Skip to main content

Licensing Sub Committee Minutes – 7th December 2023

5:20 pm, Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 3 weeks ago

Present:

Councillors Hasthorpe, Beasant and Westcott

Officers in attendance:

  • Adrian Moody (Licensing and Environmental Protection Manager)
  • Georgina Goodhand (Licensing Enforcement Officer)
  • Sophie Pickerden (Committee Support Officer)
  • Gemma Broderick (Solicitor)

Others in attendance:

  • Erin White (Applicant)
  • Sue Hawkins (Representative)
  • Christine Richardson (Representative)
  • Brian Rowe (Representative)

There were no members of public and no members of the press in attendance.

LSC.4          APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR

RESOLVED – That Councillor Hasthorpe be appointed as Chair for this meeting.

COUNCILLOR HASTHORPE IN THE CHAIR

LSC.5           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest received in respect of any item on the agenda for this meeting.

LSC.6          APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE AT – 22 ALEXANDRA ROAD, CLEETHORPES DN35 8LG

The sub-committee considered an application for a new premises licence for the premises 22 Alexandra Road, Cleethorpes DN35 8LG.

The Chair introduced himself, the other members of the sub- committee, and the officers present.

Ms Broderick outlined the preliminary legal issues in relation to the bundle of papers, additional evidence served and the process to follow for the hearing.

Mr Moody summarised the application. He said that the application was for a new premises licence. Mr Moody outlined the hours the applicant had requested within the application in which to sell alcohol and play recorded music. He explained that the applicant had also requested hours to play live music even though in the hours that had been requested, a licence was not required. Mr Moody said that number of proposed conditions had been included with the application including conditions agreed with Humberside Police and the Environmental Protection Team. He said that a total of three representations had been accepted which were included in the agenda papers. Mr Moody explained that the conditions had been sent to those who had made representations but none of the representations were subsequently withdrawn. He said that there was an additional representation submitted which was submitted after the deadline and was therefore not accepted. Mr Moody explained that the additional representation cited similar issues that were mentioned in the other representations. Mr Moody said that the sub-committee could grant the licence as applied for, grant the licence with modified conditions, exclude a requested licensable activity, or reject the application. He stated that the power of review existed.

The Chair invited Ms White to address the sub-committee.

Ms White said that she and her brother were the owners of the premise Side by Side. Ms White said that she had read through the representations and a lot of them raised concerns over noise and nuisance. Ms White stated that she wanted to put the residents minds at rest. She explained that she wanted to open a bar similar to the bar she ran in Caistor. Ms White said that the plan for the premises was to predominately have a sit-down bar and to not have a rowdy pub. Ms White stated that she had applied for longer hours on the application form but wasn’t necessarily planning on being open every day for the hours stated within the form. She said that her plan for the premises was to replicate the business she already ran in Caistor. Ms White said that the business would be tailored to the over 25 age group and that premium beverages would be offered. She said that she did not want to attract noisy people and would be serving food until 10.00pm with customers sat down. Ms White explained that there potentially would be a few chairs at the bar, but the business would have more of a restaurant vibe with music at a volume level where people could talk. Ms White stated that her business in Caistor typically closed between 11.00pm – 11.30pm and that the new business would most likely close at 12.00 midnight. She said that she had applied for longer hours in order to allow her that flexibility on days such as New Year’s Eve. Ms White stated that she had agreed to all the conditions in the report and had also agreed to have a noise monitoring device at the premises. She said that the doors to the premises would be closed at 9.00pm. Ms White said that there would be a minimum of 40 seat covers which meant that the seats could not be moved and therefore the premises would always be a sit-down venue. She said that she had agreed to having signs up at the premises telling customers to have respect for the neighbours. Ms White stated that she wanted to work with the neighbours and didn’t want them to be strangers.

The Chair asked the sub-committee members if they had any questions for Ms White.

Councillor Westcott queried whether the premises would be promoting deals such as bottomless brunches. He said that sometimes having those sorts of deals were not always a good thing. Ms White said that she did want to encourage the ladies who lunch but would not be offering any deals around binge drinking. She said that she would be looking to offer deals such as a pizza and drink together for a lesser cost.

