26 05 2005

The Mayor (Councillor Burgess) (ex-officio), Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Hook), Councillors Mrs Binfield (P), Chegwyn (P), Clinton (P), Mrs Cully, Davis (P), Edwards (P), Farr (P), Hayward, Jacobs, Rigg (P), Smith and Taylor (P).

 

 

5

APOLOGIES

 

 

Apologies were received on behalf of The Mayor (Councillor Burgess), Councillors Mrs Cully, Hayward, Hook, Jacobs and Smith.

 

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, notice had been received that Councillors Carter, Gill and Train would replace Councillors Hayward, Smith and Councillor Mrs Cully respectively for this meeting.

 

 

6

MINUTES

 

 

RESOLVED:  That

 

 

(i)

The Minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Board held on 5 April 2005 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record subject to Condition CD9 (Minute 45 refers) to read as follows:

 

 

 

‘It was suggested that the wording be amended to ‘1 male and 1 female for the first 100 members of the public or part thereof; 1 additional security staff for the next 50 members of the public or part thereof; 1 additional security staff per 50 thereafter or part thereof; and 1 additional security staff per 100 thereafter or part thereof.’;

 

 

(ii)

The Minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Board held on 19 May 2005 also be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record; and

 

 

(iii)

The final wording for the pool of conditions as discussed at the Licensing Board on

5 April 2005, would be supplied to Members on completion.

 

 

PART II

 

 

7

APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE

WATERFRONT FESTIVAL  WALPOLE PARK  GOSPORT

 

 

The Board received a copy of the Regulatory Services Manager’s report (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘A’) presenting an application, together with an objection from a local resident, for a Public Entertainment Licence for the musical festival on Walpole Park, Gosport (1-3 July 2005).

 

 

A Member questioned whether twelve Security Industry Authority (SIA) licensed security operatives and seven stewards were sufficient for the three festival evenings given that the maximum occupancy of the site was 4,500 persons.  The Member referred to the national Event Safety Guide which, he stated, referred to a minimum of one SIA licensed security operative to 100 persons attending.

 

 

Assurance was given that there was reference in the Event Safety Guide to risk assessment and that the Gosport Waterfront Festival Event Safety Management Plan had been drawn up in consultation with the police based on this national guidance.  The police had been satisfied that an adequate number of SIA licensed security operatives and stewards had been allowed for when considering the risks involved.

 

 

The Chairman distributed copies of a second letter addressed to him from the objector, Mr Hudson, dated 19 May 2005 (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘B’).  Mr Hudson’s first letter addressed to the Head of Environmental Health dated 2 March 2005 was attached as an appendix to the report.

 

 

Mr Hudson was permitted to address the Board and reported that the majority of local residents were distressed at the potential for noise and disturbance at the festival, that there had been no public consultation and referred Members to the reasons set out in his letters.  In addition he felt that the maximum number of 4,500 people attending was too many, that 100 decibels mentioned in the licence conditions was intolerable and thought this level of noise was allowable only for a maximum of four hours and further that time had not been considered for setting up, dismantling equipment and evacuation of the site.  A written survey had been carried out with a ratio of 3:1 residents against holding the Festival on Walpole Park.  Although he was the only objector Mr Hudson could supply details of other concerned residents and if the Waterfront Festival had been held on the same weekend as the Youth Festival (planned for 9 July 2005) he felt there might have been less concern.

 

 

The officer confirmed that the setting up and dismantling of equipment was to be carried out  during working hours on Wednesday 29 June and Monday 4 July respectively and Members suggested that an element of tolerance be given by residents for the enjoyment of this three day event which was a comparatively short time in comparison with other events around the country.

 

 

The Board Members adjourned in private to consider the application and the Chairman confirmed that, following a long discussion, Members of the Board had decided to grant the Public Entertainment Licence for the Waterfront Festival having taken into consideration the issues of noise and disturbance, the number of security staff and stewards and other matters.  In view of the circumstances the Members felt it necessary to take into consideration Mr Hudson’s and other residents’ views and would arrange to meet with officers to draw up and amend the licence conditions.

