LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Sub-Committee held on 25 April 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am. Sub-Committee Mr J A Wyatt (Chairman) Mr P W High Mr B Smith Members in Attendance: Mr R Price, Mr B Jarvis (Local Member) (for item 6) Officers in Attendance: The Legal Advisor, the Licensing Manager, the Licensing Administrators, the Assistant Licensing Administrator, the Environmental Team Leader (for item 6), and the Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH) Also in Attendance: The Applicant (for item 5) The Applicant, Supporters and Objectors (for item 6) Mr T Grover, Licensing Officer, Norfolk Constabulary (for item 6) The Press and Public (for item 6) 1 APOLOGIES None received. 2 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS None received. 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None 4 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC RESOLVED That under S100 A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for Agenda Item No 4 on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (a) of the Act. 5 APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK The Applicant was present. The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers. The Legal Advisor outlined the procedure for the Hearing. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would withdraw to make a decision. She would accompany them to assist them to formulate their reasons but would not take part in the making of the decision. The Applicant needed to satisfy the Sub Committee that he was a fit and proper person to drive a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle in North Norfolk.

2 APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK The Licensing Manager outlined the application. The Applicant had been offered employment if his application was successful. A valid application had been received but there were items on the Applicant s CRB check which merited further consideration, although he had stated on his application form that he had no previous convictions. A letter of support had been received from the Applicant s former wife. The CRB and letter of support were presented to the Sub Committee for perusal. The Applicant put his case. He informed the Committee of the nature and specific circumstances of the offences, for which he had made reparation. He expressed regret and said that the offences had occurred following a relationship breakup. Because the offences had occurred some years before he had considered them to be spent and had not realised that he should refer to them on the application form. The Applicant had been licensed as a taxi driver with another authority and told Members that he had enjoyed this work and had been successful in it. The Legal Advisor explained the determination process; to grant a licence, Members must be satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi in North Norfolk. a) Members would need to consider the Applicant s CRB and letter of support, the seriousness and relevance of the offences to driving a taxi, the length of time since the offences were committed and the penalties imposed. b) They must consider what the Applicant said in regard to the offences and to himself. c) They must balance the right of the Applicant to earn a living with the right of the public to be safe. The Panel retired at am to make a decision and returned at am. The Chairman told the Applicant that having considered relevant written and oral evidence before it, including a letter from the Applicant s ex-wife and information he had provided, the Sub-Committee recognised that he had a number of matters on his CRB disclosure, but that they were from a long time ago. The Sub-Committee found that the Applicant had spoken openly and honestly about his past circumstances and about how his life was now settled. He had expressed regret of his past conduct which he had explained as a dark period of his life. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that on balance he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi. RESOLVED To grant the licence.

3 6 APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE HICKLING BARN, TATE The following were present: Mr N Butcher (on behalf of the Applicant) In support of the Application Ms B Davison Mr R Frye and Mrs N Frye Ms M Prettyman Mr D Pugh and Mrs Y Pugh Mr B Sainsbury and Mrs S Sainsbury Mrs A Skinner Mr D Skinner Mrs D Slatter Mr J Tallowin and Mrs V Tallowin Mr and Mrs T Woodman Objectors to the Application Mrs M Hearne Mr S Mann Mrs D Scott Mr S Williamson and Mrs S Williamson Observers Mr P Barrie A L Bishop Mr B Butcher M Deane Ms E Edwards Mr P Hearne Mr M J Hodgson Mrs P Jarvis H G Purnell Ms L West The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers. The Legal Advisor confirmed the names of those present and outlined the procedure for the Hearing. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would withdraw to make a decision. She would accompany them to provide legal advice and to assist them to formulate their reasons but would not take part in the making of the decision. The Legal Advisor asked if there were any preliminary matters to be addressed. Mr S Mann, speaking in a personal capacity, raised the following issues: a) The application had been made in the name of the management committee of a charity. Mr Mann had concerns that under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Charities Act 1993 this could render the application invalid. b) The trustees included 2 people who were employed as officers by North Norfolk District Council. Mr Mann considered that this precluded a Sub-Committee of the Council from hearing the application on grounds of bias. He believed that the matter should be heard by the Full Council and stated that he would make a

