Agenda and minutes

To elect a Member to act as Chair of the meeting.

RESOLVED:            That Councillor Moore be elected as Chair of the meeting.

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

At this point in the meeting Members were invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on the agenda.  None were declared.

      Members considered an application by To The Moon Ltd for the variation of a premises licence for Los Locos, Micklegate, York.

In coming to their decision the sub-committee took into consideration all of the evidence and submissions that were presented to them and determined their relevance to the issues raised and the licensing objectives. The following were taken into account:

1.         The application form, in particular the existing licence conditions and the additional steps agreed to be taken by the applicant to promote the four licensing objectives.

2.         The Licensing Manager’s report and his comments made at the hearing. He advised that the application was seeking the variation of the licence to extend the opening hours and for the provision of dance. He advised that mediation had been taking place between the applicant and the Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) in regard to a Noise Management Plan and as a result EPU had withdrawn their representation. North Yorkshire Police had also mediated after the applicant agreed to the addition of a number of conditions being added on the licence. Consultation had been carried out correctly and Members were reminded that the premises were within the Cumulative Impact Zone.

3.         The applicant’s representation at the hearing. He advised that there were four business partners involved in the restaurant, all of whom had extensive experience in the industry. They had no interest in operating a bar and specialised in restaurant style operations. The reason for the application was mainly due to a change in customers’ habits, as people were wishing to eat later. The bar area would enable patrons to have pre-dinner drinks and it was not intended to change it into a vertical drinking establishment.

4.         The representations made by local residents in writing and at the hearing. They raised concerns regarding noise from the premises as the Perspex roof offered little sound proofing. They advised that the area was residential with neighbours adjacent to the premises. They felt an extension to 01:00 was unreasonable in such a residential area.

5.         The representations made by Councillor Merrett as Ward Councillor on behalf of a resident. He advised that the resident was concerned about noise issues. He reiterated the point that the area was densely populated and that this was a special case in that the premises had neighbours attached to it at one side. He urged the sub-committee to refuse the application.

6.         Written representations made during the consultation period.

In respect of the proposed variation, the sub-committee had to determine whether to take any of the steps mentioned under Section 35(4) that it considered necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.  Having regard to the above evidence and representations received, the sub-committee considered the steps which were available to them to take under Section 18(4) of the Licensing Act 2003 as it considered necessary for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives.

Members were presented with the following options:

Option 1.Grant the variations of the licence in the terms applied  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.