Agenda item
Application for a new premises licence for Cove Café Ltd, Bridport
An application for a new premises licence has been made by Cove Café Ltd for on and off sales of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late night refreshment. Representations have been received and remain unresolved therefore a hearing by the licensing Sub-Committee must be held to determine the application.
Minutes:
The Licensing Officer set out the application for a new premises licence made by Cove Café Ltd for on and off sales of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late night refreshment.
The Licensing Officer advised that the applicant had withdrawn some parts of the application in his letter dated 9 July 2020 and this information had been circulated to all parties. The application was now for:-
The supply of alcohol (on sales only)
between 1100hrs and 2330hrs daily, with an additional hour on New Year’s Eve
and all national bank holidays.
Regulated entertainment indoor
only (live and recorded music) between 2300 and 2330hours with an
additional hour on New Year’s Eve and all national bank holidays, and
Late night refreshment between 2300
and midnight with an additional hour on New Year’s Eve and all national bank
holidays.
The Licensing Officer continued that whilst
it might look odd to see live and recorded music for only the half an hour on
the application. This was down to the
Live Music Act which simply meant that any premises with alcohol licences did
not need music on their licence in order to have music on their licence in
order to have music playing between 8am and 11pm.
The Licensing Act 2003 (Descriptions of
Entertainment) (Amendment) Order 2013 meant that indoor sporting events and
performance of dance were also not considered to be licensable activities if
they occurred between the hours of 0800 hrs and 2300hrs (subject to certain
audience size limitations). There was no similar provision for films.
The Licensing Officer continued that one of the objectors had
shared his submission that he intended to give prior to the hearing and this
had been circulated to all parties. The Licensing Officer took this opportunity
to remind the sub-committee about the relevance of representations. All of the representations had been included
in the committee papers in their entirety for the purposes of transparency.
However only those elements that related to the licensing four objectives
should be taken into account.
There were no questions of the Licensing
Officer at this stage.
The applicant’s solictor,
Mr Elford on behalf of Seals Cove Ltd advised the
sub-committee that the premises was sited on a trading estate within
Bridport. He thanked the Licensing
Officer for listing the changes made and
indicated that the rest of the application remained as originally stated. The
premise was aimed at families not just with young children, but for all age
groups of the family and the application sought flexibility in order to cater
for the demand from customers.
Mr Elford
acknowledged that there was some objections from local residents, but pointed
out that there had been no representations received from the responsible
authorities.
Mr Elford also
proposed a number of additional conditions to address some of the concerns
raised by representations received. These were set out as:-
(i) To
provide a smoking area for customers of the premises
(ii) To monitor the smoking area to ensure
that customer behaviour is not a nuisance to business or residents
(iii) Notices to be displayed in the smoking
area reminding them to respect local residents.
(iv) No noise that the premise will give rise
to a nuisance to local residents
(v) That the premises licence holder shall
install a noise limiter set at a level where no nuisance is caused to local
residents
(vi) A noise test to be carried out before
opening to the public.
By setting these conditions the applicant
aimed not to upset any local business or resident. Mr Elford
also indicated that the premises licence holder would provide the duty manager
contact number to local residents in the unlikely event that there were concerns
at an event.
He advised members that the premises would
not be operating as a nightclub and would offer the following condition (vii)
that the premises will not operated as a late night drinking venue. Plus (viii)
that licencing activities shall be ancillary to the use of the premises for a
family leisure complex. It was hoped that this would give local residents
assurance.
He continued that there had been concerns
raised about the booking arrangements and he suggested that the premises
licence holder would incorporate the conditions of the licence within the hire
agreement of its customers. The premises licence holder would appoint
sufficient employees to run the business and at the moment they were looking to
hire a minimum of 10 full- time and 10 part-time staff to the business. But
that number was likely to increase as the business grows.
Mr Elford also
offered a condition relating to training (ix) That staff would be trained
commensurate to their function within the business. (x) that the premises
licence holder would ensure that a personal licence holder was on duty at the
premises from 8pm every day. The applicant had already trained 7 staff as
personal licence holders in addition to himself.
Mr Elford
continued that he understood local residents concerns, but argued that there
was no evidence at this time to support those concerns. He asked members to approve the application.
He Licensing
Officer asked Mr Elford
to clarify that the removal of anything of similar description to live music,
recorded music and performances of dance (part H on the application) and that
live music and recorded music remained on the licence between 2300-2330
hours. Mr Elford on behalf of the
applicant confirmed this was the case.
The Chairman invited members to asked questions. In response to a question regarding the
responsible authorities, Mr Elford confirmed that
there were no objections from the responsible authorities.
Cllr Pipe sought clarification in what was
meant as “late night”. Mr Elford advised that the premise was a family leisure
complex not a late night pub/bar with “vertical drinking”. The hours sought would allow flexibility. For
example the climbing wall would be used in the day by school groups and the bar
would not be required. However in the
evening adult amateur climbers may wish to enjoy a social drink after a climbing
session.
