The Committee will appoint a Chair and Vice-Chair for this particular meeting.

Agreed that Councillor Rennie was appointed as Chair and Councillor Hendy was appointed as Vice Chair for this meeting.

Members will be asked to make any declarations of interest in respect of items on this agenda.

There were no declarations of interest in accordance with the code of conduct.

To receive reports on business which, in the opinion of the Chair, should be brought forward for urgent consideration.

There were no items of Chair’s Urgent Business.

Members will be provided with a Plymouth Waterfront Trader Application for consideration.

The applicant, Jason Wilkinson was given approval to trade marshmallow treats from his trike set up on a static site on Hoe Road or Madeira Road, until 31 March 2019. The decision about the specific site was delegated to the Street Trading manager.

The Director for Public Health will submit a report in respect of The Clarence, 31 Clarence Place, Stonehouse, Plymouth for the Variation of a premises licence under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Committee:

(a)   Considered the report from the Director of Public Health

(b)  Heard and took account of verbal and written representations from the applicant, Mr Jakes and Ms Chilvers as follows:

·         There was a restriction placed on the licence in relation to regulated entertainment on the premises when it was under different management. Since that restriction was put in place the applicant had taken over the licence and they had moved the door back into its original position and sound proofed the front of the premises. With that in mind the application was effectively asking the committee to reconsider the restriction that was placed on the licence in light of the changes they had made and the conditions put forward by Environmental Health. The idea was to have music at the back of the premises and be able to talk at the front of the pub;

·         The limit of 2 nights per week put forward by Environmental Health and the other conditions were acceptable but they did not envisage having music every week. No all day events were planned however where they do charity events it was likely that the music would start in the afternoon. The proposition put forward by the complainant of non-consecutive days for the music was also acceptable to the applicant;

·         A sound limiting device was a good idea and was in interest of all parties as it would ensure that the licensing objectives were upheld and would prevent noise issues in neighbouring property. When they took over the premises contact was made with the neighbours to ask if the music was loud but they never said anything to them;

·         The Premises Licence Holder was regularly on the premises and when she was not there she is in regular contact with her partner on the premises and those working there have letter of authorisation to sell alcohol;

·         No alcohol or glassware was permitted outside and this rule was enforced. Anyone disobeying the rules was asked to leave;

·         Customers were told they can only smoke to the side of the building and ashtrays were provided. The area is cleaned at least once a day and inspected but it was impossible to mark out a specific area as the land was a public footpath;

·         Any customers found standing outside the adjoining house were asked to move away. However, since the door had been moved no one had been sitting on the wall and if they have been they were not their patrons;

·         Live music had only taken place when there was a TEN in place. The songs listed by the complainant had never been played as part of any TEN;

·         The verbal abuse from the customer mentioned by the complainant did take place but the customer was rebuked by Ms Chilvers;

·         Two sound monitors were used when any music performance took place and were recorded in the daily log. Recordings are taken inside and out. One example of the measuring that took place recorded as being between  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

The Director for Public Health will submit a report in respect of La Roux, 33 Notte Street, Plymouth for the Variation of a premises licence under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Committee:

(a)   Considered the report from the Director of Public Health

(b)  Heard from the Premises Licence Holder and took into account both written and verbal representations as follows:

·         They were a small family run business and want to increase the licensed area to include decking with sale and supply of alcohol on the decking  ceasing at 10pm on all days. Alcohol would be supplied outside using a small mobile bar;

·         He considers that Plymouth needs to promote itself and needs activity as the city centre was not at its best at the moment;

·         He was seeking to create employment  but needs to be able to compete with neighbouring businesses which can serve outside until midnight;

·         He understands residents’ concerns and doesn’t want to upset them but wants to be successful;

·         CCTV covers the decking area and was always monitored;

·         All off sales were in a sealed container but in reality they had not had many off sales;

·         The toilets were regularly checked;

·         Never had any problems;

·         Staff receive regular training on serving alcohol. Challenge 21 operates, no alco-pops were sold and non-alcoholic drinks were provided;

·         Any music was played at low volume;

·         The door was self-closing door;

·         Waste was collected and the bin stores are out of site;

·         The premises was always closed and staff were gone by 12 – 12.30am;

·         The decking area can hold 30 people. They don’t believe noise from stacking of chairs comes from this premises as they only have 7 aluminium chairs and these were put away 12.30am;

·         The decking area was screened and includes foliage to create acoustic barrier. At present the decking area was used as a smoking area;

·         He tries to work with neighbours and have only had 3 complaints in total;

·         The outside area was monitored at all times and they have never had any reason for the police to be called. The premises was not a ‘lads’ bar and generally attracts couples and girls on a night out;

·         The outside area was generally used for sitting and they don’t encourage standing;

·         Some residents do frequent the bar;

·         Will endeavour to work closely with residents going forward and will adhere to what they were told to do;

(c)   Heard from the resident association and a resident and considered both the verbal and written representations as follows:

·         The use of the decking area after 9pm is in direct contravention of a planning condition which was put in place to protect residents from noise pollution. This was not taken into account as a breach of a planning condition was not relevant to any licensing objective. In considering this the committee had regard to the statutory guidance at paragraphs 14.64 and 14.65 and noted that, even if the application were granted to a later time than allowed by the planning condition, the applicant would still be bound by, and have to comply with, the planning restriction;

·         If the application were granted the premises licence holder would be in breach of their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

To consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds that it (they) involve(s) the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

There were no items of exempt business.