Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed all those present and introduced the sub-committee members, and explained the procedure of the meeting.

Members of the Sub Committee are invited to identify any personal or prejudicial interests relevant to items on the agenda.  Please refer to the attached guidance.

NOTED

1.  There were no declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.

2.  Councillor Boast had attended one function at the premises and Councillor Delman had attended on two occasions, but this did not amount to a personal or prejudicial interest.

To receive the report of the Principal Licensing Officer asking the Sub Committee to consider the following application.

RECEIVED the report of the Principal Licensing Officer.

To receive an application for a variation of the Premises Licence as attached.

RECEIVED an application made by Kriselis Leisure Limited for variation of the Premises Licence.

NOTED

1.         The introductory statement by Mark Galvayne, Principal Licensing Officer, which included the following points:

a.  The application was to vary the Premises Licence, but not to extend the opening hours.

b.  The current licence permitted only recorded music; this application was to add live music, performance of dance, facilities for making music and facilities for dancing.

c.  The only representation was from the interested parties.

d.  A further letter, dated 3 July 2009, had been received from Mr Antoniou and the interested parties; all parties had received a copy of that letter.

2.         Mark Galvayne responded to questions as follows:

a.  In response to a query by the interested parties, it was confirmed that the licence at the moment permitted recorded music and that the application if granted would permit live music.

b.  In response to the interested parties’ concerns that live music had been played every weekend for the past 6 or 7 years, it was re-confirmed that the facts were as stated.

c.  In response to Councillor Simon’s queries, it was clarified that the applicant was asking to additionally provide entertainment, and that if the terms of the licence were breached, would be liable to enforcement action and potentially subject to a review of the licence.

3.         The opening statement of Mrs Patel, interested party, which included the following points:

a.  The venue was not fully soundproof. Complaints had been made to the Council about the loud music, but by the time officers arrived the music had ceased.

b.  She and her family were often kept awake until 1:00 or 2:00 am by activities at the venue. They were forced to wear earplugs. Her three daughters had found it impossible to study at home and this had affected their education and their family life.

c.  She understood the needs of the business, but had been assured by the owner at the time it opened that the building would be soundproof, and she had been disappointed by his lack of action.

d.  The owner was fined in the past, but nothing had changed since.

e.  Banqueting hall use should not have been allowed at this site; it was not suitable at this location and there was not enough parking.

f. Noise was created by customers leaving who shouted, screamed and fought, and she often had to clean vomit from her doorstep in the mornings.

g.  Staff were noisy late at night and used industrial dustbins in the back yard, which created smells as well as noise.

4.         Mrs Patel responded to questions as follows:

a.  In response to the Chairman’s queries, Mrs Patel confirmed that she had lived above the shop next door to the site since 1982.

b.  Mrs Patel confirmed that she could hear music until 12:00/12:30 am, but noise from people there often went on until 2:00 am.

c.  Mrs Patel confirmed that from her window upstairs she could see  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.