 

 

In addition it was suggested that an Extraordinary Licensing Board meeting be held to finalise the conditions and to which Mr Hudson would be invited.  It was confirmed by the Council’s legal representative that Mr Hudson did not have a statutory right to appeal in the Magistrates Court and it was a matter for him as to whether he sought legal advice.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That

 

 

(i)

The Public Entertainment Licence for the Gosport Waterfront Festival, Walpole Road, Gosport (1-3 July 2005) be granted subject to an amendment to the licence conditions; and

 

 

(ii)

An Extraordinary Licensing Board be arranged to approve the licence conditions for the Festival.

 

 

8

APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF A PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE FOR THE GEORGE AND DRAGON PUBLIC HOUSE, SOUTH STREET, GOSPORT

 

 

The Board received a copy of the Regulatory Services Manager’s report (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘C’) that brought Members’ attention to an application for the renewal of the Public Entertainment Licence for the George and Dragon public house.  A number of complaints, along with an objection from Hampshire Constabulary, had been received regarding the premises.

 

 

The officer reported that the last complaint concerning noise had been received in May 2005 not May 2006, as indicated in the report.

 

 

Mr Roche, a partner from Morgan Cole Solicitors, addressed the Board.  He had been working on behalf of the Spirit Group, George and Dragon public house management and the police to try and mitigate the proposed special conditions set out in the report.  He reported that some of the proposed conditions had already been complied with and no instances of inappropriate behaviour whatsoever had been reported to the police in the last three months.  He felt that the list of reported instances set out in Hampshire Constabulary’s letter attached to the report was inflated.  Mr Roche then referred to each of the proposed special conditions as follows:

 

 

Conditions 1 to 8, 11, 13, 14 and 16 had all been agreed and the following amendments were made to the remaining draft conditions for the Board to consider:

 

 

9

The close circuit television (CCTV) system had been installed.

 

 

10

Sufficient mirrors would be installed internally within the bar area to allow adequate supervision of the whole licensed area from behind the bar.

 

 

12

When public entertainment was being provided a policy would be implemented to ensure that persons entering the premises were searched by SIA appointed door supervisors.

 

 

 

At all times the search ratio would be one person in every five.  These checks would be recorded and records would be available to the licensing authority and the police.

 

 

15

It was felt that there were significant health and safety issues and substantial risk attached to the provision of an SIA appointed door supervisor wearing high visibility clothing carrying out patrols.  It had therefore been agreed with the police to replace this conditions as follows:

 

 

 

‘Management would ensure that regular checks would be made to the outside CCTV camera screens every hour and would keep a written record in the back office.

 

 

 

‘The premises were fitted with four exterior CCTV cameras and an outside spotlight which would be maintained in full working order.  Prominent signs would be displayed within the premises indicating that the curtilage of the premises was covered by CCTV cameras.’

 

 

Following Members’ questions and the new proposed condition 15, it was confirmed that rigorous hourly CCTV camera checks would be carried out, that it was industry practice for staff to frequently monitor CCTV screens and that, in conjunction with the police, it had been agreed to retain CCTV recordings for two weeks.

 

 

In response to Members’ questions it was confirmed that customers would be discouraged from taking glasses and bottles out of the premises although customers of nearby public houses could discard glasses and bottles obtained elsewhere and deposit them outside the George and Dragon.  It was confirmed that no incidents had been reported since 11 February 2005 and the premises had since been refurbished at a cost of £35,000 in March 2005.  Mr Toal, Business Development Manager of the Spirit Group advised Members that the two training courses for staff had taken place in conjunction with the police and had included drug awareness recognition.

 

 

Attention was drawn to the Works Schedule attached to the report and because of the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 no reference had been made to noise levels and it was suggested that noise reduction measures would improve noise attenuation of the building.

 

 

The Board Members adjourned in private to consider the application and following consideration the Chairman advised that the Public Entertainment Licence was to be granted for six months only with quarterly reviews to be held with the police and officers of the licensing authority.  With reference to condition 15 it was considered necessary to monitor the CCTV cameras at half hourly intervals.

