Venue: The RIBBLE VALLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL CHAMBER, 13 CHURCH STREET, CLITHEROE, LANCASHIRE, BB7 2RA
Councillor Alcock welcomed all attendees to the meeting which included:
Ms D M Despard (applicant)
Mrs G Sherratt (applicant’s representative)
M Johnson (relevant representation)
Y Johnson (relevant representation)
H Knight (relevant representation)
L Kiernan (relevant representation)
Apologies and re-constitution of membership
There were no apologies for absence.
Declarations of interest (if any)
Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in the agenda.
There was no declarations of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interest.
Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services enclosed.
To determine an application by DMD Design (Longridge) Ltd. for the variation of a Premises Licence in respect of 1 Lower Lane, Longridge.
The Sub-Committee met to consider the application of DMD Design (Longridge) Limited for variation of the premises licence in respect of 1 Lower Lane, Longridge, PR3 3SL (“the premises”)
The Sub-Committee considered the contents of the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and its appendices (“Report”).
Mrs Sherratt made verbal representations to the Sub-Committee and responded to points and questions put by the sub-committee and by attendees who had made relevant representations. She advised the sub-committee of the nature of the business at the premises, and that the intention of the applicant was to provide a good experience for customers who wished to browse at the retail premises. She reiterated that the premises are a retail outlet, and that there was no intention for the premises to become a bar. Her client was aware of the planning requirement for the premises to be used as a retail outlet. As with other high street businesses, the applicant sought to provide an experience which made the business stand out from online retailers.
She advised the sub-committee that the applicant sought variation of condition 5 of annex 2 of the licence, to remove the limit on the number of tables and chairs which could be used for consumption of alcohol outdoors on the premises. She explained that the original condition, including the limit of one table and four chairs, had been offered at a previous hearing to address concerns about noise, nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
The applicant sought a substitute condition to read:
“Customers shall only be allowed to consume alcohol outdoors on the premises when seated at tables located at the front of the premises. The tables and chairs shall be located in such a position as not to obstruct the exit from the premises”.
She explained the successful operation of the business using Temporary Event Notices over recent months and sought to address relevant concerns which had been expressed by those who had made written representations. In relation to concerns about the licensing objective of public safety, she drew attention to the lack of concern expressed by the responsible authorities. The sub-committee’s attention was also drawn to the statutory guidance under s 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the decision in R on the application of Bristol Council -v- Bristol Magistrates’ Court (2008) (“the Bristol case”) that licence conditions should not duplicate other regulatory legislation.
Verbal representations were made by way of objection to the application by several residents, being Mr Johnson, Mrs Johnson and Mrs Knight. The particular concern was in relation to the licensing objective of public safety and possible obstruction of the exit in the event of emergency. Reference was made to the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and discussion with the Fire Safety Officer.
The Licensing Sub-Committee carefully considered the representations made by all parties, both written and verbal. The Sub-Committee also considered the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”), the guidance issued under the Act, the Bristol ... view the full minutes text for item 151.