In response to another question, Mr Elford advised that the soft play area was not a licensable
activity, but there would be a Challenge 25 initiative in place on the site.
The applicant confirmed that around 8.30pm most children would be out of the
soft play area, unless there was a family party event. All children would be
expected to be supervised.
In respect of the implementation of a noise
limiter, members asked if an expert would be consulted for the
installation. In reply Mr Elford confirmed that this would be the case, and that the
walls and roof had been insulated. He did not believe that there would be noise
breakout from the premises.
Members asked where the smoking area would
be sited? Mr Elford confirmed that it would sited in
area which would not effect local residents and other customers. Members also
asked about the siting of pop-up bars and the applicant confirmed that if there
was a pop-up bar these would be manned by the premises staff. Members were
further advised that these events would be risk assessed accordingly. In response to a question in respect of
capacity, members were advised that the final figure had not yet been
established yet.
In respect to function room advertisements,
members were informed that advertising would be by the website and onsite
bookings mainly for children’s parties.
In respect of a question about car parking,
the applicant confirmed that parking was not a relevant issue to the
application. However the premise would
have 50 spaces and in the summer months he was hoping to operate a bus service
from West Bay to and from the site.
In response to a further question, Mr Elford advised that “vertical drinking model” was like a
traditional pub, for example drinking
standing at the bar.
The Chairman welcomed Mr Cross an objector
to the application. He had concerns
about drunk people using the footpath by the side of his property. Was this the right place to sale alcohol on an industrial estate when their
were many public house in the town? Mr Cross indicated that he understood the
business model but could not agree that it was appropriate to sale alcohol on the site. There were no questions to Mr Cross
The Chairman
invited Mr Middleton to address the sub-committee. Mr Middleton appreciated
that his points in his previous submission had now been taken into
account. However these were not
addressed prior to him making his representation and this caused him some
concern. The conditions proposed by the applicant showed that they are now
listening to the residents but he did not think that the concessions put
forward or the conditions proposed were substantiated. For example there were
no smoking area indicated on the plan.
In his view, this
showed that there was no preparation or consideration for this issue. He was concerned with the
information given in particular regarding the capacity figures. Which could be
amplified considerable. He further
expressed concerns about the parking issues.
He asked members to consider reducing the licensing hours as some of the
conditions still remained unclear. He felt that it was important to consider
the application with caution as it was sited on an industrial estate near the
town with a residential area. He considered it to be reasonable for the
business to operate with temporary event notices in the short to medium
term. The community was not adverse the
business succeeding but he was surprised that the local residents had not had
any consultation in this matter.
Mitigation was not
successful and in response to a question from the Chairman the timings
considered acceptable to Mr Middleton would be 11.00am to 6pm which was in
keeping with the trading estate hours. He also asked Sunday trading hours to be
considered as there is no Sunday
trading on the industrial estate at the moment.
In response to
questions from members Mr Middleton confirmed that he had attended 2 mitigating
meetings with a representative of the applicant, but there had been no
consultation prior to the application being submitted.
The Chairman
invited the Licensing Officer to respond to the public statements and she
confirmed that applicants were not required to provide smoking areas for their
customers. The capacity of the building was not recorded on the licence that
was a matter for the fire risk assessment and with regards to consulting
residents, the requirement of the regulations was that the application be
advertised in a local newspaper and a notice be displayed on site. These were both complied with and were
considered sufficient.
The applicant had
no questions of the Mr Middleton.
The Chairman
invited all parties to sum up their case.
In summing up Mr Middleton asked the sub-committee to reject the
application and Mr Cross also strongly objected to the application.
In summing up Mr Elford stated he was sorry that residents felt that they
had not been consulted. However giving the conditions offered he was confident
that the applicant would promote the four licensing objectives in the way that
the premises was operated.
The Licensing
Officer and the Legal Advisor had nothing further to add.
In closing the
meeting the Chairman advised that the sub-committee would consider the
information provided and the decision would be sent to all parties in writing
within 5 workings. All parties had 21
days to appeal to magistrates court following the decision made by the
sub-committee.
Decision
That the
application be grant as set out in the appendix attached.
An application for a new premises licence has been made by Cove Café Ltd for on and off sales of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late night refreshment. Representations have been received and remain unresolved therefore a hearing by the licensing Sub-Committee must be held to determine the application.
Supporting documents:
- Cove Cafe Report, item 5. PDF 89 KB
- Appendix 1 premises licence application form, item 5. PDF 194 KB
- Appendix 2 Premises Plan FINAL, item 5. PDF 516 KB
- Appendix 3 Location Plan, item 5. PDF 265 KB
- Appendix 4 Representations_Redacted, item 5. PDF 81 KB
- Appendix 5 Conditions Consistent with Operating Schedule, item 5. PDF 49 KB