The Sub-Committee received a
report of the Head of Community Protection, outlining the
application.
The Senior Licensing Officer
introduced the report. He advised that
members were asked to consider an application by the Fullerians
Rugby Football Club to vary the club premises certificate for their
club house on Coningsbury Drive, Watford. No new licensable activities were requested; the
application only sought to vary the hours when the current
permitted activities may be offered.
The application specified a terminal hour for licensable activities
of 3.00 a.m. on New Year’s Day and specified the opening
hours of the club (as detailed in paragraph 4.16 of the
report).
13 representations had been
received against the application; all from local
residents. One of the representations
had been submitted by the Cassiobury Residents’
Association. Some of the
representations concerned the current planning permission for the
premises. The Senior Licensing Officer
reminded members that planning and licensing were different
regimes. However, Government guidance stated that where planning
hours were different to licensing hours, the applicant must observe
the earlier closing time. He emphasised
that the application was under the licensing regime and had to be
considered against the licensing objectives.
No representations had been
received from responsible authorities, although the initial
application was amended following discussions with Environmental
Health and Police, where a number of conditions were
agreed. These conditions were shown in
the report and would be included on any varied club premises
certificate.
As the representations had been
accepted as valid, on the grounds of the licensing objectives,
members were asked to consider these and attach such weight to them
as they saw fit.
The Senior Licensing Officer
advised that there was no requirement for objectors or applicants
to attend hearings and that matters could be determined in their
absence. However, this would limit the
opportunity to ask questions of parties and to enable them to
expand on their written statements.
Mediation had not been pursued
in this case due to the number of representations received and the
unforeseen difficulties in arranging a mutually convenient date and
time to meet.
The Senior Licensing Officer
noted that parties had not provided evidence, in addition to that
in the application or representations, for circulation prior to the
hearing. He concluded by advising
members that having considered all the evidence and representations
put before them, it was for the Sub-Committee to decide which of
the actions available to them would be appropriate for the
promotion of the licensing objectives.
They could either refuse the application outright, grant the
application with modifications or grant the application as
submitted; with the reasons for the decision given as part of the
determination.
There were no questions of the
Senior Licensing Officer.
|