To consider and determine an application for a new Premises Licence in respect of Torbay Showground, Brixham Road, Paignton, TQ4 7BH.

Members considered a report on an application for a Premises Licence in respect of Torbay Showground, Brixham Road, Paignton TQ4 7BH.

Written Representations received from:

Oral representations received from:

Decision

That the application for a Premises Licence in respect of Torbay Showground, Brixham Road, Paignton be refused.

Reasons for Decision

Having carefully considered all the written and oral representations, Members unanimously resolved to refuse the application, as they could not be satisfied, on the evidence before them, that granting the application as submitted, including the additional conditions proposed by the Police and accepted by the Applicant, would promote the licensing objectives.

In reaching their unanimous decision, Members had careful regard to the Applicant's submissions, including the mitigation measures proposed and implemented following previous events held at the site which had generated a number of noise nuisance complaints from residents in the immediate vicinity, the public representations objecting to this application and those from a Responsible Authority. In doing so, Members were not satisfied that the proposed mitigations would adequately promote the licensing objective of the Prevention of Public Nuisance. 

Members noted in particular the representations made by the two Environmental Health Officers who, in accordance with the revised  guidance issued section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 are to be treated as an expert body, were unequivocal in their view that the proposed measures would not be sufficient to prevent nearby residents from being unreasonably disturbed arising out of licensable activities intended from this site, given the scale of the proposed events and the site's proximity to a densely populated residential area, of which some are approximately only thirty metres away.

Members further considered that they had insufficient evidence before them to be satisfied that the licensing objective of Public Safety would be adequately promoted. Members were unanimous in their opinion that procedures relating to public safety for the scale of intended events were not sufficiently developed, and noted the absence of significant pieces of evidence that they would reasonably have expect to be before them to support the application, given the imminent date of the first planned event.  This included copies of  a dispersal policy and a traffic management plan which reflected the required care for those accessing and egressing the site given its location directly abutting a busy A road, shared access and egress routes of those on foot and those using the onsite carparking facilities, no restrictions in place on timings for vehicles of those supporting the event, and an apparent lack of sufficient lighting to mitigate the risks of persons egressing at the end of an event.  Furthermore, Members noted that there was no safeguarding policy, nor a detailed and fully developed and sufficient staffing ratio plan which they would have expected when considering this type of application and the objections received.

Members noted the Applicant's numerous comments that the management of many events would be undertaken by third-party operators. This was of great concern to Members as it appeared to them that too much responsibility was to be delegated by the Applicant, without robust accountability and in doing so, they could not be assured that the licence would be operated in a responsible manner that promoted all of the licensing objectives.

Members were cognisant of their role and responsibility as the ultimate decision-maker in respect of applications made under the Licensing Act 2003. They considered the Applicant's suggestion that responsibility could be delegated, by way of condition, to the Public Safety Advisory Group to be inappropriate. The Committee was required to determine whether sufficient evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the grant of a Premises Licence would not undermine the four licensing objectives, and Members were not satisfied that such evidence had been provided.

Members gave careful consideration to whether appropriate conditions could be imposed on the licence to address their concerns and those raised by Interested Parties and the Responsible Authority, rather than refusing the application outright. However, given the scale of the issues identified, the number of objections received and the oral and written representations by the Environmental Health Officers, Members were unanimous that an outright refusal was both proportionate and necessary