overall and are in line with licensable hours of other licensed premises in the vicinity.
In respect of the application to vary the conditions attached to the licence at the review hearing on the 6 October 2014, the panel have decided to modify the conditions as follows:-
1. The Premises Licence Holder or their representatives shall employ a minimum of 3 door supervisors at the premises on a Friday and Saturday from 22:00 hrs until the premises are closed and customers have dispersed from the area.
The panel did not feel that having 4 door supervisors was a proportionate and fair number in the circumstances. The panel would expect the licence holder to use his judgement should an increase in number of door supervisors be required.
2. Condition 2 to be removed.
The opening hours fall in line with other licensed premises in the area, thus negating the prospect for a rush of people accumulating at the Barristers (as previously was the case), due to the extra hours at the pub.
3. Condition 3 shall be modified and will read as follows:-
Customers shall be prevented from drinking at the front of the premises at any time, and should be encouraged to smoke in the designated area within the beer garden.
The rationale behind the modification to this condition is that the Committee has accepted the Applicant?s assertion that he cannot legally prevent individuals from smoking on a public highway.
All parties in attendance were informed of their right to appeal the decision to the Magistrates Court within 21 days.