4 complaint to the Standards Committee in respect of all three Members of the Sub-Committee if the Sub-Committee heard the application. Mr Mann produced some documents in support of his concerns. They included a previous case from another council and some articles from legal publications. The Applicant s solicitor was given the opportunity to make a response. He told the Sub-Committee that he hadn t had sight of Mr Mann s documents but wished to make the following observations: a) The application was in order. Hickling Barn was a registered charity whose deed of administration had been approved by the Charity Commission. b) It was not reasonable to assume bias because 2 of the trustees were employees of the Council. Mr Mann s concern would not be solved if the application went to Full Council because it would still apply. There was no provision in the Licensing Act to transfer cases to another authority. Mr Mann had the safeguard of a right to appeal. The Legal Advisor confirmed that under the Licensing Act applications from a charity were admissible. On the subject of bias she quoted the precedent of Porter v Magill and the test applied: whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. The Council operated a number of regulatory regimes. Inevitably, whether it was planning, licensing, food safety etc there were times where the applicant for a licence was an employee or an elected Member. Due to the number of Members and employees this was not an infrequent occurrence. There were also cases where NNDC was the applicant. In these circumstances it was usually referred to committee to be determined by Members. The application before the Sub- Committee was not from a Member or an employee of the Council. The Sub-Committee retired at am to consider the preliminary matters and returned at pm. The Chairman asked the Applicant s Solicitor if there was anything he wanted to say now that he d had sight of Mr Mann s documents. The Applicant s Solicitor considered that the cases referred to in Mr Mann s documents were not relevant to the application before the Sub-Committee. Mr Mann disagreed with this view. Having heard from the Applicant s Solicitor, the Sub-Committee retired at pm to further consider the preliminary matters and returned at pm. The Sub-Committee had considered the points raised and the documents provided. The Chairman said that the Sub-Committee found that the application was valid and on this point there was no reason to prevent the Sub-Committee hearing the matter. The Chairman said that the Sub-Committee came here today with an open mind and no preconceptions. Each case depended on its facts. Looking at these facts, neither an elected Member, nor a Council employee was making the application and the Applicant was a charity. The Chairman said the Sub-Committee did not find that a reasonable observer would consider there to be a real possibility of bias and added that the Sub-Committee should discharge their duties by hearing the application. Ms Prettyman, Vice Chair of the Management Committee, was given leave to speak in support of the application at this point because she had another commitment that

5 afternoon. She told the Sub-Committee that Hickling Barn needed a licence so that all the services identified by a village survey could be provided and the project could reach its full potential. The aim of the Management Committee was to promote good community cohesion and well-being. The type of events to be held were to be a male voice choir, barn dance, ruby weddings and christenings not raves. There was no intention of having inappropriate events at the Barn. The members of the Management Committee lived in the village and wanted the Barn to be a positive place. The community s Jubilee Celebrations would be compromised if a licence was not granted. With regard to good management of the premises Ms Prettyman was paying for herself to go on a licence training course on 15 May 2012 and was personally ensuring that the Barn did not cause noise nuisance to neighbours. Mr Mann asked Ms Prettyman if any members of the Management Committee had done licensing training. She told him that they hadn t, and that it wasn t obligatory. She reminded him that she was undertaking such a course herself. The 2 public houses in Hickling supported the application and would be promoted as providers of alcohol to the Barn. The Management Committee had the responsibility to vet any other providers with due diligence. In response to a further question from Mr Mann, Ms Prettyman said that hirers of the hall had to respect the terms of the licence and put down a deposit of 500. However the Management Committee had the overarching responsibility for managing the licence. Mr Mann asked a further question of Ms Prettyman and started to read out a section from the hiring documentation. The Legal Advisor reminded Mr Mann that crossexamination was not permitted at the Hearing and that he would have an opportunity to put his case later in the proceedings. Mr Mann continued to ask questions of Ms Prettyman. In response to questions about potential danger to children and access to emergency vehicles Ms Prettyman explained that it had been placed close to the building so that children could be supervised by their parents during functions. There were 30 spaces in the car park. The Hearing was adjourned for lunch at pm and reconvened at pm. The Chairman reminded participants that they were not in a court of law and that rigorous cross-examination was not permitted. The Licensing Manager presented the report. The bundle provided to the Sub- Committee and all interested parties contained the application and all correspondence for and against. Only certain parts of certain letters related to the Licensing Objectives. Since the consultation period had closed 3 further representations had been received but had been deemed out of time. One of the objectors, Mrs Myhill, had withdrawn her objection on 17 April When the application was originally received the Licensing Manager had asked for clarification regarding the membership of the Management Committee. This had been received on 16 April Changes had been made to the Board of Trustees. This included Ms Prettyman who had addressed the Sub-Committee as a trustee. The correspondence from her in the bundle was as a resident. With reference to a concern expressed by Mr Mann about information on the Applicant s website, the

