Agenda item

The Chair, Councillor Ansell made introductions and outlined the procedure to be followed and enquired whether there were any preliminary matters.

Prior to commencement of the consideration of the Variation Premises Licence Application, the Legal Advisor invited Members to hear from the Premises Licence Holder concerning the representation by Ian Gaffron in reference to regulation 25 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises Licence and Club Premises Certificates) Regulations 2005 had not been met. Ian Gaffron stated that the Premises Licence Holder had displayed a notice at the premises that was not off a size equal or larger than A4, was not of a pale blue colour and was not printed in a font of a size equal to or larger than 16 point size.

The Chair invited Siobhan Marden, on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder to make representations to the Committee. Siobhan Marden made the following representations on this issue:

1.    The Premises Licence Holder were not aware of the specific requirements of regulation 25 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises Licence and Club Premises Certificates) Regulations 2005;

2.    Licensing Services did not explicitly tell the Premises Licence Holder what she would have to do in order to comply with regulation 25 of the aforementioned Act; and

3.    If there was a lack of compliance, then it was not intentional and was not intended to deceive any person.

Members received legal advice from the Legal Advisor as follows:

1.    Regulation 25 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises Licence and Club Premises Certificates) Regulations 2005 was specific in its requirements for the notice to be displayed at the premises by the Premises Licence Holder.

2.    Whether the non-compliance with the aforementioned regulation is fatal to the variation application by the Premises Licence Holder is a matter of discretion for the Members.

3.    The Members should, if they find that there is material non-compliance with regulation 25 of the aforementioned act, turn their minds to the question of whether any person who might be affected by the variation application has been caused any prejudice. The Members should not fetter their discretion on this issue.

4.    If the Members find that there has been prejudice caused as aforementioned then they must treat the variation application as being not properly made.

5.    If the Members believe that no prejudice has been caused to any person then they must hold a hearing to decide the variation application.

The Sub-Committee and the Legal Advisor then retired at 11:09 a.m. to consider the application in closed session.

The Sub-Committee and the Legal Advisor returned at 11:46 a.m. to announce its decision.

The Legal Advisor, on behalf of the Chair announced that the Sub-Committee was satisfied that there had been material non-compliance with the requirements of regulation 25, no prejudice has been caused to any persons who might be affected by the variation application. The following was noted:

1.    Members noted that one person had made representations and therefore it was reasonable to believe that other local residents would have been able to make representations if they had chosen to do so.

2.    In the circumstances, Members consider that the variation application was properly made as no person who may have been affected by the variation was caused prejudice solely by the size and colour of the paper advertisement itself and the font size used in it.

3.    The advertisement clearly informed any reader that the Premises Licence Holder wanted to extend the hours of use of the Premises on Saturday and Sunday night.