Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer advised the meeting of the procedure.

There were none.

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.

These were approved as a correct record.

The Chairman explained the procedure to be followed for the meeting.

The Chairman addressed those present and asked for their agreement to take statements, comments and questions as part of a rolled-up hearing for the two applications.

The representatives present from both parties agreed with this proposal.

The Lead Licensing Officer outlined the applications to the Sub-Committee.

He explained that two representations of objection had been received within the statutory period from “other persons”, namely Mrs Judith Rutherford, on behalf of the committee of the Empire Residents’ Association, in her capacity as

secretary of the Empire Owners’ Association and also as an individual with her husband; and Professor Stan Kolaczkowski, Chair of the Empire Owners’ Association. The representations express concern that the applicant’s proposals will undermine the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective.

The applicant addressed the Sub-Committee regarding their applications and was questioned by them and the interested parties present.

The interested parties addressed the Sub-Committee regarding their objections to the applications and were questioned by them and the applicant.

The Chairman announced that no representations had been made by any of the Responsible Authorities.

Decision and Reasons

Given the nature of the applications all parties agreed the matters should be dealt with as a rolled-up hearing for the two applications. Members have therefore determined applications for two new Premises Licences at Garfunkel’s from TRG Limited and in doing so have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Policy, Human Rights Act 1998 and case law.

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of evidence and must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives on the information before them. Members reminded themselves that each of the applications must be considered on their own merits.

The applicant stated pre Covid there were 2 licences in existence at these premises; the Garfunkel’s licence and the Brunning and Price licence. Due to an administrative error arising out of a CVA in June 2020 and global pandemic these licences lapsed. As soon as this was realised two new applications were made replicating the lapsed licences. In short the Garfunkels’ licence had operated under a transferred justices’ licence for many years with infrequent disturbance. Whilst there was a documented incident on 5 April 2019 this was an isolated incident and had been dealt with. In any event, and as part of the applicant process, there was consultation with Responsible Authorities, Interested Parties and it is notable that there have been no representations from the Responsible Authorities.

In terms of the licenses neither had had a condition on capacity and in terms of the Brunning and Price licence this had never been operated and at the time of its grant there was no evidence to suggest it would cause a problem in terms of capacity. In any event if the Interested Parties had had an issue the proper process would have been to appeal the Licensing Sub Committee’s decision.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.