To elect a Chairman for the hearing.

Councillor JW Hope MBE was elected as Chairman for the Regulatory Sub-Committee hearing.

To receive apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence were received.

To receive details any details of Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

Councillor JHR Goodwin attended the meeting as a substitute for Councillor CM Bartrum who had declared a prejudicial interest in respect of agenda item 5.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

5.            APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW OF A PREMISE LICENCE 'THE HORSE & JOCKEY, 9-10 NEW STREET, ROSS-ON-WYE, HR9 7DA.'.

Councillor CM Bartrum; Personal and Prejudicial; lives in the locality of the premises.

To consider an application for a review of a premise licence in respect of The Horse & Jockey, 9-10 New Street, Ross On Wye, HR9 7DA.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee was convened in order to determine an application for a review of a premise licence in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. The Review was in respect of the Horse and Jockey, New Street, Ross-on-Wye and had been applied for by Mrs Janet Roberts, an interested party living in the vicinity of the premises. The review related to the following licensing objectives:

1.      The prevention of crime and disorder

2.      The prevention of public nuisance

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers and asked any interested parties to introduce themselves. The following attendees were noted:

·         Mr Phipps (Representing Punch Taverns)

·         Mr Rowley (Punch Taverns Area Manager)

·         Mr Callow (Representing the Designated Premises Supervisor)

·         Mrs Harmer (Designated Premises Supervisor)

·         Mr and Mrs Nelson (Interested Parties, supporting the DPS)

·         Mrs Roberts (Applicant)

·         Mr Delpinto (Interested Party, supporting the Applicant)

He Chairman advised all of the interested parties of the hearing procedures and asked if any person required an extension to the 10 minutes allocated for public speaking, all parties felt that they may require more time therefore the Chairman agreed to allow 20 minutes per party. He then asked the Licensing Officer to present his report.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mrs  Roberts, the applicant for the review, addressed the sub-committee. She advised Members of her reasons for applying for the review and gave details of a number of incidents of public nuisance and disorder relating to the premises. She felt that the measures put in place by the environmental health department and Punch Taverns had failed to address the issue and therefore requested that the licence be revoked. Mr Delpinto supported the comments of the applicant as well as adding his concerns regarding noise and smoke in the rear garden of the premises. In response to a question from Mr Callow, Mr Del Pinto confirmed that there had been an ongoing right of way dispute between himself and the Designated Premises Supervisor, he also confirmed that there had been a confrontation between himself and the DPS’s partner.

Mrs Roberts requested members view a DVD highlighting CCTV footage of a number of incidents at the front of the premises. The footage had been forwarded to all parties prior to the committee and was viewed by the Sub-Committee. Mrs Roberts confirmed that the DVD contained edited footage taken from a fixed camera attached to the property of Mr Mainey who could not be present at the meeting due to a prior engagement.

Following a question from Mrs Roberts, the Environmental Health Officer Confirmed that there had been no noise complaints received by the Environmental Health Department prior to the current DPS taking over the management of the premises. She also stated that in her opinion Mrs Roberts’ complaints were not vexatious. She confirmed that she had attended the premise on three occasions since January 2007. She confirmed that on two out of the three occasions she had not deemed there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To consider an application for a new premises licence in respect of The Marches Restaurant, Ground Floor and Basement, 26-29 Union Street, Hereford.

The Licensing Officer advised Members that the application had been resolved and would therefore not be heard by the sub-committee.

To consider an application for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Golden Galleon Fish & Chips, 61 Commercial Road, Hereford.

Prior to hearing the application, Members were required to deal with a preliminary point in respect of the advertisement for the application, covered under Section 18 of the Licensing act 2003.

The Licensing Officer advised the sub-committee that the application could only be determined if the notice had been served on the Licensing Department in accordance with the regulations of Section 18 of the Licensing Act. He confirmed that the advertisement had been placed on 2 May but the Council had not received the notice until 6 May 2008.

The Legal Practice manager advised the sub-committee that the letter had been correctly addressed to the Licensing Department. He added that members were now required to determine if the letter had been delivered in the correct timescale.

Mr Ready, the applicant’s legal adviser. Felt that the notice had been served on the Licensing Department within the correct timescale. He confirmed that the letter had been signed by himself on 29 April 2008 and had been posted on the same day.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting to make their decision. They requested that the Legal Advisor and Democratic Services Officer accompany them to offer legal and procedural advice.

RESOLVED

That the application can not be determined by the sub-committee due to the failure of the applicant to comply with the notice period detailed under Section 18 of the Licensing Act 2003.

To consider an application for a new premises licence and variation of premise licence in respect Shipleys, 38 Eign Gate, Hereford. HR4 0AB

The Sub-Committee were required to hear and determine an application for a new premises licence and a variation to a premises licence for Shipley’s. The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers and confirmed that all Members had received the background papers. He then asked any interested parties attending the hearing to make themselves known. Mr Etchells, the applicant’s legal representative, and Mr Spriggs, the Licensing Officer, advised the Chairman of their wish to address the Sub-Committee regarding the application. The Chairman asked the parties present if they required an extension to the 10 minute allocated time allowed for public speaking. Mr Etchells felt that additional time might be required due to the complex issues being discussed in respect of the application.

The Licensing Manager advised the sub-committee that determination of the application had been deferred at a previous meeting in order for the advertisement to be re-advertised in order to comply with requirements. He confirmed that the premises currently held an Adult Gaming Centre licence which had been granted under grandfather rights on 1 September 2007. He advised Members that the current application aimed to split the premises into two sections in order to allow two adult gaming centres within the premise and that this had resulted in a representation being received from the licensing authority.

In accordance with Section 9 (3) of the Gambling Act 2005 (Proceedings of Licensing Committees and Sub-Committees), Mr Etchells addressed the sub-committee in support of the application. He gave details of the background to the application and gave details of similar applications that had been granted by other licensing authorities. He confirmed that the two premises would be accessed through separate entrances from Eign Gate and Bewell Street and that there would be no direct access between the two premises. Members requested further details in respect of the division between the two premises, Mr Etchells confirmed that 6 foot high partitions had been proposed and that there would be no solid doors between the areas. In response to a question, Mr Etchells confirmed that the Gambling Commission were currently consulting interested parties in order to obtain a clearer definition of the term ‘premises’ in the Gambling Act, and that this would be clarified towards the end of the year.

In accordance with Section 9 (3) of the Gambling Act 2005 (Proceedings of Licensing Committees and Sub-Committees), Mr Sprigs, the Licensing Officer, addressed the sub-committee in respect of the application. The Licensing Officer referred to guidance issued by the Gambling Commission in June 2007 which had been included in the background papers. He also referred to a letter received by the gambling commission which stated that a single premise should only have one licence. He felt that the premise was being artificially split in order to allow the applicant to have 8 high pay out machines on the site.

In response to a question, the applicant stated that he did not feel that there was direct access between the two gambling areas as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.