Agenda and minutes

To confirm the procedures for the hearing (attached).

The procedures were noted.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To agree the minutes of the meetings held on 12 March 2012, 2 May 2012 and 8 May 2012 – attached.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 12 March 2012, 2 May 2012 and 8 May 2012 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them.

To decide, having regard to the particular nature of the business to be transacted, whether or not to exclude the Press and Public during consideration of the following items on the grounds that they are likely to disclose exempt information by virtue of categories 1 and 2, as defined in Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4.

Resolved that having regard to the particular nature of business to be transacted during the consideration of agenda item 4 that it was likely to disclose exempt information by virtue of paragraphs 1 and 2, as defined in the Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 and of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded.

To hear and determine an opposed application for the grant of a Personal Licence, made under section 117 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

RESOLVED that the personal licence not be granted.

To hear and determine an opposed application for the variation of a premises licence.  The premises are situated within the Richmond town centre Cumulative Impact Zone.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

·         Andy Fisher – applicant and designated premises supervisor

·         John Milton – agent on behalf of the applicant

·         Peter Willan – interested party

·         PH Hannah – interested party

Mr Milton presented the application on behalf of the applicant. He said that the purpose of the application was to enable the premises to remain open longer, with the clientele already present and consuming food.  He felt that it would have no impact on the Cumulative Impact Zone because customers currently went to other establishments nearby as they could not remain at the Pig’s Ear beyond 11.00pm.  He rebutted claims that his client was attempting to establish a vertical drinking type premises by submitting a series of smaller applications.

Following questions, the applicant’s party advised the hearing that it was a 65-70 cover restaurant, with a 30 cover bar.  Photos were shared, with the interested parties’ consent, to illustrate the size and layout of the restaurant.  The applicant would also comply fully with the police’s requested conditions and agreed that these could be added to the licence.  Mr Fisher indicated that the majority of his takings were for food and that fire safety regulations limited the capacity of the premises to 150.

Mr Milton said that his client was not seeking to encourage vertical drinking as this would drive away his regular customers.  They also refuted claims made by the interested parties about the floor space for vertical drinking being increased.

Mr Willan believed this application was a concentration on bar activities, evidencing this belief by recounting a visit he recently made at 10.30pm where he saw around five businessmen standing and being loud while drinking.  He added that he did not see anyone eating in the upper area and that the stools which were present meant that people were effectively standing while drinking.  Mr Willan said he was concerned this would be a late night bar resulting on a negative impact on the Cumulative Impact Zone.  He added that it was widely accepted that more problems occurred, the later drinking was allowed to go into the night.

Mr Hannah said that there was additional late night drinking capacity being created and he was concerned that should the premises be sold, the licence would be available to whoever owned the business.  He emphasised his belief that the Cumulative Impact Zone was an assessment of risk.

Following further questions, those present were told that the applicant was against having door staff as this meant the premises assumed a bar appearance as a result.  It was an additional 30 minutes for licensable activities that was being sought, which it was hoped would retain the existing customer base by attracting them to remain at the Pig’s Ear for longer, than going to later opening establishments.

Peter Willan made closing remarks about concerns he held with the longer hours and removal of Section 68 resulting substantially more alcohol being consumed, impacting on the Cumulative Impact Zone.  He added that residents in the area deserved to sleep.

John Milton said that the application needed to be judged on its own merits, not generalisations.  He added that there would be a no impact on the Cumulative Impact Zone because patrons would not be inclined to visit later opening premises elsewhere.

RESOLVED that the application be granted, subject to the attached conditions.  The reasons for the decision were:

“The Licensing Sub-Committee considered that the Applicant did demonstrate that there would be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives and that an exception to the Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) applied.  However, the Licensing Sub-Committee felt it prudent to impose conditions to make sure that the predominantly food led operation would remain, despite the relaxation, as envisaged by 4.6, to make sure that vertical drinking does not replace seated consumption and or waiter service and to make sure that the alterations to the premises maintains the status quo.”