To consider an application for a Premises Licence in respect of No 18, 18 Esplanade Road, Paignton.

Members considered a report on an application for a Premises Licencein respect of No.18, 18 Esplanade Road, Paignton.

Written Representations received from:

Additional Information:

Prior to the Hearing the Applicant requested the following documents be circulated:

·         Drugs Policy;

·         Noise Report;

·         Noise Management Plan; and

·         Proposed Conditions.

With the agreement of the Chairman the time for oral representations was extended to 15 minutes.

Oral Representations received from:

Decision

That the application for a Premises Licence in respect of No.18, 18 Esplanade Road, Paignton be refused.

Reasons for Decision

Having carefully considered all the written and oral representations, Members unanimously resolved to refuse the application before them.

In coming to that decision, Members considered the Independent Noise Report and Noise Management Plan submitted by the Applicant and were impressed and pleased to note that the Applicant had thoroughly addressed the issue of potential noise outbreak from inside the premises.  Furthermore, Members were reassured by the Public Protection Officer’s (PPO) submissions, that if implemented, the recommendations set out in the Noise Report would in his opinion, eliminate noise outbreak from inside the premises.

However, on the evidence before them, Members were not able to gain the same level of reassurance they required in respect of ensuring that ‘the prevention of public nuisance’ licensing objective was promoted when determining an application for a 3am licence. Members had careful regard to, what in their opinion, was the high likelihood of risk of residents being unreasonably disturbed by patrons leaving the premises and entering in to areas in the immediate vicinity of the premises which are residential, both commercially and private. As such, Members could not be satisfied than in granting the application, ‘the prevention of public nuisance’ licensing objective, would not be undermined.

Whilst Members noted the Applicants submission that a dispersal policy had been written, however without having sight of that policy as the Applicant had omitted to provide this at the hearing, Members were unable to determine for themselves whether the dispersal policy had been given the same level of consideration and attention by the Applicant. This was particularly pertinent, given Members highly perceived risk of such disturbance and therefore found the application lacking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8