Agenda and minutes

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

No declarations were made.

General procedure points and hearing procedure for the meeting.

The procedure was noted.

To consider the exclusion of the press and public for the following items of business on the ground that the public interest in so doing outweighs the public interest in the hearing, or that part of the hearing, taking place in public. This is because it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

By Virtue of Paragraph 1: Information relating to any individual.

Condition:

Information is exempt to the extent that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Information is not exempt if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town & Country Planning General Regulations 1992(a).

RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

Report of the Director of Planning and Development.

The Sub-Committee considered a report which advised that a Personal Licence Holder had been convicted of a relevant offence.

Members were reminded of the licensing objectives and the steps they were to take were to promote the licensing objectives.

The Licence Holder gained a Personal Licence on 6 December 2018, and on 17 December 2020, the Licence Holder was convicted of driving with excess alcohol, 78 micro grams in their breath, double the limit of 35 micrograms.

Section 128 of the Act obliges the Licence Holder to produce the Licence to the Court. There was a discrepancy as to whether the Court were informed of the Personal Licence. The Licence Holder’s legal representative provided an email prior to the Sub-Committee meeting stating that the Court was informed but the Court Clerk advised the Licensing Officer that the Court was not informed.

The Licence Holder did not notify the Local Authority of the conviction, but procedure would be for the Licence Holder to inform the Court and the Court would inform the Local Authority. The Licence Holder made written representations 4 March 2021.

The Licensing Officer explained the potential outcomes for the Licence Holder, and noted that if the decision was made not to revoke or suspend, the police would have the opportunity to make representations, and if so, the matter will return to the Sub-Committee for a final decision.

The Licence Holder made their representations and emphasised that they had no intention of justifying their actions or providing any excuses. The Licence Holder was remorseful and felt that the incident was out of character as evidenced by having no history of driving offences. At the time of the incident, the Licence Holder was dealing with health issues, stress at work and financial pressure. Since the incident, they had received help, and immediately booked onto the alcohol driving rehabilitation course and paid the fine. The Licence Holder was certain that the Court were informed of the Personal Licence and explained that the reason they invested in a solicitor was not to fight the charge, but to ensure that everything was done correctly.

Upon question by members, the Licence Holder stated that the incident occurred after leaving the residence of a friend at 2am.

Upon request of the Licensing Officer, the Licence Holder explained that there had been two complaints about the premises, the first was during the transfer and start of pub tenure, in relation to potential drug misuse on site. The matter was dealt with and the establishment made it clear that drug use on the premises was unacceptable. The most recent was August 2020. a noise complaint followed a socially distanced event in which all Covid-19 and Licensing guidelines were adhered to.

Neither complaint progressed. The establishment took significant care to craft a good relationship with its neighbours and actively encouraged communication to resolve any minor issues that occur.

The  Legal Services Team Leader, raised the possibility that the Licence Holder’s legal representative in court inadvertently miscommunicated that his  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.4