The Chairman introduced himself
and asked the Committee Members, officers and those parties present
to introduce themselves.
In attendance were Mr. G. Baker
(representative for Ego Restaurants Limited), Mr. W. Rathore
(Fraser Brown Solicitors - representative for Ego Restaurants
Limited) and Interested Parties Mrs. A. Kirk, Mr. M. Morris, Mr. D.
Roe, Mr. J. Stephens and Mrs. T. Stephens.
The Chairman outlined the
application and explained the procedure to be adopted throughout
the duration of the hearing.
The Chairman then invited Mr.
Rathore, the representative on behalf of the Applicant, to put
forward his case to the Sub Committee.
Mr. Rathore proceeded to address the Sub Committee on behalf of the
Following this and in
accordance with adopted procedure, the Interested Parties, Sub
Committee Members and the Legal Officer were offered the
opportunity to ask questions of the representative for the
Applicant for the purposes of lucidity and further
The Interested Parties were
then invited to put forward their representations to the Sub
Committee. Following this and in
accordance with adopted procedure, the representatives for the
Applicant, Sub Committee Members and the Legal Officer were offered
the opportunity to ask questions of the Interested Parties for the
purposes of lucidity and further explanation.
Finally, the Chairman invited
the representative for the Applicant and the Interested Parties to
sum up their respective cases.
The Chairman and Members of the
Sub Committee then withdrew from the hearing in order to deliberate
upon the application and representations made in respect of
The hearing was adjourned at
The Chairman and the Sub
Committee Members subsequently returned to the room and the hearing
was reconvened at 12.37 p.m.
The hearing was adjourned again
at 12.50 p.m. to consider an amendment to the decision put forward
by the representative for the Applicant. The Chairman and Sub Committee Members returned to
the room and the hearing was reconvened at 1.05 p.m.
The Legal Officer delivered the
Sub Committee’s findings, the decision and reasons as
The Sub Committee had taken
into account the evidence put before it at the hearing and also
took into account the contents of the application and written
Findings of the Sub Committee:
In consideration of all of the
evidence and taking into account the Licensing Authority’s
Policy, the four Licensing objectives, the Licensing Act, the DCMS
guidance and the Human Rights Act, the Panel were minded to grant
the application for a variation because:
Licensing Law is not the primary mechanism for the
general control of Anti-Social Behaviour but rather a part of a
holistic approach to the management of the District;
There are other mechanisms available and in place
for controlling problems of crime and disorder in the area such as
the Police and/or the Council’s Departments such as the
Anti-Social Behaviour Team and/or the Environmental Health
If a Responsible Authority and/or Interested Party
felt that the licence was not being adhered to then a review
application can be made to the Licensing Authority for the licence
to be reviewed.
that the decision of the
Licensing Sub Committee (in exercise of its powers delegated by
Ashfield District Council as Licensing Authority) was to approve
the application for a variation of a premises licence subject to
the following conditions:-
the mandatory conditions, the new conditions
detailed in the Application to be inserted in to the Operating
Schedule and the embedded restrictions on the use of the
the following conditions proposed by the
1. Not to use the external speakers
the following conditions proposed by the
Sub-Committee and agreed with the Applicant:
1. Persons under the age of 18 shall not be permitted to enter or
remain on the premises after 23:00hrs unless taking a table meal or
accompanied by an adult;
2. The proof of age policy will be a
Challenge 21 scheme with an acceptable form of photo identification
(e.g. passport, driving licence, Military ID or PASS accreditation
The Applicant was co-operative with the residents
and willing to work with all Parties to minimise any
The evidence provided by the Applicant satisfied the
Panel that the Applicant was committed to the effective and
responsible management of the premises to ensure the promotion of
the licensing objective [Policy 1];
There was no evidence before the Panel which
undermined any of the four Licensing Objectives;
There was no evidence presented of ASB in and around
the Interested Party’s property which could be attributed to
The Conditions proposed by the Applicant were,
appropriate, proportionate for the promotion of the Licensing
Objectives and would be incorporated in the Licence;
The decision to be notified to
the parties in compliance with the legislation and regulations. The
parties have a right to appeal against the decision to the
Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of the receipt of the
notification of the decision.