Councillor Beasant queried the type of music played at the Caistor premises and whether the business worked well with the public. Ms White said that at the premises in Caistor they played music every night, but the music was mellow and tended to be saxophone music. She said that when she first opened her business in Caistor, she put a note through all the neighbours doors. Ms White stated that she had no issues with any of the neighbours in Caistor. Councillor Beasant asked whether there was a flat above the premises in Caistor. Ms White said that the premises did have a flat above it but was part of the licence. She said that her business partner had lived in the flat above and had not had any problems. She said that in the flat above the premises in Caistor, there was no sound insulation, but her business partner had had no issues with noise. Ms White said that in the new premises, there would be sound insulation. She stated that a family lived next door to the premises in Caistor and had also not reported any issues to her.

Councillor Westcott asked whether there would be live bands at the premises. Ms White said that they might have one person playing a guitar but they would not have any bands or karaoke.

The Chair invited Ms Richardson, Ms Hawkins and Mr Rowe to address the sub-committee.

Ms Hawkins stated that she lived directly above the premises. She said that she had not met Ms White before as she had not introduced herself. Ms Hawkins said that there was an A4 piece of paper in the window but that nobody had seen it as it was not displayed adequately. She explained that were more people to have seen the paper, there would have been a lot more objections registered. Ms Hawkins said that whilst she appreciated that the applicant wanted to get the business up and running, she did not want the business in her front room. Ms Hawkins stated that there had been builders at the premises for two months and she had to hear music, drills and other equipment being used. She said that she had invited the builder to come and listen to how loud it was in her flat and he was mortified by how loud it was. Ms Hawkins said that was when they were using a radio so it would be worse when the premises opened. She said that hearing the noise had been horrendous.

Ms Richardson spoke on behalf of Mr Stead. She queried how the doors could be closed at 9.00pm as the applicant stated.

Ms Broderick reiterated that the procedure of a sub-committee meeting did not allow for cross-examination.

Ms Richardson said that Mr Stead had concerns over the noise and was also concerned about people smoking and congregating outside the premise and nearby.

Ms Hawkins said that her work pattern was that she had to be up at 4.00am and music being played at the premises would disturb her. She said that she had further concerns of being broken into, alarms going off, fires and concerns relating to the alleyway. Ms Hawkins said that she was unsure where all of the bins for the premises would be kept. She said that she understood the applicant wanting to open the business, but it was a frightening idea to her. Ms Hawkins stated that when she first moved into her property, she felt safe there and there was also the church next door. She said that she always felt assured that nothing like what was being proposed would be in the premises and thought it would be used as retail space.

Ms Richardson said that Mr Stead had to be up at 5.00am in the morning as well for work. She said that were music to be played at unsociable hours or a band playing it would affect him. Ms Richardson said that midnight was still late. She said that there were also concerns over potential overspill of people on the front.

Ms Hawkins said that she would have to walk past the business in order to put her rubbish in her bin. She said that she would be encroaching on the business space as much as it would encroach on her space. Ms Hawkins stated that it was not at all ideal.

Mr Rowe stated that he lived on the end of the block and had done for forty years. He said that there were existing problems with the alleyway, including people smoking down it and urinating. Mr Rowe said that he thought the alley belonged to someone else and not the applicant. Mr Rowe said that he had concerns about the late hours proposed. He explained that he could list the anti-social behaviours that would occur. Mr Rowe said that there were existing problems of people urinating in the library gardens and other areas. He said that the issues of litter and noise could also increase. Mr Rowe stated that he was speaking for himself and three other residents. He said that if the premises closed at 2.00am, then people would not disperse until 3.00am. Mr Rowe said that there was only one door, so how would it closed as it would have to be open to let people in and out. He said that there were issues of people spilling out onto the front when the premises used to be the Copper Bar. Mr Rowe said that he was unsure about the legislation regarding what notice the residents should have about the premises or what should be displayed. He stated that his main concern was the time. Mr Rowe said that a 2.00am closing time in a residential area with a church close by was not acceptable.

The Chair asked the sub-committee members if they had any questions for the representatives.

Councillor Westcott queried whether the issues regarding people urinating in the library gardens and near the church had been reported. Mr Rowe said that he had not reported the issue. He said that he had chased people down and got into confrontations with people but had never reported the issue. Mr Rowe said that he did not see that there was a point to report the issue as he didn’t think anyone would do anything about it. Councillor Westcott stated that it was important people reported issues. Mr Rowe explained that as the issue was so blatant, he didn’t think it was necessary to report it. Mr Rowe said that he would take on board Councillor Westcott’s point. Councillor Westcott stated that he would like to see the issue dealt with. Mr Moody said that the issue could be reported to the relevant officers. He stated that it was important to remember that what was being considered was a premises licence and that wider issues in the area should not hinder the application. Mr Rowe stated that were the premises licence to be granted, it was his opinion that it would exacerbate the existing problems.

