Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Kaposvar Room - Guildhall, Bath. View directions

Contact: Sean O'Neill  01225 395090

Items
No. Item

71.

EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Chair will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out under Note 5 on the previous page.

Minutes:

The Democratic Services Officer advised the meeting of the procedure.

72.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

Minutes:

There were none.

73.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officeror a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

Minutes:

There were none.

74.

TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR

Minutes:

There was none.

75.

MINUTES: 23 NOVEMBER AND 7 DECEMBER 2017 pdf icon PDF 92 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the 23rd November and 7th December were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

76.

VEHICLE PROCEDURE pdf icon PDF 35 KB

The Chair will draw attention to the procedure to be followed for the next item of business.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair drew attention to the procedure to be followed for the next item of business.

77.

CONSIDERATION OF VEHICLE SUITABILITY TO BE LICENSED AS A PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE - MR S H pdf icon PDF 5 MB

Minutes:

Applicant: Mr S Holden

 

Members had conducted an inspection of the vehicle before the hearing.

 

The applicant confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

 

The Public Protection Team Leader presented the report. Members noted that while the Council’s current policy on Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Standards – Vehicles, Drivers and Operators state that “all vehicles will normally be less than five years old when first licensed” the applicant’s vehicle was more than five years and six months old at the date of application. The vehicle was fully compliant in every other respect with the Council’s Licensing Standards and had passed a licensed vehicle mechanical compliance check at an authorised garage on 28 November 2017.

 

The applicant stated his case and was questioned by Members.

 

The applicant summed up.

 

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED that the vehicle was suitable to be licensed as private hire vehicle and delegated authority to the licensing officer to issue the licence, subject to the satisfactory completion of all necessary checks.

 

Reasons

 

Members have had to determine an application for a Private Hire Vehicle Licence. In doing so they took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, the Council’s Policy and the applicant’s oral representations. Members also had the benefit of an inspection of the vehicle. 

 

The applicant stated that he had been a taxi driver for 5 years now and had his own vehicle which was written off in an accident. He wanted to replace it with the same model as it had an excellent carbon footprint. He realised recognised that the vehicle does not meet the requirements of the council’s standard conditions but thought it was a simple replacement for his old vehicle.

 

Members reminded themselves of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the Council’s Private Hire Vehicle Licence general conditions. These state they must be satisfied that the vehicle is suitable in type, size and design for use as a private hire vehicle and furthermore is safe, comfortable and less than 5 years old when first licensed.

 

Having inspected the vehicle Members found the vehicle in exceptionally good condition and having heard from the licensing officer that the vehicle had passed all the necessary safety inspections were satisfied that the vehicle was suitable in type, size and design. Given that the vehicle was only 6 months outside the Policy at the time of application Members take the exceptional step on this occasion of departing from their Policy. Members therefore delegate authority to the licensing officer to issue the license subject to completion of all necessary checks.

 

78.

LICENSING PROCEDURE

The Chair will, if required, explain the licensing procedure, which will be followed for the next two items of business.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair drew attention to the procedure to be followed for the next two items of business.

79.

APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE FOR GROUND FLOOR AND BASEMENT, 8 EDGAR BUILDINGS, GEORGE STREET, BATH BA1 2EE pdf icon PDF 4 MB

Minutes:

Applicant: LLDD Ltd, represented by Hannah Houghton

 

Other Person: Stephanie Brown (not present and not represented)

 

Responsible Authority: Geoff Cannon (Police Licensing Officer)

 

The Public Protection Officer presented the report. He drew attention to the conditions offered by the applicant detailed in paragraph 5.3 of the report. Members noted that the premises was situated within the Cumulative Impact Area and that representations had been received from an Other Person and from the Police relating to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.

 

Ms Houghton presented the case for the applicant and was questioned by Members.

 

The Police Licensing Officer complimented the applicant on its engagement with the Police and its responsiveness to recommendations he had made to minimise the risk of any addition by the premises to the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the area.

