Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

The Chair introduced those present at the hearing; the members of the Sub-Committee, the Applicant, the Licence Holder (Zoe Sinclair of Ambiente Tapas Limited), the Licensing Manager presenting the report, the Legal Adviser, the Senior Legal Officer shadowing the Legal Adviser, and the Democratic Services officer.

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, that 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.

To approve the minutes of the Licensing Hearing held on 17 June 2021.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Licensing Hearing held on 17 June 2021 be approved as a correct record, to be signed by the Chair at a later date.

Meeting reconvened remotely in private session at 6:10 pm on 9 August 2021.

PRESENT:Councillors Hook (Chair), Galvin and Myers

RESOLVED:       (Option 1) That the conditions of the licence be modified, with the existing Condition 26 to be removed and replaced by the following condition:

                             “A documented noise management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Public Protection Department of City of York Council within two months of the premises licence review decision date.  Once approved it shall be implemented.  The noise management plan will also include a procedure for investigating noise complaints.”

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 Mr R C Price for a review of the premises licence at 59-63 Walmgate, York YO1 9TY.

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

·        The prevention of public nuisance.

·        The prevention of crime and disorder.

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 Licensing Manager’s report and her comments at the Hearing.

The Licensing Manager outlined the report and the annexes, highlighting the additional papers submitted by the Applicant as published in Agenda Supplement 1 and confirming that the consultation process had been carried out correctly.  She stated that no representations had been made by North Yorkshire Police, and drew attention to the representations made by the Environmental Protection Unit (EPU), noting that these neither supported nor opposed the application but instead made suggestions regarding noise management.  She also drew attention to the additional papers submitted by the Licence Holder, as published in Agenda Supplement 2.  Finally, she advised the Sub Committee of the options open to them in determining the application. 

In response to questions from the Applicant, the Licensing Manager confirmed that:

·        Planning were consulted on all licensing applications and had the opportunity to make representations, but had not done so in this case.  [The Applicant responded that he was concerned at the lack of such representations, as he believed the premises were operating in breach of Planning conditions.]

·        All complaints received about a premises were logged by Licensing officers, who might then consult with another responsible authority or contact the licence holder.

·        Officers would normally liaise with the EPU on complaints about noise.

·        Condition 6 of the licence, requiring a minimum of 10 seats in the courtyard area, had been requested by the police during consultation on the minor variation.

4.           The representations made by the Applicant in writing and at the hearing. 

The Applicant stated that the evidence he had submitted showed that the council and the Licence Holder had failed to promote Licensing Objectives 1 and 3 and that the courtyard area of the premises was not suitable to be licensed.  He therefore proposed that this area be removed from the licence, in order to restore his position and remove a public nuisance.  He said he had never suggested that a statutory nuisance, as defined in the council’s Licensing Policy, was being caused, but the council had chosen to hide behind that definition and had ignored his complaints. 

The Applicant confirmed that he was only concerned with the use of the rear courtyard area of the premises; he was not contesting the internal area at the premises.  Referring to Agenda Supplement 1, he said that pages 5 and 9 illustrated that this was not part of Walmgate’s commercial zone; that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.