The Committee and Scrutiny Officer confirmed that the Sub-Committee would comprise Councillors J Brown, Derbyshire and Mills.

The Sub-Committee was asked to elect a Chair for the Hearing.

RESOLVED –

that Councillor J Brown be elected Chair for this Hearing.

There were no disclosures of interest.

Report of the Head of Community and Customer Services

This report asks the Sub-Committee to consider an application for a new premises licence following the receipt of representations. 

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Head of Community and Customer Services setting out details of an application for a new premises licence for Woody Express situated at 103 The Parade, Watford. 

Catherine Trollope, the Environmental Health Officer circulated clearer copies of the plan that had been circulated prior to the meeting as they were more legible.  All parties had been provided with the original version prior to the meeting.

The Licensing Manager informed the Sub-Committee that the previous application, considered in March 2015, had been refused and the applicant had submitted an appeal to the Magistrates’ Court.  He reminded Members that each application should be considered on its own merits; however some relevant information had been raised at the previous hearing and the Sub-Committee would need to consider what weight it wished to place on the historical information. 

The Licensing Manager outlined the application and the information within the report.  It was noted that the Police had not submitted a representation for the latest application, but representations had been received from Environmental Health, the Licensing Authority and an interested party.  The representations referred to the prevention of public nuisance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy 2013-18, particularly policies LP2 and LP3.

Following a question from the Chair, the Licensing Manager responded that there was no significant difference between the application before the Sub-Committee and the one considered at the hearing on 2 March 2015. 

Mr Greaves, representing the Applicant, questioned the officer’s response.  In respect of the previous application, the Police had submitted a representation which was not the case for the current application.  He questioned whether or not this would be considered a significant difference.

The Licensing Manager responded that the Police had viewed the current application differently to the earlier submission. 

Mr Greaves referred to the hours requested on the first application and that the latest version proposed to close earlier.

The Licensing Manager explained that the application still proposed to operate beyond the terminal hour of 1.00 a.m., which was set out in policy LP2.

Mr Greaves referred to other policies within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.  He noted that the Applicant had co-operated with the Police, who were now happy with the additional conditions and the reduction in requested operating hours.  He also commented that according to the policy that the starting point for an application would be to grant the application.  He added that the policies should be flexible.

The Licensing Manager responded that the representations within the officer’s report to the Sub-Committee did not refer to the prevention of crime and disorder objective, only to public nuisance.  With reference to point two in policy LP3; the officer advised that Mr Greaves’ comment was correct but it was subject to any representations being received and the content of policy LP2.  Policy LP2 should be imposed as indicated.  In addition he referred to the exceptions to policy LP3, particularly to point three; this put the onus on the Applicant to prove why  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.