Councillor Addis was elected as Chairman for the meeting.

To consider an application for a Variation to a Premises Licence in respect of Hop n Grapes, Lower Union Lane, Torquay  TQ2 5PR.

Members considered a report on an application for a Variation to a Premises Licence in respect of Hop n Grapes, Lower Union Lane, Torquay TQ2 5PR.

The Premises do fall within the Cumulative Impact Area.

Written Representations received from:

Members noted that there had been no additional Representations received from any other Responsible Authority or any Interested Party.

Oral Representation received from:

Members noted that in the Oral Representations of both the Police and Public Protection Representatives that as Responsible Authorities, they had not been consulted prior to the submission of the application, as per the Licensing Statement of Principles, Torbay Council 2011, Section 3 Page 15.

Additional Information:

Members were advised by both the Police Representative and Public Protection Officer that the Applicant had not demonstrated within the operating schedule that the granting of this application would not impact on any of the Licensing Objectives and their recommendation was for the application to be refused.

Applicant’s Representative informed Members that he had not completed the application form and having taken instructions only a few weeks ago, it was clear that some elements had been completed incorrectly. In was not the Applicant’s intention to hold live events of boxing and wrestling but instead these were to be televised and following input from the Senior Licensing Officer, it was apparent that this section should have been left blank as the activity requested is covered by another section in the application form. In addition the Applicant’s Representative offered to reduce the timings of that applied for to 1am.

Decision:

That the application for a Variation to a Premises Licence in respect of Hop n Grapes, Lower Union Lane, Torquay  TQ2 5PR be refused.

Reason for Decision:

Having carefully considered all the written and oral Representations, Members resolved to refuse the application as they could not be satisfied on the evidence before them that if granted, this application would not add to the problems of crime and disorder and/or public nuisance in the area.

Members concluded that in considering the evidence, the operating schedule was too vague and did not sufficiently demonstrate how it will protect residential premises in close proximity to their premises from public nuisance, that put forward by the Applicant conflicted with conditions currently on the premises licence and that the oral representation by the Applicant’s Representative and current Designated Premises Supervisor gave no certainty to there not being a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.