Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any personal interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda. If the interest arises only as result of your membership of another public body or one to which you have been appointed by the Council then you only need to declare it if you intend to speak.

If the personal interest is a prejudicial 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.

None of the Sub-Committee members declared an interest in the principal agenda item under consideration.

The Sub-Committee considered a report from the Corporate Director of Neighbourhoods on an application for a review of a premises licence in respect of The Crown, 46-48 Chapel Street, Chorley.

The Sub-Committee considered guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 together with the Council’s Licensing Policy, in particular those paragraphs referred to in the report.

The Sub-Committee had to achieve a balanced approach to the difficult issues it had heard throughout the hearing and considered the Human Rights implications, specifically Article 1, and Article 6 of the First Protocol and the proportionately principles.

The Sub-Committee considered carefully the representations submitted by the Police, the Premises Licence Holder, Scottish and Newcastle Brewery and the Licensing Officer. 

The Sub-Committee were satisfied that there had been repeated incidents at the premises which undermined the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder.

After carefully considering representations from the Police, the Premises Licence Holder and Scottish and Newcastle Brewery the Sub-Committee considered the Premises Licence Holder had failed to effectively manage the premises leading to the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder being undermined.

The report indicated that the Premises Licence Holder regularly employed unregistered door supervisors working at the premises, even though he had been warned on several occasions that by doing so he was breaching his Premise Licence, and that an offence was being committed.

In response the Premises Licence Holder pointed out that the security company were supplying the unregistered staff. However members noted that it was ultimately the responsibility of the Premises Licence Holder to comply with the condition on his licence. The Premises Licence Holder stated that he had used his vast experience to decide who was suitable to work as door staff. The Sub-Committee felt this was not acceptable where this involved a breach of the licence.

The Sub-Committee had also felt that as the Premises Licence Holder was also Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), that he should have been aware that an individual employed to carry out security activity on the premises should be licensed by the SIA and display a badge while on duty.  Even after the police representative had explained repeatedly that it was a breach of his licensing conditions, the Premises Licence Holder ignored the advice offered and continued to employ non registered door supervisors.

The Sub-Committee had been informed of a serious incident which took place on 1 January 2009 were a customer’s ear had been bitten off.  The Sub-Committee accepted that this incident could have happened elsewhere but felt that had the premises been better managed the incident may not have occurred.

Members of the Sub-Committee had been informed that drug paraphernalia had been found in the toilets of The Crown.  As a result Sgt Bushell and the Licensing Enforcement Manager attended The Crown to discuss the matter.  It was highlighted that there was evidence of customers using drugs in the toilets and the Premises Licence Holder asked what provisions had been put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.