Venue: Civic Suite, Town Hall, Runcorn. View directions
Contact: Gill Ferguson on 0151 471 7395 or e-mail gill.ferguson@halton.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Application to Review the Stockham Lodge Racquet and Health Club Premises Licence Minutes: The Committee considered an
application to review the premises licence at Stockham Lodge Racquet and Health
Club Runcorn. The application was made by the
Environmental Health Section of Halton Borough Council acting as responsible authority
under Section 13 Licensing Act 2003. As
part of the application process representations were received from: Mr & Mrs
McGrellis 51 Greenhouse Farm Road Runcorn Mr K Garrette 46
Greenhouse Farm Road Runcorn Mr D Woods 49
Greenhouse Farm Road Runcorn Mr V Frost 50
Greenhouse Farm Road Runcorn Mr & Mrs B
Williams 52 Greenhouse Farm Road Runcorn No representation
was received from the Premises Licence Holder.
At the hearing the following people were present as
parties. The Premises Licence Holder TRB Estates (Liverpool) Limited
was represented my Mr Beilin. (Director) The applicant was represented by Isobel Mason -
Environmental Health Mr McGrellis and Mr Garrette attended and addressed the
Committee as interested parties. Two members
of the Committee arrived whilst the procedure to be followed at the hearing was
being explained. The Licensing
Solicitor asked the applicant, the interested parties and the Premises Licence
holder if they consented for the two members (who has not missed any part of
the hearing apart from the procedural explanations) to take part in the hearing
and the decision. All parties
individually confirmed their acceptance. Prior to
the applicant being requested to present her case the Licensing Solicitor made
reference to a letter sent to the Council from the Premises Licence holder’s
legal representative. The letter
requested an adjournment of the matter and cited 5 reasons. The Councils Licensing Solicitor went
through each reason with Mr Beilin who made particular reference to reason
number 2, which stated “the application to review is defective in that on page
3 you have referred to the review of the licensing objective being ‘the
prevention of crime and disorder’. We
are perplexed by this as the complaint of noise does not amount to crime and
disorder”. The Licensing Solicitor advised that as the allegation was that
there had been a breach of licence condition this could amount to a criminal
offence. The notice of application did
not allege a public nuisance (let alone a statutory nuisance). It was therefore correct that the
application should cite crime and disorder as the relevant licensing objective
(all be it that in this case disorder was not an issue). Mr Beilin accepted all the points made by
the Licensing Solicitor with regard to the full contents of the letter and
advised that he would not be requesting an adjournment. During her
representation Isobel Mason (Environmental Health) made reference to Tape
Analysis Forms and advised the Committee that the reference to 17 March 2006 at
5.1 in the Committee item should read 17 February 2006. Mrs Mason also advised the Committee that
the tape analysis dated 17 February 2006 to 23 February 2006 was shown in BST
and therefore should read one hour earlier.
The correction of the date was accepted by the committee. The Committee heard the ... view the full minutes text for item 9. |