 

 

Members had had a residual doubt as to the efficacy of conditions to control problems as presented by the police and conditions 10, 12 and 15 had been revised in agreement with the police.

 

 

RESOLVED: That

 

 

(i)

The Public Entertainment Licence for the George and Dragon public house be renewed for a period of six months only with quarterly reviews with officers of the licensing authority and the police; and

 

 

(ii)

Conditions 10, 12 and 15 be amended as detailed above and condition 15 further revised to include half hourly checks on CCTV cameras.

 

 

9

REVIEW OF THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE FARE TARIFF

 

 

The Board received a copy of the Financial Services Manager’s and Regulatory Services Manager’s joint report (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘D’) to consider the proposed increase in the maximum chargeable Hackney Carriage Fare Tariff.

 

 

The report outlined two alternative model tariffs:

 

 

 

Model 1:  A shortening of the distance for each 20p charge from 239 metres to 224 metres after the initial charge of £2.30 for the first 706 metres.

 

 

 

Model 2:  A shortening of the distance for each 20p charge from 239 metres to 231 metres in addition to an increase in the initial charge for the first 706 metres travelled from  £2.30 to £2.40.

 

 

The trade had been consulted on the proposed increase to the tariff seen to best reflect the increase calculated through the formula.  The Financial Services Manager provided an update in that a total of 23 replies from taxi operators had been received expressing their preferences with regard to the two model fare tariffs presented.  The figures were now 4 votes for Model 1, 14 votes for Model 2 and 3 voters had expressed no preference.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the proposed increase in the maximum level of Hackney Carriage fares tariff chargeable with effect from 1 August 2005 be approved by a shortening of the distance for each 20p charge from 239 metres to 231 metres in addition to an increase in the initial charge for the first 706 metres travelled from  £2.30 to £2.40.

 

 

10

REVISIONS TO THE COUNCIL’S EXISTING HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE CONDITIONS

 

 

The Board received a copy of the Regulatory Services Manager’s report (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘E’) the purpose of which was to introduce revisions to the Council’s existing Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Conditions following the adoption of a revised licensing policy for Hackney Carriages.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Policy and Organisation Board be recommended to approve the revisions to the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Conditions for adoption by the Borough Council.

 

 

11

LICENSING ACT 2003

 

 

The Board received a copy of the Borough Solicitor’s report (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘F’) the purpose of which was to update Members on the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 and to seek approval for the Procedures for Dealing with Applications under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Procedure for Hearings under the Licensing Act 2003 and to delegate certain functions of the Licensing Board to officers.

 

 

In response to a question it was confirmed by the Litigation Lawyer that, although there appeared to be duplication relating to ‘The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 setting out the procedure to be followed in relation to hearing held under the Act’, according to the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) guidance, the applicant should have a further opportunity to address issues and that may be raised by parties throughout the hearing.

 

 

The Chairman identified a need for Members of the Board to be available for attending Licensing Sub Board Hearings at which a quorum of three was required with a nominated substitute.

 

 

The first Licensing Sub Board Hearing had been arranged for 10.30am on 14 June 2005 in Committee Room 1 and it was suggested that Councillors Mrs Binfield, Davis and Hayward attend with Councillor Rigg as nominated substitute.

 

It was confirmed that a Briefing with the Borough Solicitor relating to Sub Board Hearings had been arranged for all Members of the Licensing Board at 5pm on 8 June 2005 in Committee Room 1.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That

 

 

(i)

The Procedures for Dealing with Applications under the Licensing Act 2003 (Appendix A) be approved;

 

 

(ii)

The Procedure for Hearings under the Licensing Act 2003 (Appendix B) is approved for use by the Licence Authority in the determination of applications;

 

 

(iii)

That the functions and powers set out in paragraph 2.9 – 2.13 inclusive are delegated to the Head of Environmental Health (Commercial) and the Licensing Board also confirm that the functions and powers set out in Appendix A of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy are delegated to the Licensing Sub-board and Head of Environmental Health (Commercial) as set out in Appendix A of the Statement of Licensing Policy; and

 

 

(iv)

The arrangements for Sub-boards set out in the report be approved.