Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Remote meeting via Zoom
Contact: Fiona Young Democratic Services
To elect a Member to act as Chair of the meeting.
Resolved: That Cllr Galvin be elected to act as Chair of the hearing.
The Chair introduced those present at the hearing; the members of the Sub-Committee, the Applicant (Matt Jones and Chris Sleaford of Roxy Leisure Ltd.), the Applicant’s Solicitor, the Representor, the Licensing Manager presenting the report, the Legal Adviser, the Senior Legal Officer shadowing the Legal Adviser, and the Democratic Services officer.
Declarations of Interest
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.
Exclusion of Press and Public
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 17:25 on 12 October 2021.
PRESENT: Councillors Galvin (Chair), Hook and Hunter
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee accepts Option 2 and grants the application for a premises licence with modified/additional conditions imposed by the Sub-Committee, as follows:
1. The premises shall not operate as a bar or vertical dinking establishment or nightclub and all licensable activities authorised by this licence shall be ancillary to the main function as a bowling alley/competitive socialising venue with a minimum of 4 bowling lanes.
2. A direct telephone number for the manager of the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises are open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents in the vicinity.
All conditions offered in the operating schedule shall be included in the licence, unless contradictory to the above conditions. The licence is also subject to the mandatory conditions applicable to licensed premises.
The full reasons for the Sub-Committee’s decision will be included in the detailed Decision Letter which will be provided to the Applicant and Representors in due course.
There is a right of appeal for the Applicant and the Representors 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:
York and Selby Magistrates Court
The Law Courts
Members considered an application by Roxy Leisure Ltd. for a premises licence in respect of 3 St Mary’s Square, Coppergate, York YO1 9NY.
In considering the application and the representations made, the Sub-Committee concluded that the following licensing objectives were relevant to this Hearing:
1. The Prevention of Crime and Disorder
2. Public Safety
3. The Prevention of Public Nuisance
4. 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 Licensing Manager’s report, and her comments at the Hearing.
The Licensing Manager outlined the report and the annexes, noting that the premises were in the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) area and confirming that the Applicant had carried out the consultation process correctly. She highlighted the amendments to the operating hours agreed by the Applicant with North Yorkshire Police (NYP), as set out in paragraphs 5 and 18 of the report, and noted that NYP had withdrawn their objections as a result of these amendments. She drew attention to the representations received from and on behalf of local residents, as set out in Annex 6. Finally, she advised the Sub Committee of the options open to them in determining the application.
In response to a question from a member of the Sub-Committee, the Licensing Manager clarified that the opening hours were from 9:00 am each day and not from 10:00 am.
4. The representations made by the Applicant’s solicitor, Mr Rees-Gay, on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr Rees-Gay confirmed the revised hours of the application and referred to the brochure circulated to all parties before the hearing, stating that the Applicant had been established since 2015 and operated premises on 10 sites, including premises in Liverpool and Leeds which were located within CIA areas and against which no enforcement action had ever been taken. The premises were to be used mainly for competitive socialising activities, including a bowling alley. There would be no dance floor or live music and half of all revenue would come from gaming. 75% of customers would be pre-booked, and of these 50% would be from corporate trade.
He went on to state that there had been a misconception arising from reports in the York Press that activities on the premises would be ‘family oriented’. In fact, the evening activities would be adult oriented. He added that the Applicant had liaised with the responsible authorities long before submitting the application and had first contacted NYP three years ago. The hours applied for had been reduced after lengthy discussions with PC Hollis. Discussions had also taken place with Michael Golightly in Environmental Protection regarding noise. Mr Golightly was satisfied that the application would not result in public nuisance, since the ground floor would not be in use, there would be an acoustic partition (as indicated on the plan) ... view the full minutes text for item 23.