Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer drew attention to the Emergency Evacuation Procedure.

Councillor Sally Davis was present for the duration of the meeting as a substitute for Councillor Karen Warrington.

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

(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 4.4 Appendix 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 Officer or a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

Councillor Rob Appleyard declared an other interest in respect of Agenda Item 11 ‘Application for a Variation of a Premises Licence for: The Rising Sun’. He explained that he had received correspondence from one of the parties objecting to the application and had notified the Legal and Licensing teams on receipt.

He added that no further engagement took place and that the correspondence would have no impact on the decision that he would make today.

There was none.

The Sub-Committee RESOLVED to approve the minutes for the meetings held on 11^th August 2022, 25^th August 2022 and 8^th September 2022 and they were duly signed by the Chairman.

The Chair will, if required, explain the relevant licensing procedure.

The Chairman referenced the procedures for each of the applications before the Sub-Committee and stated that all parties would be given an equal opportunity to make their representations.

The Sub-Committee is asked to consider passing the following resolution:

“the Sub-Committee having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, RESOLVES that the public shall be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business and the reporting of the meeting be prevented under Section 100A(5A), because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.   

The members of the Sub-Committee agreed that they were satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

It was RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business and the reporting of the meeting be prevented under Section 100A(5A), because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.

The Lead Officer, Licensing introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He explained that they were being asked to determine an application for the grant of a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence.

He stated that as part of the standard licencing procedure the Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) was requested to carry out a check of the applicant’s background. The results of the DBS check were received in September 2022 and disclosed previous convictions.

The Lead Officer, Licensing handed out copies of the Disclosure and Barring Service Certificate as well as the applicant’s written statement to the Members for them to read.

The Sub-Committee adjourned for a short period of time to allow the Members to read the information contained within the DBS Certificate and the statement.

When they reconvened, the Sub-Committee asked the applicant a number of questions and he responded accordingly.

The Chairman asked the applicant if he felt he had given the Sub-Committee as much information regarding the application as he could.

The applicant replied that he had.

Decision and Reasons

Members have had to determine an application for a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence where the DBS results revealed two previous convictions. In doing so they took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council’s Policy.

The applicant made written representations in which he indicated that he could not remember the details of his conviction from 1988. In relation to his conviction from 2005 he explained that he immediately admitted the offending to the complainant when it was identified; he admitted the offences to the police and pleaded guilty at court. He served his sentence and repaid the funds to the complainant.

Members took account of the applicant’s oral representations and his written statement and balanced these against the information contained in the Disclosure and Barring Service Certificate.

Members noted that the applicant had remained conviction free for well in excess of the period expected in the policy.

In all the circumstances Members find the applicant to be a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given the time he had remained conviction free and the genuine remorse that he showed for the historic conduct that led to his latest conviction.

Authority is delegated to the licencing officer to issue the licence subject to the applicant completing all steps required by the licencing process.

The Public Protection Officer, Licensing introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He explained that an application has been received from Mehmet Yilmaz, Operator of Jimmy’s Kebab mobile food van to vary the Street Trading Consent times for Jimmy’s Kebab, Pitch 24, Terrace Walk, Bath, from finishing at 03:00hrs to finishing at 03:30hrs every day (to trade 30 minutes later).

He stated that the times applied for are: 20:30hrs to 03:30hrs every day (to trade 30 minutes later. The start time is unaltered).

He informed the Sub-Committee that an objection had been received from The Abbey Hotel and that it is alleged that:

The Abbey Hotel already suffers disturbances coming from Jimmy’s Kebab and that guests staying at the Abbey Hotel will be further impacted by the additional 30 minutes trading time.

The applicant’s solicitor explained why the variation was being sought. He and the applicant were both asked questions by the Sub-Committee and both responded accordingly.

The solicitor on behalf of the objectors stated their case for why the application should be refused. He was asked questions by the Sub-Committee and responded accordingly.

The Chairman asked both parties to make their closing submissions.

Following this, he asked them if they felt they had given all the evidence necessary for their respective arguments.

Both parties agreed that they had.

Decision and Reasons

Members have had to determine an application to vary a Street Trading consent at Pitch 24, Terrace Walk, Bath, to increase the hours of operation by half an hour at the end of each day.  In determining the application, Members had regard to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, Council Policy and Human Rights Act 1998.

Angus McWilliams, solicitor, addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the applicant. He submitted that there is no evidence to support the fact that the noise and disturbance was originating from Jimmy’s Kebabs particularly as there are nightclubs and a taxi rank in the vicinity. He indicated to members that the extension as sought would allow an extra 30 minutes to prepare for closing, serve the last few customers and for his client to set himself up to close at the proper time, this would also allow his client to meet a demand. The applicant indicated that he had employed extra staff in order to serve customers quickly and manage noise.

Mr McWilliams submitted that the photographs provided by the objector’s solicitors were not time stamped and, in any event, this was not the proper forum to deal with an alleged breach of the street trading consent. On questioning it was accepted that the photographs were timed and dated as indicated, as the objector had brought the camera with him to prove this.  He also submitted that the fact the application had come before the Sub-Committee in July was irrelevant.

There was a written representation from The Abbey Hotel. It was submitted that the hotel already suffers disturbances coming from this pitch and guests staying at the hotel will be further impacted by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

The Chairman addressed all who were present and explained that the Sub-Committee were solely hearing this application to vary the layout and design of the premises in accordance with the submitted plan. He said that the changes consist of permitting the use of an external bar at the rear of the premises.

The Public Protection Officer, Licensing introduced the report to the Sub-Committee.  In addition to the outline of the application from the Chairman he highlighted the following areas from within the report.

·  The internal licensable area of the premises is to remain unchanged from its current permission.

·  The locations of fire safety and other safety equipment subject to change in accordance with the requirements of the responsible authorities or following a risk assessment.

·  Any detail shown on the plan that is not required by the licensing plans regulations is indicative only and subject to change at any time.

·  All other hours, activities and conditions currently permitted by the premises are to remain unchanged by this application.

The Chairman asked the Public Protection Officer if the external bar area was already in operation and if so, had any complaints relating to its use been received.

The Public Protection Officer replied that the external bar area had been in use for a number of years and that no complaints had been received regarding it by either Licensing, Environmental Health or the Police.

The applicant’s solicitor, Ewan Macgregor addressed the Sub-Committee. He stated that the applicant purchased the premises in 2019 and were now taking the appropriate steps to formalise the use of the external bar.

He reminded those present that regardless of the decision made today that customers will remain allowed to consume alcohol in the garden area. He added that the external bar would not be open all day every day, but when it was in use it would be staffed at all times.

He asked the Sub-Committee to note that no representations have been received from any of the Responsible Authorities.

He explained that external bars had become more popular since the pandemic and that its use would assist with customer flow on the premises.

The Chairman asked for confirmation that drinks purchased inside the premises could be consumed in the outside area. He also asked if the external bar would be staffed at all times.

Ewan Macgregor replied that there would be staff in place at all times whilst the bar was in use and that there would also be CCTV in operation. He added that staff would still supervise the outside area even when the bar was not in use.

The objectors to the application that were present took it in turns to address the Sub-Committee.

Paul Baxter stated that he believed that a licence to use the outdoor area did not truly exist and said that when it has been in use the noise levels of the music have been far too high.

He added that residents are concerned with regard to future activity as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.