 

Ms Houghton summed up.

 

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application, subject to the mandatory conditions, conditions consistent with the operating schedule and additional conditions which the application had agreed with the Police as detailed below. Authority was delegated to the Public Protection Officer to issue the licence.

 

 

Reasons

 

Members have had to determine an application for a new Premises Licence at 8 Edgar Buildings Bath BA1 2EE. In doing so, they have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s 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 they must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives based on the information put before them. Members noted that each application is considered on its own merits.

 

Members were careful to take account of the relevant written and oral representations made and were careful to balance their competing interests. Members were however careful to disregard irrelevant matters.

 

The Applicant

The applicant stated the premises currently operate as an independent Deli and would like to sell a selection of Italian Wine, craft beer and liquors. As a result of consultation with the Police and a visit to the area outside of the premises operation a number of conditions were agreed and the times for the sale of alcohol reduced to between 10:00-19:00 hrs every day. With regard to the licensing objectives they believed the conditions, limitation of the hours and absence of a bar would address the public nuisance and crime and disorder objectives. The applicant recognises the responsibility that comes with the licence and is simply offering a taste of Italy.

 

The Interested Parties

The interested party representation stated the premises was in an residential community and did not feel another drinking establishment would be of benefit but rather would add to crime and disorder and public nuisance in terms of more drunks in the area and disturbed sleep.

 

Responsible Authorities

The Police stated that with the addition of the conditions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

80.

APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE FOR BECKFORD BOTTLE SHOP LTD, 5-8 SAVILLE ROW, LANSDOWN, BATH BA1 2QP pdf icon PDF 5 MB

Minutes:

Applicant: Beckford Bottle Shop Ltd, represented by Daniel Brod and Charlie Luxton (partners)

 

Other Persons: Kim Green, Elizabeth Lewrey and David Daniels

 

The parties confirmed that they understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

 

The Public Protection Officer presented the report. Members noted that the premises was situated in the Cumulative Impact Area. Ten representations had been received from Other Persons, relating to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder. Eighteen representations in support of the application had been received.

 

Mr Brod stated the case for the applicant. He described the nature of the business and efforts made to engage with local residents. He said that he considered operating in Bath to be a privilege. The premises were situated near to the Assembly Rooms and the landmark Beckford Tower. He had met with residents to try to allay their fears. He noted that more expressions of support for the application had been received than objections. He had limited the hours of the premises. He would also restrict any table and chairs application to a 21:00 terminal hour. He submitted that the nature of the business was inherently up-market and would be unlikely to attract binge drinkers. He noted that there were already fourteen licensed premises in the vicinity, but did not believe that adding a fifteenth would materially worsen problems; in fact he believed that the Beckford Bottle Shop would improve the situation for residents by setting a higher standard. His company had an unblemished record of running their other premises.

 

Mr Brod was questioned by Members and by Other Persons.

 

Other Persons stated their cases.

 

Mr Green said that he lived directly opposite the premises. He felt there were already too many licensed premises in a residential area. There were disabled and vulnerable people living nearby. There was a great deal of noise nuisance and residents were often woken at night. Smokers outside premises caused noise nuisance. He considered that ‘shop’ was not an accurate description of the nature of the business to be carried out at the premises. He thought the hours of the premises were too long. He believed that the application, if granted, would add to the cumulative impact.

 

Mrs Lewrey said that residents already suffered disturbance cause by patrons of other licensed premises in the area.

 

Mr Daniels said that the main issue was the noise and disturbance suffered by residents in the area. He believed that an additional drinking establishment was bound to add to this, however well-intentioned the proprietors might be. Twice in the recent past people incapacitated through excessive drinking had had to be taken away by paramedics. He submitted that there should be extreme caution about adding to the number of drinking establishments.

 

Mr Brod summed up for the applicant. He acknowledged that there were existing problems in the area associated with licensed premises. However, he believed that this application was an up-market proposition akin to a European style of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.