Venue: Town Hall, Grove Road, BN21 4UG
Contact: Simon Russell on 01323 415021 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) by members as required under Section 31 of the Localism Act and of other interests under the Code of Conduct. (Please see note at end of agenda).
None were declared.
Report of Senior Specialist Advisor
The Chairman introduced members and officers present and detailed the procedure to be followed at the meeting.
The Senior Specialist Advisor outlined the report regarding the application to vary a premises licence for Eastbourne Pier, Grand Parade.
The premises were located in the Cumulative Impact Zone. Cumulative impact is defined as the potential impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives where there are a number of licensed premises concentrated in one area. Where the number, type and density of licensed premises are unusually high, serious problems of noise, nuisance and disorder can occur outside or some distance away from the licensed premises in question. This is described as the cumulative impact of all premises taken together. When an area becomes saturated it creates exceptional problems that undermine the promotion of one or more of the licensing objectives. When valid representations are received in respect of the premises located within the area identified as being subject to the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy, a rebuttable presumption is created that the application should be refused.
Currently the premises in question offered a variety of activities, some of which were appropriately regulated under the Licensing Act 2003.
The application, detailed in the report, included steps taken by the applicant to promote the four licensing objectives. This was included at Appendix 1 of the report.
Representation had been received from 12 members of the public including a petition consisting of 17 signatures objecting to the application. Sussex Police and Eastbourne Borough Council Licensing Team had also made representations against the application as responsible authorities. The representations focused on the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives, particularly the potential for noise, nuisance and alcohol fuelled disturbances in the area later at night.
Letters had also been received from Mr Hopkins, 720 Taxis and Mr Curry of the University of Brighton Student’s Union in support of the application.
The Senior Specialist Advisor detailed the mediation period that had taken place. The Sub-Committee was advised that no agreement had been made between the various parties objecting to the application and the applicant.
Options open to the Sub-Committee was granting the application in full, granting it subject to modifications or rejecting the whole or part of the application.
The Sub-Committee requested clarification regarding the detailed provisions of the application which had been submitted. Ms Clover, Counsel for the Applicant advised that Part 3 of the Application detailed the proposed variation in full.
Mr Stemp, representing Sussex Police addressed the Sub-Committee outlining the concerns that had been raised to the application. He stressed the importance of the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy and the requirement for the applicant to demonstrate in their Operating Schedule that there would be no negative cumulative impact. Mr Stemp contended that the applicant had not provided any evidence to rebut the presumption which arose as a result of the policy.
Mr Stemp referenced section 8 of the variation relating to the wording of the CCTV system. Sussex ... view the full minutes text for item 2.