Agenda and minutes

Members will disclose any pecuniary and any other significant interests they may have in relation to the matters under consideration.

None.

Report of the Corporate Director Environment.

The Corporate Director Environment submitted a report to provide members of the Licensing Sub-Committee with information to assist them at a hearing to determine an application submitted under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 by The Corkscrew Wine and Cheese Company Ltd for a new premises licence in respect of Corkscrew Wine Bar, 57a Victoria Road West, Cleveleys, FY5 1AJ.

The representor did not attend the meeting. The Senior Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee of the latest communications with the representor and confirmed that the representation had not been withdrawn. Members considered that it was not necessary to adjourn in the public interest and voted to hold the hearing in the representor’s absence.

The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report. He explained that the application as submitted was for the applicant to be authorised to provide the following licensable activities:

Sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises, between 09:00 and 23:00 hours on all days with an additional non-standard timing sought for New Years Eve between 09:00 hours and 01:00 hours of the following day.

Opening hours between 09:00 and 23:30 hours on all days with an additional non-standard timing for New Years Eve between 09:00 hours and 01:30 hours.

The matter was before the Sub-Committee due to a representation which was concerned that the possible effect of granting the licence would undermine the licensing objective ‘prevention of public nuisance’ in this location.

The applicant addressed the members. He explained that he had owned the family business next door for two years and had never experienced any problems. He highlighted that his current business catered for families and Corkscrew Wine Bar would continue this theme. He confirmed that he had followed all the Environmental Health guidelines.

The applicant then answered a question from a member of the Sub-Committee.

The applicant and the Senior Licensing Officer left the chamber and the Sub-Committee considered the application in private.

In reaching their decision, the Sub-Committee had regard to:

• the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, particularly the following sections: 9.3 Conditions imposed at a hearing 13.1 Prevention of crime and disorder 13.3 Prevention of public nuisance 17 Need for licensed premises;
• the Statutory Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 in August 2023, in particular the following sections: 1.16, 9.3, 9.4, 9.12, 9.26-9.30, 9.37-9.40, 9.42-9.44 and 10.8-10.10;
• the representation;
• Licensing Act 2003, and;
• Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010

After the Sub-Committee had deliberated and reached a decision, the applicant and the Senior Licensing Officer returned to the chamber and the Chair delivered the decision and the reasons for it as below. The rights of appeal were explained to the applicant and that he would be sent a written notification of the decision.

Decision

The Sub-Committee resolved that the Application be granted subject to the conditions set out below.

Reasons for the Decision

The Sub-Committee had regard to the nature of the proposal, namely a premises licence for the supply of alcohol, including  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

In accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Access to Information Rules in Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chief Executive has determined that the report submitted under item 5 of this agenda is “Not for Publication” because it contains “exempt information”, as defined in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

If the Committee agrees that the public and press should be excluded for this item, it will need to pass the following resolution:

“That the public and press be excluded from the meeting whilst agenda item 5 be considered, as it refers to exempt information as defined in category 1 (information relating to any individual) of Part 1 of Schedule 12(a) of the Local Government Act, 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Variation Order 2006 and, that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information”.

In accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Access to Information Rules in Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chief Executive had determined that the report submitted under agenda item 5 of the agenda was “Not for Publication” because it contained “exempt information”, as defined in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Committee passed the following resolution “That the public and press be excluded from the meeting whilst agenda item 5 was being considered, as it referred to exempt information as defined in category 1 (information relating to any individual) of Part 1 of Schedule 12(a) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Variation Order 2006 and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.”

Report of the Corporate Director Environment.

The Chair introduced the Sub-Committee and the officers attending the meeting.

The driver’s legal representative and complainant introduced themselves. The Sub-Committee agreed to the admission of further written information from the driver. The Chair ensured that the driver and witness had received all necessary information and paperwork for the hearing.

The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report. He explained that the driver was before members because a complaint had been received.

The complainant outlined his complaints and answered questions from the driver’s legal representative and a member of the Sub-Committee.

The legal representative spoke on behalf of the driver. The representative highlighted that the driver was of good character, having no criminal or driving convictions against him. He explained that he had been a licenced driver since 2010 and had previously received no formal complaints made against him. He clarified that a driver improvement course was offered as an alternative to a prosecution.

The driver and legal representative answered questions from members of the Sub-Committee and Senior Licensing Officer.

The complainant and driver and his legal representative were each then invited to sum up their cases.

The driver, legal representative, witness and the Senior Licensing Officer left the chamber to allow the Sub-Committee to discuss the matter in private session.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee had regard to:

1.    The Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy including its Convictions and Other Relevant Matters Policy for Wyre Council

2.    The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

3.    All information presented within the report and at the hearing, including the character references in support of the driver.

The Sub-Committee then reconvened and the Chair announced the decision. The Chair outlined the rights of appeal and said that a letter would be sent setting out the full reasons for the decision.

Decision

The Sub-Committee resolved to suspend the driver’s Wyre Dual Driver’s Licence for a period of three months.

Summary Reasons for decision

It was not disputed that the driver had been involved in a collision that resulted in an injury to a cyclist whilst driving privately and had accepted attendance on a driver improvement course. The Sub-Committee found that the course was in lieu of a prosecution for driving without due care and attention. The Sub-Committee found that the matter should have been reported by the driver to the Licensing Authority pursuant to the Convictions and Other Relevant Matters Policy but was not. The matter came to light only by chance as a result of a telephone discussion overheard by the complainant on the journey. The driver was not a newly licensed driver and should have been well aware of the requirement to report.

The Sub-Committee found the complainant to be impartial and their evidence to be persuasive. It accepted the complainant’s account of the driver’s use of the mobile phone in the course of the journey, which was at times through less well lit roads. It found that although the phone was in a cradle, the extent of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.