Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED - Councillor R D Feldman was elected Chair for the duration of the meeting

To identify any applications as late items of business which have been admitted to the agenda for consideration

 (the special circumstances shall be identified in the minutes)

No formal late items of additional business were added to the agenda.  However supplementary information had been submitted and had been despatched to relevant parties prior to the hearings in respect of the following matter:

Agenda item “La Liga” – additional letter of representation from a member of the public who had already made a representation but was not able to attend the hearing  (minute 4 refers)

Members are reminded to declare any interests at the start of the hearing on each application for the purpose of Section 81 (3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct

There were no declarations of interest

To consider the report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Corporate Governance) on an application for the grant of a Premises Licence in respect of premises situated at Dick Lane, Thornbury and trading as “La Liga Soccer Centre”

(Report attached)

The Sub-Committee, having regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance, considered the application and the written submissions before them relating to an application for the grant of a Premises Licence for “La Liga Soccer centre”, Dick Lane, Thornbury.

Representations had been submitted by LCC City Development and two representations from LCC Environmental Protection Team (LCC EPT), the first dated 23 April 2010 which included suggested measures to address the relevant licensing objective and the second dated 24 May 2010. Letters of representation had also been received from the following members of the public - Mr Q Alam; Mr D W Kenyon; Ms J Jones: K D Sharpe; Mr & Mrs Cawthra; Mr D Forrest  and Mrs F Mir. Local ward Councillors A Carter; Marjoram and Wood had also submitted a representation and Mrs Mir, who had been unable to attend submitted one supplementary letter. None of the local residents attended the hearing and the Sub Committee resolved to proceed in their absence.

The Sub-Committee first considered representations from Mr C Sanderson on behalf of LCC City Development who outlined the 2001 planning consent for the premises as a detached changing room with ancillary bar and flat above. The permitted hours of use had been set having regard to the amenity of surrounding local residents and were restricted to:

Monday to Saturday  07:30 until 23:00 hours

Sundays   09:00 until 22:30 hours

Mr Sanderson noted the premises, although near a business park, was not surrounded by a built environment which would prevent noise travelling greater distances towards local residents but was surrounded by open pitches and a former golf course. He explained that complaints had been received about the premises during the last 18 months, and the premises management had been informed. During discussion he reiterated the planning permission stipulated bar use to be ancillary to the main use of the building as a changing room. The structure was sufficient for changing rooms and had not been altered since 2001.

Mr Sanderson concluded by stating the existing planning hours of operation were still appropriate to protect the amenity of local residents.

Mr B Kenny then addressed the Sub Committee on behalf of LCC EPT and explained the two submissions from the Department. The first contained measures proposed in order to address the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective – which the applicant had agreed to. However on 20 May 2010 an event had been held at the premises, and following receipt of complaints, the EPT Out of Hours Team had witnessed loud music at 23:15 hours which was a Statutory Nuisance. A Noise Abatement Notice was subsequently served on 27 May 2010. The Department then submitted the second letter of representation to this application. During discussion Mr Kenny stated that if measures could be implemented to contain noise within the building, then it was possible the Departments’ concerns could be addressed.

The Sub Committee then considered the representation made by Mr J Cordingly, Licensing Consultant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To consider the report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Corporate Governance) on an application received for the variation of an existing Premises Licence held at “Sainsbury’s”, 70-74 Brudenell Road, Headingley

(Report attached)

The Sub-Committee, having regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance, considered the application and the written submissions before them relating to an application to vary an existing Premises Licence held  at “Sainsbury’s”,  Brudenell Road, Headingley.

A representation had been submitted by LCC Environmental Protection Team (LCC EPT) and Mr B Kenny attended the hearing on behalf of the Department. Mr Kenny described the nature of the premises and surrounding area. He highlighted concerns regarding public nuisance and noise disturbance later into the night to local residents, should the variation be granted.

The Sub Committee then considered the representation made by Mr R Botkai, solicitor on behalf of the applicant. Mr Botkai was accompanied by Ms M Zouch, licensing manager for Sainsbury’s and Ms J Brown the Headingley store manager.

Mr Botkai explained the conditions on the current Licence had been imposed when the premises was a Jackson’s store. There were no restrictions attached to the planning permission for the store in terms of opening hours and Sainsbury’s now sought to open the store 24 hours per day and revise the conditions to match Sainsbury’s standard management approach. Mr Botkai stated the applicant did not intend to sell alcohol after 23:00 hours; the later hours were intended purely to allow staff to take deliveries and re-stock the store. He also referred Members to the liaison which had taken place between the applicant and West Yorkshire Police.

Members considered the application and the representations made at the hearing and paid particular attention to the public nuisance objective. The Sub Committee also noted that no objections to the application had been received from members of the public. Members therefore did not consider that varying the licence in the manner requested would have an adverse impact on the licensing objectives.

RESOLVED – To grant the application as requested.

·  Those measures proposed by the applicant (and detailed in Box P of the application) and amended by the Responsible Authorities shall be imposed on the Premises Licence.

·  Where there is conflict between the conditions, those suggested by the Responsible Authorities shall take precedence.

To consider the report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Corporate Governance) on an application received for the grant of a Premises Licence in respect of premises situated at 33 Chapeltown, Pudsey and trading as “Krunch”. Consideration of this matter was adjourned from a hearing scheduled on 19 April 2010

(Report attached)

The Sub-Committee, having regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance, considered the application and the written submissions before them relating to an application for the grant of a Premises Licence for premises known as “Krunch”, 33 Chapeltown, Pudsey.

A representation had been submitted by LCC City Development and Mr C Sanderson attended the hearing on behalf of the Department. Mr Sanderson noted this premises licence application had been adjourned previously to allow time for a simultaneous application to extend the hours of use attached to the planning permission to be determined. Mr Sanderson reported the planning application had been refused having regard to the potential for additional noise and nuisance being generated by this premises. He also reported the original planning consent had been very recently granted in 2009, to the same applicant.

The Sub Committee noted the comment made by the applicant that another premises in the locality was trading past its permitted hours and discussion followed on the steps available to the Department in such cases.

The Sub Committee then heard from Mr M Haider, the applicant who was accompanied by Mr Shah. Mr Haider described the immediate and detailed the other unit which traded past permitted hours. He stated he also had operated his premises past permitted planning hours but had ceased as soon as he had been made aware of the conflict between the hours. Mr Shah highlighted the premises had been trading for a while and no reports of any noise or nuisance had been received.

The Sub Committee noted that no letters of representation had been submitted by members of the public

The Sub Committee carefully listened to the representations made by the Responsible Authority and the applicant at the hearing and considered the application before them. The Sub Committee was not satisfied that this particular premises would cause additional public nuisance to the locality and therefore

RESOLVED – To grant the application as requested

The measures included in Box P of the application and the pro-forma risk assessment will now be included as conditions on the Premises Licence

·  The Sub Committee took the opportunity to remind the applicant that the new Premises Licence could not be operated until the planning permission had been varied. Until that time the premises must operate to its permitted planning hours.