Agenda item

Applicant: Equestrian Theatre Ltd, represented by Neville Wilson

Responsible Authority: Avon and Somerset Police, represented by Paul Kendall (Police Licensing Officer)

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report.

Mr Wilson stated the case for the applicant. He said that the applicant had organised this kind of show on many occasions in the UK, including in most of the London Boroughs. It was not a “booze-up”, but an entertainment for families. Parents would be able to go to the designated area and purchase an alcoholic drink before the show and during the interval, just as in a theatre bar. Only holders of a ticket for the performance would have access to the bar, which would be located in the foyer, where a variety of other items would also be for sale.

The Chair asked what would be available in the bar. Mr Wilson said there would be no draught beer, but bottled beers, wines and spirits.

Mr Kendall stated the case for the Police. He said that in the view of the Police the conditions in the operating schedule were not specific enough to be enforced. The police had therefore proposed conditions addressing each of the four licensing objectives, as set out on pages 62-63 of the agenda. Discussions had been held with the applicant, who had agreed to accept these conditions.

In response to a question from the Chair Mr Wilson confirmed that the applicant was willing to accept the conditions proposed by the Police.

A Member asked Mr Wilson whether staff training records would be actually kept at the premises, as one of the Police conditions would require. Mr Wilson replied that this is done as a matter of course and there is no problem about it, because staff are employees of the applicant and not casuals.

The Senior Public Protection Officer suggested that part of the condition proposed by the Police that “... the DPS will ensure that all staff are trained in implementing ‘Challenge 25’ was otiose because there is already a mandatory condition to this effect. The Chair responded that the Sub-Committee would consider this during the adjournment.

Neither party wished to sum up.

Following an adjournment, the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application, subject to the conditions detailed below. Authority was delegated to the Public Protection Officer to issue the licence.

Full Decision and Reasons

Members have had to determine an application for a new Premises Licence for Spirit of the Horse, Big Tops, Front Triangle, Bath Racecourse, Lansdown, Bath, BA1 9BU. 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

Mr Wilson on behalf of the applicant addressed members and indicated that the Spirit of the Horse is about the theatre rather than the consumption of alcohol.

The Applicant confirmed in writing (Annex D to the report to Committee) and Mr Wilson confirmed verbally that they agreed to all of the measures recommended by the Police in their written representations regarding the proposed Premises Licence.

The Interested Parties

There were no objections from interested parties.

Responsible Authorities

A representation had been received from the Police expressing concern that although the event itself is relatively low risk the applicant’s proposals failed to adequately promote all four of the licensing objectives due to the steps offered in the  application form being ambiguous, non-specific and in the police’s view, unenforceable. Consequently, the police recommended additional measures to mitigate those concerns and those were set out in Annex C to the report. The Police confirmed by e-mail that they were proposing a Challenge 25 policy for the avoidance of any doubt and 2 SIA trained security staff.

In oral submissions to the Committee, Mr Kendall (Police Licensing Officer) on behalf of Mr Cannon confirmed the measures that they had already set out in writing.

Members

In reaching their decision Members noted that in relation to paragraph 9.42 of the Statutory Guidance their determination should be evidence-based, justified as being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and proportionate to what is intended to be achieved.

Members carefully considered the representations made on behalf of the Applicant and the Police.

Members noted the Applicant had agreed in writing (Annex D to the report) and verbally to all the measures proposed by the Police (Annex C to the report) in the promotion of all four of the licensing objectives, albeit there was some overlap in what was suggested by the police, what was offered by the applicant in their operating schedules and what would be a mandatory condition if the licence is granted.

Members considered that any effect of the Premises Licence on the licensing objectives would be addressed by the conditions consistent with the proposed operating schedule and the additional conditions proposed by the Police (as clarified in relation to 2 SIA trained security staff and the challenge 25 policy) which members found to be appropriate and proportionate.

Accordingly, members resolved to approve the application subject to the mandatory conditions, conditions consistent with the operating schedule and conditions proposed by the Police across which there should be no duplication and with the mandatory conditions taking precedence.

Authority was delegated to the Public Protection Officer to issue the licence.