Agenda, decisions and minutes

Resolved:  That Cllr Mason be elected to act as Chair of the meeting.

The Chair introduced those participating in the hearing: Members of the Sub-Committee, the Applicant, the Barrister representing local residents and his witness, the resident representing himself, the Public Protection officer, and the Senior Licensing Officer presenting the report.  Also present were the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee, the Democratic Services officer, and the Litigation Solicitor who was shadowing the Legal Adviser.

At this point in the meeting, Members are asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, and any prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests, which they might have in the business on the agenda.  None were declared.

To consider excluding the Press and Public during the sub-committee’s deliberations and decision-making at the end of the hearing, on the grounds that the public interest in excluding the public outweighs the public interest in that part of the meeting taking place in public, under Regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.

Resolved:  That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the sub-committee’s deliberations and decision-making at the end of the hearing, on the grounds that the public interest in excluding the public outweighs the public interest in that part of the meeting taking place in public, under Regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.

Meeting reconvened remotely in private session at 14.15pm on 1 February 2021.

PRESENT:Councillors Mason (Chair), Norman and Melly

RESOLVED:       (Option 4) That the Sub-Committee REJECTS the application for a premises licence for St George Hotel, 6 St George Place, York YO24 1DR.  

The full reasons for the Sub-Committee’s decision will be included in the detailed written Decision Letter which will be provided to the Applicant and the Representors in due course.

There is a right of appeal for the Applicant to the Magistrates’ Court against this decision. Any appeal to the Magistrates Court must be made within 21 days of receipt of the Decision Letter and sent to the following address:

Chief Executive

York and Selby Magistrates Court

The Law Courts

Clifford Street

York

YO1 9RE

Members considered an application by Simon Cowton for a premises licence in respect of St George Hotel. 6 St George Place, York YO24 1DR.

In considering the application and the representations made, the Sub-Committee concluded that the following licensing objectives were relevant to this hearing:

·        The Prevention of Public Nuisance

·        The Protection of Children from Harm

In coming to their decision, the Sub-Committee took into consideration all the evidence and submissions that were presented, and determined their relevance to the issues raised and the above licensing objectives, including:

1.           The application form.

2.           The papers before it.

3.           The additional plans submitted by Mr Bryce before the hearing.

4.           The Licensing Manager’s report and her comments at the hearing. The Licensing Manager outlined the report and the annexes, noting that the premises were not located in the Cumulative Impact Area and that consultation had been carried out correctly.  She highlighted the additional conditions agreed with North Yorkshire Police in Annex 3 and the objections of Public Protection in Annex 4, confirming that the Police did not oppose the application.  She acknowledged the additional information published in the Agenda supplement and the plans submitted by Mr Bryce.  Finally, she advised the Sub Committee of the options open to them in determining the application. 

In response to questions from Counsel for the residents, the Licensing Manager confirmed that the Applicant had a personal licence.  She said she had no knowledge of the premises prior to the application and agreed that details of operating hours for service of alcohol were not provided in the Applicant’s plan at page 33 of the papers.  In response to questions from Mr Bryce, she confirmed that it was not a requirement for licensed premises to have a bar, and that the application was for a licence to cover both the garden and the whole hotel.

5.           The representations made at the hearing by yourself (henceforth referred to as the Applicant). 

The Applicant stated that his intention was not to open a beer garden or bar available to the general public.  His application was a direct response to the problems caused by Covid-19, in particular the need to provide safe spaces to meet and eat.  The main objective was to enhance the service provided to guests of the hotel, and extend it to local residents and anyone else who wanted a safe dining experience.  He also wanted to help his business survive and to protect jobs.  He regretted that, due to shielding, he had been unable to hold meetings with local residents and respond to their concerns in person.  However, he had been available on the phone and the only resident who had contacted him was in favour of the proposals.

The Applicant further stated that the glass pods he intended to install had a maximum capacity of six people.  They were self-contained, weather-proof and made of high-quality materials.  They would be available to pre-booked diners only, and alcohol would be served only with a meal.  Bookings would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.