Councillor Westcott queried whether any of the residents had enquired about the premises before moving in. Ms Hawkins said that she had enquired about the premises and had been told it used to be bar but that the owner was looking for it to be retail space. She said that the estate agent told her that the owner would not entertain anyone who applied wanting it to be a bar.

Councillor Westcott said that it was misleading of the estate agent to say that. He queried whether Ms Hawkins would have still moved into her property if she knew the premises was to become a bar in the future. Ms Hawkins said that she would have made a different decision. She said that her home was perfect when she first moved in. She said that there was the church next door and a pub further down the road which closed at 11.00pm and only played music on a Saturday night. Ms Hawkins stated that she had concerns about noise coming through the roof. She said that whilst she understood some sound proofing had been put in, she could still hear everything.

The Chair asked whether the sound proofing had made any difference. Ms Hawkins responded that it had not. Ms White stated that the sound proofing had only just gone in during the last two weeks. She said that the builders had been using a high impact drill and that the music that would be played would be a different sound. Ms Hawkins said that she could still hear noise after the sound proofing had gone in.

Councillor Westcott said that builders were disruptive but the time they would be in the premises working was limited. He said that he was more concerned about the proposed bar’s operations and what the effect would be. Ms Hawkins said that the builders had had the radio on and she could hear it.

The Chair invited all parties to make their closing statements.

Ms White said that she hadn’t had chance to introduce herself to residents yet as had only been to the premises a few times and had been awaiting a decision on the licence. She said that there was also a fire door at the premises which led onto separate alleyways and the bins for the premises would be going down there. Ms White said that the from 9.00pm the entrance door would be closed unless a customer was entering the premises. She stated that there would be none of the premises bins in the residents’ alleyway.

The Chair queried whether it was a separate alleyway to the alleyway used by residents. Ms Hawkins responded that it was the same alleyway. Ms White stated that the premises had a fire escape door on the side that led into an alleyway which she believed was their own.

Ms Hawkins said that the alleyway was locked off at times halfway down and is used as well by the Indian restaurant. She said that her main concern was the noise.

Ms Richardson queried whether, if the licence was granted, the applicant would be able to open until 2.00am even though she had said verbally that the premises would be closed at midnight. Mr Moody said that in theory if the hours up until 2.00am were granted by the sub-committee, the applicant would be allowed to do that.

Ms Richardson queried whether the applicant could have a band play at the premises even though she had said there would be no bands playing. Mr Moody stated that if they had a licence that allowed that, then that would be permitted. He reiterated that if concerns were raised in the future, then the licence could be reviewed. 

Ms Richardson queried what the maximum capacity was for the premises. Ms White said that she was not sure of that information at the present time. Ms Broderick said that Fire Regulations would have that information.

Councillor Westcott queried whether the premises was two units. Mr Moody stated that it was two units that were now together.

The sub-committee withdrew to deliberate. After an interval, the sub-committee returned to the meeting.

The Chair thanked everyone for their attendance. He stated that the sub-committee had been asked to consider an application for a new premises licence at 22 Alexandra Road, Cleethorpes. The Chair stated that all representations received had been taken into account and the sub-committee had listened carefully to everyone who had spoken at the hearing. The Chair said that as a sub-committee, they had to take into account all of the information and make a decision based on the evidence and information that they currently had. The Chair said that having taken all of the information into account, the sub-committee was happy to grant the licence as applied for, including the conditions agreed with Humberside Police and the Environmental Protection Team, and subject to the following:

  1. The sale of alcohol would be permitted during the following hours: Monday-Sunday 12:00-00:00
  2. The playing of recorded music would be permitted during the following hours: Monday-Sunday 12:00-00:00

The Chair stated that a licence was not required for the playing of live or recorded music between the hours of 0800-23:00 in these circumstances, and so live and recorded music would be permitted between these hours when the premises was open. The Chair said that the sub-committee wish to emphasise that the power of review existed, and any breaches would be taken seriously.

RESOLVED – That the application for a new premises licence be granted subject to the conditions agreed with Humberside Police, the Environmental Protection Team and the conditions outlined by the sub-committee.

There being no other business, the Chair thanked those in attendance for their contributions and concluded the meeting at 3.00pm.