(i)

considered the report from the Director for Community Services;

(ii)

considered the written representations and heard from interested parties;

(iii)

heard from the applicant’s solicitor and his witnesses that:

·        

the premises licence holder had received no indication of concerns about noise from his premises; he did recall receiving a telephone call from a lady approximately two years ago concerning noise but the noise came from another establishment;

·        

when patrons came in and out of the premises the noise level was monitored in accordance with the requirements of the licence.  The premises licence holder regularly crossed the road to check, at various times during the evening and early hours,  that the level of music was not audible above the noise level of the traffic in the Union Street area;

·        

as a result of the Licensing Sub Committee findings on 11 December 2009 Mr McTighe took over as the designated premises supervisor of the premises and accepted all the conditions proposed by the Police;

·        

the CCTV system had been upgraded and since 11 December 2009 there had only been two or three requests for CCTV which had been dealt with either immediately or within 12 hours.  A blind spot had also been rectified and a further CCTV camera added;

·        

there was no further history of aggravated problems occurring between 2.00 a.m. and close of business on Fridays and Saturdays;

·        

the new door security company that was put in place had worked efficiently in ensuring the door staff requirements were met;

·        

the operating schedule and the voluntary use of polycarbonate drinking vessels had been working well;

·        

four additional members of staff had obtained personal licences;

·        

the premises licence holder co-operated fully with all the responsible authorities and had the full club watch accreditation; he was also a member of PARC and where appropriate any incidents were logged through the club watch radio scheme;

·        

an incident occurred on 14 August 2010 and a letter dated 19 August 2010 from Devon and Cornwall Police thanked a member of Maxines doorstaff for their professional prompt assistance;

·        

an incident occurred between Saturday 6 and Sunday 7 February 2010.  The premises licence holder and his staff contacted the Police and assisted in the arrest of offenders helping to prevent a number of officers receiving potentially serious injury.  A letter dated 10 February 2010 was referred to which commended the premises licence holder and his staff for the action taken by them;

·        

a letter of reference dated 30 July 2010 had been provided by Councillor Sue McDonald who was in favour of the application;

·        

the premises licence holder had to turn away patrons and has had to lay off four members of staff;

(vi)

considered representations under the licensing objectives as follows:

a)

Prevention of Public Nuisance –

·        

a resident living opposite the premises considered  the granting of the variation would cause a public nuisance due to noise during the early hours of the morning.  He said he had contacted the proprietor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

(i)

considered the report from the Director for Community Services;

(ii)

considered the written representation from an interested party;

(iii)

heard from the applicant that:

·        

on rare occasions this premises was let for various activities, in the past this has included charitable organisations;

·        

in the past he has had requests for concerts, barn dances etc but when the user was told they would need a licence they decided not to continue;

·        

he envisaged the premises would only be used 2-4 times a year if that; some years not at all;

·        

in the church he said there was a small platform that could be used for concerts;

·        

in the hall there was a stage that could be used for dances;

·        

he said he had spoken to the person who had made a representation, providing him with more information as to why they were requesting this premises licence;

·        

he said there was a triple layer of bricks between the church and neighbouring property;

·        

he was expecting to hold relatively quiet activities;

(vi)

considered representations under the licensing objectives as follows:

a)

Prevention of Public Nuisance –

·        

if granted an unacceptable amount of noise which was not directly attributable to the church and its congregation would invade the front room through adjoining walls; this was considered to be relevant however the applicant said the adjoining wall consisted of a triple layer of bricks and insulation and therefore there should be minimal noise to the adjoining property. He also said he envisaged relatively quiet activities;

·        

there were in excess of 10 properties that would be affected by noise coming from the church; this was not considered to be relevant as no representations had been made;

·        

there would be parking congestion caused by potential attendees at functions; this was not considered to be relevant;

b)

Prevention of Crime and Disorder –

·        

there were no representations

c)

Protection of Children from Harm –

·        

there were no representations

d)

Public Safety –

·        

there were no representations;

e)

Other representations –

·        

a residents house would become unsellable at anywhere near its current market value and there was a lack of necessity for yet another entertainment venue; these representations were not considered relevant as they do not relate to any of the four licensing objectives.

(1)

Subject to mandatory conditions contained in the Licensing Act 2003 and conditions consistent with the applicants operating schedule.