Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Licensing Sub Committee (ceased to operate 10/04/2017) Minutes

Date:
Tuesday, 10th February, 2015
Time:
10.00 a.m.
Place:
Council Chamber, Town Hall, High Street, Stockton on Tees
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Cllr Paul Kirton(Chair), Cllr Bill Woodhead, Cllr Kathryn Nelson
Officers:
P Edwards, C Snowdon(PH), J Nertney(LD)
In Attendance:
Mrs Eggleston(Designated Premises Supervisor), Mr Harvard, Solicitor(Representing Mrs Eggleston)
Item Description Decision
Public
LSC
55/14
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
RESOLVED that Councillor Kirton be appointed Chair for this meeting only.
LSC
56/14
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
 
LSC
57/14
LOTUS LOUNGE, FAIRFAX COURT, 32 - 34 HIGH STREET, YARM - APPLICATION FOR THE VARIATION OF A PREMISE LICENCE UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003
RESOLVED that the Application to vary be granted with conditions to address the potential for noise nuisance as detailed above.

Preamble

ItemPreamble
LSC
56/14
There were no declarations of interest.
LSC
57/14
Members were required to determine what action to take in relation to an application for variation of a premise licence under the Licensing Act 2003 to which there had been representations from an interested party.

An application for variation had been received from Hide Bar Limited in relation to the Lotus Lounge, Fairfax Court, 32 - 34 High Street, Yarm.

The proposed variation was to:

- extend the terminal hour for late night refreshment from 2400 hours to 0100 hours.

- extend the external licensed area on the first floor for use as a smoking area and occasional use for a trolley or portable bar. It was noted that the applicant had confirmed in writing that they wished to withdraw the part of the application relating to the use of a trolley or portable bar on the first floor.

One representation had been received from an interested party who occupied a flat at Mill Wynd which was within the vicinity of the premise. The interested party was not in attendance at the meeting however the Committee had regard to the written representation that had been received in relation to the application. Members noted that the resident lived relatively close to the premise.

Environmental Health had not submitted a representation but was in attendance to assist the Applicant and the Committee.

The Designated Premises Supervisor, Mrs Eggleston and the Applicants Solicitor, Mr Harvard were in attendance at the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation.

The Committee gave consideration to the report, the application and the representation which had been received.

The Applicants Solicitor, Mr Harvard asked the Committee to note that the premises had already sought planning permission for the extension to the first floor and that the use of the external area had been granted with a planning condition restricting its use to a terminal hour of 00:00 hours. Mr Harvard noted that the issue of potential nuisance to local residents had been dealt with in detail through the planning process.

Mr Harvard noted that the premise did not have a history of noise complaints and in his clients view the objection was not a valid one.

The Committee were mindful that any evidence to persuade the Committee to refuse or vary the application had to be linked to the licensing objectives. The Committee were also mindful that this was a variation application and that only one representation had been received from a local resident. The Committee noted that the views expressed by the resident that the 'Lotus Lounge is the worst perpetrator of noise pollution', did not appear to be supported by any corroborative evidence especially given that no further representations had been received from local residents or for that matter from the Environmental Health section.

The Committee were aware that the use of the external first floor area had being granted planning permission with a terminal hour of 00:00 hours. The Committee were however mindful that the licensing and planning regimes were totally separate areas and the Licensing Committee had to consider the proposed application on its own merits. The Committee were mindful that the area marked on the plan as the uncovered smoking area did have the potential to cause public nuisance if customers were drinking in that area while smoking a cigarette. The Committee noted that the existing licence had a current condition, that notices should be displayed in the first floor smoking area advising customers that alcohol may not be consumed in the area after 23:00 hours. The Committee also noted that the Applicant had not requested that this condition be amended or removed.

After giving consideration to all of the evidence and representations made both in writing and orally the Committee were satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined and the amended application for variation to the premises licence was granted.

The Committee resolved to attach the following conditions to address the potential for noise nuisance in the area marked on the plan as the uncovered smoking area.

1. There shall be no supply of alcohol in the area marked on the plan as the first floor uncovered smoking area;

2. No live or recorded music shall be played in the area marked on the plan as the first floor uncovered smoking area;

3. Use appropriate management controls to reduce the likelihood of customers causing noise disturbance to local residents when using the first floor uncovered smoking area. These control measures should be recorded in a written noise management plan which in particular should address the use of the first floor terraced area, a copy of which must be submitted to the Councils Environmental Health Manager. The plan should include time restrictions on consumption of alcohol by customers and on the playing of amplified music and supervision of the area.

Can't find it

Can't find what you're looking for? Let us know and we'll do our best to point you in the right direction