To consider an application under the Highways Act 1980, section 119, to make a public path diversion order to divert part of footpath SB1A in the parish of Stanford Bishop.

The Public Rights of Way Manager presented a report about an application under Section 119 of the Highways act 1980 to divert part of footpath SB1A in the Parish of Stanford Bishop. He felt that the proposed route was acceptable for the public; and advised that the Local Ward Member, parish council and neighbouring resident were in agreement with it although the Byways and Bridleways trust and the Open Spaces Society had objected.

The applicant had agreed to meet costs associated with the diversion. The proposal also met the criteria set out in the legislation and in particular that:

·         it benefited the owner of the land;

·         it was not substantially less convenient to the public; and

·         it would be expedient to proceed with the proposal given the benefits it will provide for public enjoyment of the footpath.

Having considered all aspects of the application, the Sub-Committee concurred with the view of the Public Rights of Way Manager that the application should be approved.

RESOLVED

THAT a Public Path Diversion Order be made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of part of footpath SB1A in the parish of Stanford Bishop.

To consider an application under the Highways Act 1980, Section 118, to make a public path extinguishment order to extinguish part of the width of footpath CW24(A) in the parish of Colwall.

The Public Rights of Way Manager presented a report about an application under Section 118 of the Highways act 1980 to extinguish part of footpath CW24(A) in the Parish of Colwall. He felt that the proposed route was acceptable for the public; and advised that the Local Ward Member, parish council and neighbouring resident were in agreement with it although the Open Spaces Society had objected.

The Public Rights of Way Manager explained that the extinguishment order was being used to reduce the width of the footpath from 10 metres wide to 2 metres wide. He added that the footpath was not actually being extinguished but merely narrowed.

The applicant had agreed to meet 50% of the costs associated with the extinguishment. The proposal also met the criteria set out in the legislation and in particular that:

·         it benefited the owner of the land;

·         it was not substantially less convenient to the public; and

·         it would be expedient to proceed with the proposal given the benefits it will provide for public enjoyment of the footpath.

Having considered all aspects of the application, the Sub-Committee concurred with the view of the Public Rights of Way Manager that the application should be approved.

RESOLVED

THAT a Public Path Extinguishment Order be made under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of part of footpath CW24(A) in the parish of Colwall.

To consider an application for a review of the premises licence relating to ‘Gwalia Stores, 27 -29 Broad Street, Ross on Wye, HR9 7ED’ called by Herefordshire Council as the Licensing Authority.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee was re-convened in order to determine an application for a review of a premises licence for Gwalia Stores, 27-29 Broad Street, Ross-on-Wye. The Review had been applied for by Herefordshire Council’s Licensing team. The review related to the licensing objectives of the protection of children from harm and the prevention of crime and disorder.

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

• David Hough (Herefordshire Council Trading Standards)
• Fred Spriggs (Applicant for Review)
• James Mooney (West Mercia Police)
• Ramanathan Ratheyan (Premises Licence Holder)

The Chairman advised the attendees of the hearing procedures and asked if they required an extension to the 10 minute time limit for public speaking, no extensions to the time limit were requested.

The Licensing Manager presented her report. She advised Members that the determination of the application was previously adjourned on 4 September 2012 as the correct notice period had not been served on the premises licence holder.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, James Mooney, representing West Mercia Police, addressed the sub-committee. He advised Members that West Mercia Police supported the review requested by Herefordshire Council. He added that there had been a total of 4 test purchase failures under the management and supervision of the current Designated Premises Supervisor. He added that there had been little communication between the DPS and the police regarding the previous test purchase failures and added, that due to the continuing concerns regarding under age sales at the premises, he had no option but to recommend that the Licence be revoked.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, David Hough, representing Trading Standards, addressed the sub-committee. He advised the Sub-Committee that he supported the Police’s recommendation to revoke the licence. However if the Sub-Committee decided against this course of action he had suggested four conditions which had been agreed with the premises licence holder. He had also recommended an additional condition requiring the current DPS to be removed although this had not been agreed.

At this stage the Acting Principal Lawyer explained the procedure of the meeting to Mr Ratheyan and advised him to seek clarification from the officers if he did not understand key elements of the meeting.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Fred Spriggs, representing the Licensing Authority, addressed the sub-committee. He gave a detailed presentation on the circumstances that had led to the review as well as his concerns in respect of the lack of correspondence with Mr Ratheyan in respect of this review or the previous reviews on the premises. He agreed with the four conditions that had been agreed with the premises licence holder but also felt that the DPS needed to be changed.

The Democratic Services Officer read out a written statement from the premises licence holder’s legal advisor. He explained why he could not be present at the meeting and gave details of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To consider an application for a new premises licence in respect of ‘The Royal Hall, Ledbury, HR8 2EY’.

The Regulatory Sub Committee was convened in order to determine an application for a new premises licence in respect of The Royal Hall, Ledbury. The application was submitted in accordance with Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

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

·         Miss Heaney (Applicant)

·         Mr Heaney (Supporting the Applicant)

·         Mr Hough (Representing Herefordshire Council Trading Standards)

·         Mr Spriggs (Representing Herefordshire Council Licensing Authority)

·         Mr Mooney (Representing West Mercia Police)

·         Mr Barnes (A Local Resident Speaking in Objection)

·         Mrs Hooley (A Local Resident Speaking in Objection)

·         Mrs Weller (A Local Resident Speaking in Objection)

The Chairman read out the introductory notes and requested that any extensions to the 10 minute time limit permitted for representations to be made. No requests were made.

The Licensing Manager presented her report and advised the Sub-Committee that the advertisement had been received and was accepted. She also advised that conditions had been agreed with the applicant and that the application was bought before the Sub-Committee solely as there were representations from neighbouring residents which had not been withdrawn.

Mr Mooney, representing West Mercia Police, addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that there had been no complaints to the police regarding crime, disorder or nuisance in respect of the Royal Hall. He added that it may be beneficial to add a further condition to limit use of the hall to pre-booked events only, he added that this had been discussed with the applicant who had indicated that she would be willing to accept such a condition.

Mr Hough, representing Herefordshire Council Trading Standards, addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that all conditions had been agreed with the applicant.

Mr Spriggs, representing Herefordshire Council Licensing Authority, made reference to his representation contained within the agenda pack. He advised that he had recommended a number of conditions had been agreed,

Mr Barnes, one of the neighbouring residents who had submitted a representation in respect of the application, noted that the police had not been called to the Royal Hall but requested confirmation as to whether they had been called to the adjoining hotel. Mr Mooney advised that the application related to the Hall and not the Hotel. Mr Mooney added that a number of Temporary Event Notices had been granted at the Royal Hall and that there had been no complaints received regarding these.

In response to a question, Mr Hough confirmed that the Risk Assessment regarding door staff would be undertaken and recorded by the applicant on an event by event basis.

In response to a further question regarding noise and antisocial behaviour, Mr Mooney confirmed that he had spoken to the local policing unit who had advised that there had been no issues at any of the previous events at the Royal Hall. The Licensing Manager advised that if there were incidents the local residents could request a review of the premises licence.

The three local residents who had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.