Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer advised the meeting of the procedure.

Apologies were received from Councillor Rob Appleyard, for whom Councillor Dine Romero substituted.

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.

There were none.

There was none.

The Minutes of the meeting of 16 August 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

Applicant: T4051 Limited, represented by Hannah Mannion (Thrings Solicitors) and Andy Bush (National Operations Manager)

Other parties in attendance: Geoff Cannon (Police Licensing Officer), Mel Argles (B&NES Deputy Head of Safeguarding & Quality Assurance – Children and Young People) and Tracey Curzons (Early Years Advisory Teacher)

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

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. A representation had been received from B&NES Safeguarding stating that the admission with parents of toddlers up to 24 months old to films with a 15 or 18 certificate was likely to have an adverse effect on the licensing objective of the protection of children from harm and requesting that this element of the application be refused and that the recommendations of British Board of Film Classification be upheld when classified films are screened. A representation had been received from the Police relating to all four licensing objectives. The Police had proposed a number of amendments to the Operating Schedule, to which the applicant had agreed in writing. The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are located in the Cumulative Impact Area. The Sub-Committee was invited to determine the application.

Ms Mannion stated the applicant’s case. She referred to correspondence between the applicant and the Police on agenda pages 53-54 in which the applicant confirmed acceptance of the amendments to the Operating Schedule proposed by the Police, including the removal of all conditions relating to “Parent and Baby Screenings”.

The Chair asked whether the condition in the Operating Schedule that “no open containers of alcohol to leave the premises” was necessary, since no containers of alcohol open or closed could leave the premises, as supply off the premises had not been applied for. Ms Mannion said she would need to consult her clients about this.

In response to a question from a Member Mr Bush stated that the applicant was fully aware that the premises was situated in a residential area and would expect customers to leave quietly. He confirmed that the applicant was no longer seeking the conditions in the Operating Schedule that “the lights must be left on at low level through the screening” and that “no open containers of alcohol to leave the premises”, as all proposals relating to parent and baby screenings had been withdrawn and the supply of alcohol off premises had not been not applied for.

Geoff Cannon, Police Licensing Officer, stated the case for the Police. He said that he had agreed amendments to the Operating Schedule. He was happy with all the other conditions they had proposed. Responding to a Member he said that the amended conditions fully addressed his concerns about the potential impact of the premises on the licensing objectives in the Cumulative Impact Area. His initial concern was that premises might be a bar with a cinema, but was now satisfied that it would be a cinema with a bar.

Mel Argles stated the case on behalf of Safeguarding. She  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Applicant: The Luna Cinema Ltd, represented by George Wood (Managing Director), Jamie Plummer (Head of Production) and Rachel Gillard (Executive Co-ordinator)

Other parties in attendance: Geoff Cannon (Police Licensing Officer), Nigel Shire (Environmental Protection), Stephen Huard (Marlborough Lane Residents Association), Nicola Isherwood (Royal Crescent Society Residents’ Association)

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

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. A representation had been received from the Police relating to all the licensing objectives, and they had proposed amendments to the operating schedule as set out on pages 90-92 of the agenda. The applicant had agreed in writing to these amendments (page 93 of the agenda). A representation had been made by Environmental Protection in respect of the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective, and they had proposed the same reduction in hours as the Police, a reduction in the number of events per year and a limit to their duration, and a maximum audience capacity (agenda page 98). Six representations had been received from other persons, which collectively related to all four of the licensing objectives. Supplementary information had been received from one of the Other Persons, Cllr Andrew Furse, which would be admitted in evidence at the discretion of the Chair and the agreement of all parties. She invited the Sub-Committee to determine the application.

Cllr Furse’s late submission was accepted in evidence. It is attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

Mr Wood stated the case for the applicant. He said his company specialised in the open air screening of classic films in heritage sites and sites of historic importance. The company operated throughout Britain. He believed that they had developed a mode of operation which worked. They had over 175 screenings every summer, and the events had a very low impact. It was the uniqueness of the sites that really made the events. He believed that their event management plan allowed them to hold events while promoting the licensing objectives. Key aspects of the plan were limited number of annual screenings, the time limit within which events would take place and the restriction on the number of people within the arena at any one time. All seats were sold in advance, so the number of people to attend was known. He noted that representations had objected to the clash between Luna’s planned event of the 28-30^th September with a Royal Crescent Society event on 29^th September. However, the bid for 28-30^th September had been submitted in January and agreed with the Council’s Events Team. It was not until March that the Royal Crescent Society’s event had been proposed. He hoped that the two events would be permitted to overlap. He submitted that there was no detail in the representations that indicated that Luna would not be able to promote the licensing objectives. He accepted that the amendments to the operating schedule proposed by the Police and Environmental Protection were correct and proper, and should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.