Agenda and minutes

To appoint a Chair for the purposes of this meeting.

RESOLVED  that Councillor Cunio be appointed Chair for the purposes of the meeting.

COUNCILLOR CUNIO IN THE CHAIR

To note any changes in the membership of the Sub-Committee made in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003.

The Panel noted that Councillor Osmond was in attendance as a nominated substitute for Councillor Parnell,  in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.3.

At a predetermined point during the consideration of all items the Sub-Committee may move into private session in order to receive legal advice when determining issues. The press and the public, unless otherwise excluded by the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, will be invited to return immediately following that private session at which time the matter will be determined and the decision of the Sub-Committee will be announced.

RESOLVED that in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 that the press and public be excluded at a predetermined point whilst the Sub-Committee reach its decisions.

Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, detailing an application to vary a premises licence in respect of Unit, 113 St Mary’s Road, Southampton, SO14 OAN, attached.

The Sub-Committee considered the application to vary a premises licence in respect of Unit, 113 St Mary’s Street, Southampton, SO14 OAN. (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to signed minutes).

Mr Kirk (Counsel for Unit), Mr Rathore (Solicitor), Mr Lovell, Owner, Mr Downton, Designated Premises Supervisor, PC Harris, PC Wood and Miss Jerran, Hampshire Constabulary and Mr Pitt, Resident (Objector) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The Sub-Committee considered the decision in confidential session in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.

Legal advice was accepted by the Sub-Committee in relation to the Cumulative Impact Policy. It was noted that the premises is located within the boundary of a previously identified stress area, and was subject to the provisions of the formally adopted Cumulative Impact Policy “CIP” ( adopted 13 May 2009, confirmed upon review 17 November 2010)  that applied to that area.

The Committee noted in particular that:-

• one effect of the CIP was that a rebuttable presumption applied to applications for substantial variations to existing premises, and that whether a variation was substantial for the purposes of this policy was a matter that the Licensing Authority had to determine in any instance of doubt.

• The rebuttable presumption was that such applications should be refused.

• the standard of proof for the consideration by the Committee of any matter relating to cumulative impact should be on the balance of probabilities.

• Licensing Policy CIP2 16.9 provides that the onus was upon applicants to demonstrate through their Operating Schedule and where appropriate supporting evidence, that the operation of the premises would not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced

RESOLVED that the application for the variation of this premises licence, be refused in its entirety.

REASONS

The Sub-Committee considered very carefully the application to vary the premises licence at Unit and gave due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance, the adopted statement of Licensing Policy,  in particular policies CIP 1- CIP 5, human rights legislation and the evidence submitted by all parties, both written and given orally today.

1. The Sub-Committee determined that the variation sought was substantial because it would extend the licensable activities on the days specified further into the early hours of the morning.
2. Having determined that the variation sought was substantial the rebuttable presumption that the application be refused applied and the burden of proof was upon the applicant to establish on the balance of probabilities that there would be no cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.
3. The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence of the Police concerning incidents connected with the premises and in the vicinity, although not directly linked to the premises.
4. Further, the Sub-committee accepted the police statistical analysis concerning the night time economy and the conclusions drawn as to the likely effect of any increase in opening hours.
5. The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence of the local residents as to the noise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.