Venue: Committee Room 2, East Pallant House. View directions
To elect a Chairman for this Hearing
Declarations of Interests
Members and officers are reminded to make any declarations of disclosable pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interests they may have in respect of matters on the agenda for this meeting.
Review of a Premises Licence (reconvened hearing from 25 August 2015):
(a) Chair opens the Hearing.
(b) Items arising from Regulation 6 Notice (Notice of Hearing).
(c) Notice of any representations withdrawn.
(d) The procedure will then follow the Sub-Committee protocol and procedure note attached (pages 1 to 4).
Neither the applicant for the review, Sussex Police or the premises licence holder were present for the reconvened review hearing.
Mr Foord referred to the hearing of the Sub-Committee that had taken place on 25 August in respect of an application for a review of the Vestry’s licence and reminded members that the hearing had been adjourned to enable Mr Marshall the new premises owner and premises licence holder to make the necessary changes necessary to address the concerns of Sussex Police and to submit a minor variation application to add the conditions agreed with Sussex Police and remove those deemed to be out of date. A valid application for a variation licence was received on 17 September 2016. He reported that Mr Marshall had worked closely with Sussex Police who, as a result, did not make any representations and therefore the licence was issued with the agreed conditions. Since the grant of the licence Mr Marshall had continued to work closely with Sussex Police in respect of the running of the premises. A number of temporary event notices had also been issued, none of which had received an objection from Sussex Police.
He advised the Sub-Committee that he had contacted Sussex Police before today’s hearing to find out their current stance on how the premises was now being run and reported he had received a positive response from Ms J Irving, Licensing and Public Safety Manager who confirmed that they would not be sending a representative to the hearing. He had also met with Mr Marshall.
On this occasion the Sub-Committee did not retire from the meeting room while making their decision.
The Sub-Committee has again considered all representations and documents submitted at the previous hearing in this matter in particular the representations of Mr Marshall, the new owner, as to the changes he intended to and has put into place. The Sub Committee has taken due note of the contents of the minor variation application
The Sub-Committee has taken particular note of the evidence of Sussex Police and the subsequent representations received as to the ownership and management changes and as to the several months of monitoring of the premises by police since the previous hearing of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee also notes the specific agreement of Sussex Police to the stringent conditions set out in the minor variation application.
The Sub-Committee felt that the
actions of the new owner were having a clear impact, that there
were likely therefore to be no similar problems to those which led
to the review and that the changes brought by Mr Marshall have been
enormous in achieving the licensing objectives and will make a
great deal of difference to the premises and their clients and