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.

Councillors Nicol and Curran both declared a non-pecuniary interest by reason of their acquaintance with the representative of the applicant, Mr Alan Morgan. They stated that they had not discussed the application him or with each other.

Mr Phipps said that he accepted that in a small town in was inevitable that Councillors would be acquainted with many residents and business people and that he had no objection to the two Members participating in the hearing.

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: Punch Taverns, represented by Alan Morgan (Abbey Ales) and Matthew Phipps (TLT Solicitors)

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 variation of an existing premises licence. The details of current premises licence were set out in paragraph 4.2 of the report and the details of the variation application in paragraph 4.3. The premises were situated in the cumulative impact area and the Police had proposed an additional five conditions to further the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. These conditions were listed in paragraph 4.14 of the report. The applicant had indicated through its solicitors its willingness to accept these conditions.

Mr Phipps stated the case for the applicant. He explained that the premises would be the fourth public house to be operated by Abbey Ales in the City of Bath. He stated that Abbey Ales had already turned round three failing public houses, which, he submitted, were now assets to the City, because they were successful and fully compliant with the licensing objectives. He stated that the applicant had given written notice of its willingness to accept the conditions proposed by the Police. However, it had been brought to his attention that the fourth condition proposed by the Police, namely that “there will be no live or recorded music after 12.00 midnight on any day”, should have referred to all forms of regulated entertainment and that the applicant would accept the condition so amended. He believed that there were no outstanding issues between the applicant and the Police and urged the Sub-Committee to grant the application.

The Senior Licensing Officer pointed out that the condition referred to by Mr Phipps would, if imposed, reduce the non-standard hours for regulated entertainment permitted under the existing premises licence, for which the terminal hour was 01.00. Mr Phipps suggested that in that case the condition should not be imposed, but that instead the applicant would amend the application so that the standard terminal hour sought for all forms of regulated entertainment would be 12.00 midnight on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. In response to a question from the Senior Licensing Officer he confirmed that the applicant would withdraw that part of the application relating to non-standard timings for regulated entertainment, leaving the terminal hour for these as 01.00 as at present.

Mr Purchase said that he had nothing to add and did not wish to make a statement.

The Sub-Committee adjourned and then reconvened to seek clarification from the applicant about the meaning of “new entry” in the third condition proposed by the Police, “there will be no new entry to the premises after 00.30 each day.” Mr Phipps stated that he had always understood that there was a distinction between “entry” and “re-entry” and that the condition would permit the re-admission of customers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.