Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Nominations for a Chairman of the Licensing Sub-Committee were sought and it was

Resolved:

To elect Councillor Desna Allen as Chairman for this meeting only.

To consider and determine an Application for a Premises Licence by Mrs Tammantha Davis in respect of 5a Church Street, Trowbridge.

Application by Mrs Tammatha Newberry for a Premises Licence at 5a Church Street, Trowbridge

The Licensing Officer introduced the purpose and scope of the application, the premises to which it related and the key issues for consideration.

In accordance with the procedure detailed in the agenda, the Applicant, the Responsible Authorities and the Interested Parties were given the opportunity to address the Sub-Committee.

Key points raised by the Applicant were:

·               The provision of live and recorded music was to be a key part of the appeal of the new business.

·               The previous licence holder for the building had never received complaints regarding noise.

Key points raised by the Responsible Authorities Jacqueline Gallimore(Wiltshire Police) and Richard Francis (Senior Environmental Health Officer), were:

·               The police had concerns regarding the applicant’s failure to promote the licensing objectives, with instances of non-compliance.

·               Following consultation by the police with the applicant, proposed opening hours had been reduced not to extend past 0300 on any night, mitigating the concerns of Wiltshire Police in that area.

·               Conditions had been agreed in principle by the police with the applicant regarding CCTV, door supervision, staff training, the creation of a written drugs policy and incident record. A list of these proposed conditions was provided to the Sub-Committee. The imposition of these conditions on the premises licence would address the concerns of the police

·               There is a duty to protect the amenity of neighbouring residential properties from public nuisance.

·               Mr. Francis stated that the premises did not seem to be suitable for preventing the break-out of music

·               There had been no report from an acoustic engineer on the property, leading to uncertainty as to the impact of late night music on the very close neighbouring properties. In response to the Chair, the applicant stated they were prepared to commission such a report. It was noted that the applicant had offered to install a noise limiter, but Mr Francis stated there had been concerns this would have been counter-productive and a detriment to the applicant’s business.

·               The applicant has a history of non-compliance with the Environmental Health Team and the Sub-Committee should take account of this.

Members of the Sub-Committee sought clarity on a number of points:

·               Whether challenges of proof of age be recorded.

·               Whether the Think21 or Think25 schemes should be condition to be used. It was clarified that there has been no evidence of difficulty involving children, so a restriction on under 18s after 2100 should be sufficient.

·               How many people would be permitted to congregate within the porch area to smoke when door supervisors are present, and if this restriction was enforceable. It was clarified that a maximum of ten persons permitted outside to smoke was suggested, and it would be the responsibility of the Designated Premises Supervisor and staff to ensure this.

·               Whether a condition on capacity was necessary. It was clarified that a risk assessment to determine appropriate capacity had not yet been conducted.

·               Whether door staff would be required at all times. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.