To consider the attached application for a Premises Licence.
The three Councillors that presided over this application were Cllr L Mead (Chairman), Cllr I Hadley and Cllr S Heather. In attendance for the application were Mr U Hussain (Applicant) and Mr J Legge (Applicant’s Agent). In attendance for the Environmental Health Team were L Coveney and N Glasscock. The following residents who had objected to the application were in attendance:
· Mrs L Mason;
· Mr J Morgan;
· MrR Ellis;
· Mr G Cootes;
· Mrs J Cootes;
· Mrs K Wilson;
· Mr D Wilson;
· Ms P Stone;
· Ms J Eves;
· Ms R Mitchell;
· Mr A Hotenpow;
· Mr B Goode; and
· Mr Harris.
Also in attendance was the ward Councillor Cllr C McCann, representing a further three residents.
The Licensing Team Manager, D King, introduced the application for a premises licence at Bliss Heights, 149 London Road in Abridge. The application was for the provision of Lice Music, Recorded Music, Late Night Refreshment and anything of a similar nature to Live Music, Recorded Music and Performance of Dance between the hours of 12.00pm to 11.00pm on Mondays to Wednesdays, 10.00am to 11.00pm on Thursdays and Sundays, and 9.00am to 12.00am on Fridays and Saturdays. The opening hours of the premises was requested to be 9.00am to 11.00pm on Mondays to Thursdays, 9.00am to 2.00am on Fridays and Saturdays, and 10.00am to 11.00pm on Sundays.
D King reported that a considerable number of representations had been received in relation to this application, including from the Council’s Community Resilience and Environmental Health Teams, Lambourne Parish Council and 71 local residents. Three responses from statutory consultees had also been received but none had any comments to make.
The Applicant’s Agent made a statement in support of the application and addressed the two primary issues arising from the objections: noise disturbance and road safety in the vicinity of the premises. It was highlighted that an alcohol licence was not being applied for and if alcohol was requested for an event then a Temporary Event Notice would be applied for. It was emphasised that the applicant would be providing a specialised service and had successfully developed similar premises elsewhere. The Sub-Committee and the Objectors then asked a number of questions regarding the application.
The Environmental Health Officers referred the Sub-Committee to their representation, including a number of suggested conditions for the premises. Cllr C McCann made a representation on behalf of the three local residents that he was representing, followed by representations from a number of the objectors in attendance, which highlighted the potential noise and traffic issues. There were no questions for the objectors in attendance from either the Sub-Committee or the applicant.
Cllr C McCann made a closing statement on behalf of the objectors, followed by the applicant’s agent on behalf of the application. The Sub-Committee retired to consider the case accompanied by the Team Manager for Democratic & Electoral Services and the Council’s Solicitor. No issues of law or policy arose during the Sub-Committee’s deliberations, and therefore the Officers were not required to offer advice. The Sub-Committee considered the representations that had been made in relation to the application, the four licensing objectives, the relevant sections of the Council’s Licensing Policy, and Government guidance.
The Sub-Committee returned to inform the participants of its decision, and all participants were reminded of their right of appeal to a Magistrates Court within 21 days of this decision.
(1) That the application for a Premises Licence for Bliss Heights at 140 London Road in Abridge be refused for the following reasons:
(a) the applicant had failed to demonstrate how public safety would be maintained on the site;
(b) the applicant had failed to demonstrate how highway safety would be maintained when entering and exiting the site for events;
(c) insufficient information had been provided of the mitigation measures for the prevention of public nuisance to residents in relation to noise disturbance; and
(d) insufficient information had been provided of the measures to ensure the protection of children from harm.