Agenda and minutes

Licensing Panel - Thursday, 1st March, 2018 2.30 pm

Venue: Wheel Room, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland PR25 1DH

Contact: Andy Houlker  Email:

No. Item


Apologies for absence


None, all were present.


Declarations of Interests

Members are requested to indicate at this stage in the proceedings any items on the agenda in which they intend to declare an interest. Members are reminded that if the interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct) they must leave the room for the whole of that item. If the interest is not a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, but is such that a member of the public could reasonably regard it as being so significant that it is likely that it would prejudice their judgment of the public interest (as explained in the Code of Conduct) then they may make representations, but then must leave the meeting for the remainder of the item.



There were no declarations of interest.


Application for Review of the Premises Licence relating to the Railway Public House, Leyland, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 pdf icon PDF 160 KB

Report of the Revenues Manager attached.

Additional documents:


The Panel considered for determination an application to review the Premises Licence submitted under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. This application was in respect of The Railway Public House, 1 Preston Road, Leyland.


Following the publication of the agenda and application, there had been substantial additional published as two supplementary agendas. The second supplementary information was the day before the hearing.


At the start of the proceedings with the agreement of all interested parties present and for the benefit of all those present, two site layout plans of the premises were circulated.


The Panel noted that the application was to review the Premises Licence because it had been felt that two of the four licensing objectives were being undermined, namely:-

a)    the prevention of crime and disorder; and

b)    the protection of children from harm.


With the permission of the panel and in accordance with the council’s hearing procedure the council’s Revenues Manager introduced the application.


The applicant, then addressed the Panel.  As part of this the Panel was informed that there had previously been serious concerns about the running of these premises. However following the application for a review, there were now robust measures in place at the premises, there had only been a few incidents, and revised licence conditions had been drawn up which were agreeable to the applicant. The latter was included in the second pack of supplementary information. Questions were asked.


The solicitor on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder then addressed the Panel and questions were asked.


Having fully considered the application made by the applicant and the case made by the Premises Licence Holder, 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

• South Ribble Borough Council’s Licensing Policy


The Panel recognised that the management of the premises had improved and that a new and dedicated Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) to these premises had been appointed.


In that respect the Panel had not felt it appropriate to revoke the licence or reduce the licensed hours for these premises.


The Panel was conscious that a number of the proposed conditions (26 in total) were not new but existing conditions re-worded/re-emphasised from Annexes 2 and 3 of the Premises Licence. That being the case the Panel felt it necessary to look at all the suggested documentation and where appropriate compare this to Annexes 2 and 3 of the Premises Licence.


During the hearing there had been emphasis by the applicant and licence holder on the recent introduction of the use of Drug Dogs. The Panel felt that Drug Dogs and their use should be included as a condition.


The Panel felt that the existing condition relating to ‘striptease’ should be carried forward.


It was found that there was a discrepancy on the hours contained in the Risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.