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.

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

Applicant: Roberto Mondim (not present and not represented)

Responsible Authority: the Police, represented by Martin Purchase (Liquor Licensing Officer)

The Licensing Support Officer presented the report. The Police had requested that seven additional conditions be attached to the licence as listed in paragraph 4.10 of the report. The applicant had agreed in writing to all of the conditions, but had subsequently written pointing out that, as he was not applying for off sales, two of the conditions were not appropriate and he requested that they should not be attached to the licence. These conditions were:

Alcohol will only be sold over the counter with food orders over £4.00.

and

All deliveries which include alcohol must only be received by a person aged 18 or over.

Mr Purchase stated the case for the Police. He said that the applicant was not present today as he was on a pre-booked foreign holiday. He had met the applicant to discuss the application, and the applicant had agreed to all the conditions proposed by the Police. Unfortunately the meeting had taken place before the Police had received the full documentation, and it had not been realised that off sales were not included in the application. Mr Purchase stated that there were other premises in the area where there had been problems with alcohol being supplied to people under the age of 18, which had been dealt with. He understood that the applicant was not planning to sell alcohol over the counter and that The Fat Friar could be described as a traditional fish and chip shop.

Following an adjournment, it was RESOLVED to grant the licence as applied for together with the mandatory conditions related to the sale of alcohol, the prevention of irresponsible drinks promotions, the dispensing of alcohol directly by one person into the mouth of another, the provision of free tap water, age verification policy, and the availability of alcohol in smaller measures. 

They also imposed the conditions consistent with the Operating Schedule and those proposed by the Police and agreed to by the applicant save for the two which were irrelevant to the sale of alcohol on the premises.

Authority was delegated to the Licensing Officer to issue the licence accordingly.

REASONS

Members have today determined an application for a new Premises Licence for The Fat Friar, 227 London Road East, Bath. In doing so they have reminded themselves of the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998. 

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of evidence and that they must only do what is necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives based on the evidence before them.

Members noted that the applicant was unable to attend the hearing today due to his being on holiday, for which he had given prior notice to the Council. Members proceeded in his absence and took account all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Applicant: Whitbread Group plc, represented by John Gaunt (John Gaunt and Partners, Solicitors), Richard Pearson (Whitbread Acquisition Surveyor), David MacMullen (Director of MacMullen Associates)

Interested Parties: Mr and Mrs Paul Dolan, represented by Mr Dolan

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

The Senior Licensing Officer presented the report.

Mr Gaunt stated the case for the applicants. He said that Whitbread would convert the premises into a Premier Inn, which was a well-known brand. The licensed area would be situated entirely on the ground floor, with the hotel accommodation located on the floors above. He stated that it was normal for all Premier Inns to apply for a 24-hour licence for sales of alcohol to residents, although it was not always implemented. However, the planning permission granted to the premises on appeal by the Planning Inspector required closure at 23.30 Mondays to Saturdays and at 23.00 on Sundays, therefore the applicant was prepared to modify the terminal hour for all licensable activities to non-residents to match these times.

He confirmed that the application for regulated entertainment by way of the exhibition of films did not mean that the premises would become a cinema. The films would comprise only pre-recorded TV shows and educational films. He drew attention to the absence of representations from the Responsible Authorities. He then turned to the representations made by the Interested Parties. Noting that Mr Dolan had expressed concerns about the size of the bar, he produced a full-scale plan, a reduced copy of which had been submitted with the application, pointed out the bar and said that, as there would be 108 bedrooms in the hotel, and large restaurant, a bar with a capacity for 100 persons would not be excessive. He stated that there was no hidden agenda; the premises would only be a Premier Inn, and that there was no example of a Premier Inn which had sub-let space to other operators of licensed premises. He noted that another concern expressed by Mr Dolan was the use of the rear entrance. He said that the whole site would be redeveloped and that it was intended that the James Street entrance would be the only public access to the premises. There would be an area at the rear for deliveries and other services, to which access would only be granted by application at the reception desk. The side entrance was for use in emergencies only and was alarmed, so smokers would have to use the front entrance. The hotel management would have every incentive to prevent nuisance, since residents at the hotel would be able to claim a refund if they suffered disturbance under the “Good Night Guarantee”. The premises were only just within the cumulative impact area. Non-residents would be able to use the bar, but they would have to pay the prices charged by Premier Inns, which would not be cheap compared with other licensed premises in the area.

Members put questions to the applicant,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.