Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure.

RESOLVED that a Vice-Chair was not required on this occasion.

There were none.

There were none.

There was none.

These were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Chair drew attention to the licensing procedure, copies of which had been made available to those attending the meeting.

Applicant: Eiderdown Ltd, represented by John Willmott (Director)

Interested Parties: Ian Herve, Ceris Humphreys, Ms Board, Mrs Glyde

Responsible Authority: Avon and Somerset Police, represented by Martin Purchase (Liquor Licensing Officer)

The parties confirmed that they had received and understood the licensing procedure.

The Senior Licensing Officer summarised the application, which was for a new premises licence authorising the sale and supply of alcohol 24 hours a day for consumption both on and off the premises. She advised members that the application was put on the basis that off sales were required to allow consumption of alcohol in the garden, which was not shown on the submitted plans. The Police had made a representation proposing a condition that

“There shall be no consumption of alcohol after 10pm each day in any outside area”.

The applicant had agreed in writing to this condition.

Mr Willmott stated the case for the applicant. He explained that he was a Director of the operating company and personal owner of the premises. He said that the premises had recently undergone a major refurbishment and he wanted to be able to offer wine, not beer or spirits, to bona-fide guests. There was significant demand for a bottle of wine with meals. He would also like guests to be able to consume wine in the garden. He was happy to accept the Police condition that there should be no alcohol consumed in the garden after 10pm. In fact, he would be quite prepared to accept 9.30pm as the terminal hour for the consumption of alcohol in the garden. He explained that the application for off sales had been made because he had been advised that as the garden was not part of the licensed premises, off-sales would be required to allow guests to consume wine in the garden. There was no intention to sell alcohol to people coming in off the street.

The Senior Legal Adviser advised members that in his opinion an off-licence was not required in order for alcohol to be consumed in the garden. In his view, the garden and outside areas were part of the premises, notwithstanding that they were not shown on the submitted plans. Mr Willmott said that if this was the case, he would withdraw his application for an off-licence. In response to questions from Members, Mr Willmott stated:

• he would accept a condition imposing a terminal hour of 9.30pm for drinking in the garden

• the garden was not in a fit state for use by guests at present

• it would be possible for guests to have tea and coffee in the garden

• Villa Magdala was a five-star guest house and the clientele consisted mostly of middle-aged professionals; hen parties were not accepted; the daily rate was £120-£150 on weekdays and £150-£170 at weekends

The Interested Parties put questions to Mr Willmott. Mr Herve stated that he lived next door but one to the premises. He asked at what time the sale of alcohol would commence. Mr Willmott  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Applicant: Bath Pizza Ltd T/A Domino’s Pizza, represented by John Gaunt (John Gaunt & Partners) and Siggy Wilberg (Franchisee)

Responsible Authority: Environmental Services, represented by Jeremy Lockley (Environmental Health Officer)

The parties confirmed that they had received and understood the licensing procedure.

The Senior Licensing Officer summarised the application. The applicant was seeking to vary the current licence by extending the terminal hour for the provision of late night refreshment from 01.30 to 05.00 every day. A representation had been received from Environmental Services requesting the imposition of a condition preventing the use of delivery vehicles between 02.00 and 07.00 on any day. Representations had also been received from three Interested Parties, two of whom wished to remain anonymous, relating to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. Additional information had been submitted by the applicant, comprising a skeleton statement of case and a noise assessment report, which had been circulated to Members and the parties the previous Friday.

Mr Gaunt stated the case for the applicant. He said that the application was, in essence, very simple: the applicant would like to extend the authority to provide late night refreshment until 05.00 every day. The premises already had a premises licence with conditions relating to the prevention of public nuisance objective, such as the prohibition of the use of mopeds after midnight. These conditions would apply to the extra hours sought. There had been no representation from the Police. His client had operated in Bath for a total of fifteen years and had relocated to the current premises in January 2011. He submitted that the operation of the premises had been satisfactory and that the applicant had sought to engage with the local community. He suggested that it was significant that the local residents’ association had not made a representation to the current application, despite having done so to the previous application. He said that the premises were located on the A4 London Road, which was a main through route from which there was a great deal of ambient noise. The premises currently opened at 10.00 and traded until 01.30. The peak trading periods were lunch time, 11.30 until 14.00, and early evening, 18.00-21.30, after which trade tended to tail off. 80% of sales were made during the two peak periods. It was anticipated that the number of vehicle movements in the couple of hours before 05.00 would be no more than five an hour.

He then turned to the representation of the Environmental Health Officer. He said that the main problem with the representation was that it provided no evidence to justify the restriction proposed. The EHO had said that in his professional opinion the application “has the potential” to give rise to public nuisance; this was not good enough, there had to be evidence. He was also confused about the EHO’s proposal to prohibit the use of delivery vehicles between 02.00 and 07.00. He had made no objection to extra trading hours for the shop but only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.