6 Licensing Manager said that it was the same information that had been submitted to him, but in a different format. The Applicant s Solicitor put the case of the Applicant. He said that the application was the culmination of a very ambitious project. The licence was needed if the project was to reach its full potential. The project had been very well managed and the package of conditions should be acceptable as furthering the Licensing Objectives. He also added that, as a corollary to the application there was an application to disapply the Designated Premises Supervisor. The Legal Advisor asked the Applicant s Solicitor to confirm that both the application for a premises licence and the disapplication were from the Management Committee of the Hickling Playing Field and Recreation Ground Charity. The Solicitor, for the Applicant, confirmed it could proceed on that basis. He drew the attention of the Sub-Committee to a plan of the Barn. It included an outer lobby which would prevent noise. Windows were shuttered and double-glazed for the same purpose. There was no bar and the Management Committee had never sought to establish a facility with a permanent bar. One of the conditions was that no alcohol should be stored overnight unless it was a barrel left to settle on the night before a function. The licensees of both public houses in the village supported the application and would be promoted as suppliers of alcohol. They both held personal licences. There was provision for an overflow car park which would be used to a minimum. A substantial proportion of people were likely to walk to the venue. Parking was a planning matter and planning permission had been long since granted. The operating schedule did not include Boxing or Wrestling. The hours being sought were common to all activities: am to midnight (Sunday to Thursday) am to 2.00 am (Friday, Saturday and special occasions.) There was no intention of the premises being open on a 24.7 basis. The Applicant s Solicitor went through the application and referred the Sub- Committee to the hire-agreement. He said that there had been no concerns regarding the application from other statutory consultees, except one from Environmental Protection which had now been rectified. The Applicant had also amended the Booking Conditions after consultation with the Police Licensing Officer who told the Sub-Committee that he was satisfied and that the hall had presented no problems to the police. The Sub-Committee heard from Mrs Pugh, Mrs Davison and Mrs Slatter. They spoke of the beneficial effect that events at Hickling Barn were having on the local community. Mr Woodman (the landlord of the Greyhound Inn, Hickling) said that he fully supported the application and had heard no complaints whatsoever about noise. It also heard from Mrs Clarke, Chair of Hickling Parish Council, and Mr Mann, and from Mr Grover and the Environmental Protection Team Leader. Mrs Clarke expressed concern that some of the submissions in the bundle were from people not resident in the village.

7 Mr Mann expressed concerns about access to emergency vehicles although these were countered by Mrs Slatter. He was also concerned about noise levels but the Environmental Protection Team Leader was satisfied with the arrangements in place and had carried out a noise assessment in response to complaints received. Mr Mann also expressed concerns about risks to children on the playground, of a potential for drinking and driving, of people walking in the road being knocked down, and of people falling in the Broad. He also read a letter from Mr and Mrs Lambard. Closing statements were made: Mrs Clarke said she wanted to assist the village in reconciliation and thought the licence should go ahead with restrictions. Mr Mann said he did not think it was a fair application and that he did not think that the objectors had a fair crack of the whip. He requested that no licence be granted until litigation in the community ended. The Legal Advisor asked if there was any objector, or anyone else, who wanted to say anything. One objector indicated that he did and was permitted to speak. The Applicant s Solicitor said he regretted that challenges had been made to the integrity of the Sub-Committee which he considered was without foundation. The Legal Advisor advised the Members to consider the application in regard to the oral and written evidence and relevant representations and to make a decision with regard to the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, looking at this case on its own merit. Waiting until litigation ended was not a course of action open to them. They must make a determination on the Licensing Objectives. The Chairman gave the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee: We have listened to the representative for the Applicant, the Licensing Manager and some persons here, being objectors to the application and those in support. We have also considered the relevant representations in the bundle of documents and disregarded any comments which do not assist us with considering the likely effect of grant of the premises licence on the Licensing Objectives. In coming to our decision we have considered the evidence, the guidance under the Licensing Act, North Norfolk District Council Licensing Policy and the Human Rights Act. The Applicant is asking for a Premises licence and for the Designated Premises Supervisor condition to be disapplied thereby making the Management Committee responsible for the supervision and authorisation of the sale of alcohol. We are granting the licence with the hours detailed on the application but we do impose some conditions where necessary. Having looked at the paperwork including the hiring agreement, and having heard in person today from Mrs Prettyman we are satisfied that the structure in place to promote the Licensing Objectives is well thought out and consideration has been given to the community in general. However, in circumstances where the premises is hired out to we consider that a further condition should be added, being a necessary and proportionate condition for the prevention of public nuisance, namely that

8 A named member of the management committee or a nominated representative shall receive and respond to any complaint throughout the duration of any event taking place under a hire agreement. We also attach the conditions outlined during the hearing which we consider necessary and proportionate to promote the prevention of public nuisance: 1. All external doors and windows must be shut during an event after 9.00 pm. 2. External music must not continue beyond 9.00 pm 3. Prominent clear notices shall be displayed at all exits requesting customers to respect the needs of local residents and leave the premises and the area quietly Much of the representations relate to what people fear or believe may be the likely effects of the grant of the licence to be. Phrases such as may encourage events with unpredictable potential for crime and disorder ; there is bound to be crime and disorder ; may lead to issues of noise and drink driving and likely to cause were to be found in the written representations. However, we do not find any clear evidence to support fears that there will be an increase in drink driving or disorderly behaviour as a result of grant. The Sub-Committee considered it relevant that, at the time of the Hearing, there had been no objections to the application from Norfolk Constabulary, Norfolk Fire Service, Norfolk Trading Standards, Norfolk Children s Safeguarding Board and North Norfolk District Council s Health and Safety Department. We do not find it necessary to add any conditions relating to crime and disorder. Similarly we have no evidence making it necessary to impose conditions relating to public safety or the protection of children from harm. We grant the licence with conditions as stated and also grant the application to disapply the condition to have a Designated Premises Supervisor. There was a right of appeal within 21 days to the Magistrates Court. The Sub- Committee informed those present that full written reasons for the decision will be sent within 5 working days. The Chairman thanked everyone for attending. The meeting concluded at 6.10 pm. Chairman