Agenda, decisions and minutes

Application to vary a premises licence for KC’s Bar 155 Billet Lane, Hornchurch RM11 1UR

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

PREMISES

KC’s Bar

155 Billet Lane

Hornchurch

RM11 1UR

An application for a variation to a premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”).

APPLICANTS

Monty’s Bar Ltd

Unit 8, Elm Ind. Estate

Church Road

Harold Wood

RM3 0JU

At the outset, the Applicant’s agent – Mr G Hopkins - asked leave to address the Sub-Committee concerning a number of issues which he considered ought to be dealt with in fairness to his client’s application.  The matters raised were:

• A request for additional time to present the applicant’s case.
• A request to exclude evidence referred to and comments made by the Environmental Health Noise specialist as the document referred to had not been seen by any of the parties.
• A request to exclude an item of evidence presented by the Police as it related to an incident which had occurred before the current owners took over the licence.
• A request to exclude a number of photographs submitted by an interested party opposing the application as they related to incidents which occurred before the current management took over the licence.
• A request for clarification about the role Councillor Galpin was assuming as it was unclear whether she was representing herself or another interested party.
• A challenge to whether condition one of annexe two of the current licence was lawful in relation to age discrimination.
• A challenge to the duplication of planning issues – presented in their own right – and also cited by the Licensing Authority.

The Chairman invited each of the parties referred to in the above challenges to respond.

Because there were a number of issues which required consideration by the Sub-Committee, the Chairman adjourned the hearing in order for it to discuss the points and give a decision on them before proceeding with the application.

Having deliberated carefully on the issues raised, the Sub-Committee gave the following rulings:

The applicant could have thirty minutes in which to present his case, should it be required.

The document referred to in the Environmental Health Officer’s report – but not provided in the agenda pack – could not be produced at the hearing by the officer, as all parties would have to consent to its production, and the applicant did not.

With regard to the incident cited by the police which occurred before the 4 March 2013 when the current management took over the licence, and also those photographs provided by an interested party which pre-dated the change of management, the Sub-Committee indicated that the current management would not be held responsible..

The Sub-Committee was content that Councillor Galpin was an “other person” and was only representing herself.

With regard to the lawfulness of condition one, the Sub-Committee was not prepared to consider that as a preliminary issue, but it would consider the applicant’s request to remove it generally in light of the arguments presented for both parties.

With regard to ruling on whether it was a fault for one  ...  view the full decision text for item 1.

Present:

COUNCILLORS

Peter Gardner (Chairman), Melvin Wallace and Linda Van den Hende

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

The Chairman reminded Members of the action to be taken in an emergency.

Present at the meeting were Mr T Rowlett and Mr S Beaton – applicants and their agents Mr G Hopkins and Ms L Potter. 

Mr P Jones represented Havering’s Licensing Authority, Inspector M Blackledge represented the Metropolitan Police, Mr V Long represented the Planning Service, Mr M Gasson represented the Environmental Health Service with respect to noise nuisance, Mr J Giles also appeared on behalf of the Environmental Health Service.  In addition, Councillor Georgina Galpin was present as an Interested Party.

Mr A Hunt, Licensing Officer presented the application.  Also present were the Legal Advisor and the Clerk to the Sub-Committee and Mr ?? Conway, Licensing Technician.

PREMISES

KC’s Bar

155 Billet Lane

Hornchurch

RM11 1UR

An application for a variation to a premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”).

APPLICANTS

Monty’s Bar Ltd

Unit 8, Elm Ind. Estate

Church Road

Harold Wood

RM3 0JU

At the outset, the Applicant’s agent – Mr G Hopkins - asked leave to address the Sub-Committee concerning a number of issues which he considered ought to be dealt with in fairness to his client’s application.  The matters raised were:

• A request for additional time to present the applicant’s case.
• A request to exclude evidence referred to and comments made by the Environmental Health Noise specialist as the document referred to had not been seen by any of the parties.
• A request to exclude an item of evidence presented by the Police as it related to an incident which had occurred before the current owners took over the licence.
• A request to exclude a number of photographs submitted by an interested party opposing the application as they related to incidents which occurred before the current management took over the licence.
• A request for clarification about the role Councillor Galpin was assuming as it was unclear whether she was representing herself or another interested party.
• A challenge to whether condition one of annexe two of the current licence was lawful in relation to age discrimination.
• A challenge to the duplication of planning issues – presented in their own right – and also cited by the Licensing Authority.

The Chairman invited each of the parties referred to in the above challenges to respond.

Because there had been a number of issues which required consideration by the Sub-Committee, the Chairman adjourned the hearing in order for it to discuss the points and give a decision on them before proceeding with the application.

Having deliberated carefully on the issues raised, the Sub-Committee gave the following rulings:

The applicant could have thirty minutes in which to present his case, should it be required.

The document referred to in the Environmental Health Officer’s report – but not provided in the agenda pack – could not be produced at the hearing by the officer, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.