Agenda item

Report of the Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services detailing an application for a premises licence in respect of Dallas Chicken and Ribs, 22 Bedford Place, Southampton SO15 2DB, attached.

The Sub-Committee considered the application for a premises licence in respect of Dallas Chicken and Ribs, 22 Bedford Place, Southampton  SO15 2DB.  (Copy of report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes)

Mr Waheed (Applicant), PC Harris and PS Wood, Hampshire Constabulary, 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.

RESOLVED that the application for a premises licence be refused.

After private deliberation the Sub-Committee reconvened and the Chair read the following decision with reasons:-

All parties will receive written confirmation of the decision and reasons.

The Sub-Committee considered carefully the application for a premises licence at Dallas Chicken and Ribs, 22 Bedford Place and gave due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance, the adopted statement of Licensing Policy, Human Rights legislation and in particular the Cumulative Impact Policy as well as representations, both written and given orally today by all parties.

The Licensing and Gambling Sub-Committee considered the location of the premises and in particular the fact that it was located within an area identified as suffering from issues of crime, disorder and public nuisance - designated as a stress area in accordance with the licensing policy. 

The Committee noted in particular that:-

• one effect of the CIP is that  a rebuttable presumption applies to applications for premises licences.

• The rebuttable presumption is that such applications shall ordinarily be refused

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

The Sub-Committee noted that there had been a dialogue between the applicant and the police regarding conditions, should the application be granted.  It had been agreed that there be conditions relating to CCTV and the Incident Book, however agreement had not been made on the SIA door staff and the time of the last entry onto the premises.

The Sub-Committee considered very carefully the evidence submitted by all parties both written and given orally today. 

The Sub-Committee have determined to refuse the application.

REASONS

The Sub-Committee considered very carefully all of the evidence and noted the strength of the application including the experience and quality of management at the premises and other premises.  However, during the hearing the Sub-Committee were referred to paragraph 16.14 of the adopted Statement of Policy which states that the quality of management and character or experience of the applicant are matters that the Sub-Committee shall not ordinarily consider as an exception or reason for departure from the policy.  Further, the Sub-Committee were not satisfied, despite the strength of the application, that on the balance of probabilities the proposed licensable activities would not add to the issues within the stress area.

There is a right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court.  The formal notice of the decision will set out that right.