To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Licensing Officer informed the Committee that an application had been received to vary the Premises Licence at the Bull Public House, 98 Dock Road, Grays, RM17 6EY, by adding an outside bar to the premises plans.  Representations had been received from four other persons in relation to the prevention of public nuisance.

Councillor Stone referred to section 3.4 of the report and asked whether the outside bar had been licenced for use at the time in question.  It was clarified that the outside bar was not licenced at the time that the routine visit had been carried out, pending the current hearing.

The Chair queried references to live music within the agenda item and sought clarity as to the Committee’s remit.  Members were reminded that the application was solely to determine the use of the outside bar; the performance of live music had been largely deregulated within smaller capacity venues and therefore did not require a licence.

The Chair proceeded to seek clarity around facilities such as ball pools and bouncy castles in terms of regulation and the requirement for children’s safeguarding.  These were not licensable, and the behaviour of children fell within management policies for the premises.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that though a resident had intended to attend the hearing, she was not present.

The applicant’s agent was invited to the Committee to make a statement.  He explained the following:

• The application was to vary the existing licence to include an outside bar, to offer customers convenience.
• Use of the outside area was already covered by the existing licence.
• There was no change to the hours of any licensable activities.
• The current conditions on the licence catered for the situation.
• Environmental Health had made no representations.
• Residents’ complaints were not related to the variation in question.

The agent also admitted that there had been some mistakes made, however they were through naivety on the part of the applicant and upon discovery actions had been taken to rectify these issues.

The Chair accepted that the grounds had been improved and accepted that the industry was tough however it was necessary for landlords to work with the local community.  Those residents who had made representations had raised no issues with the previous landlord.  He asked whether the applicant had genuinely believed they were lawfully able to use the outside bar.  The applicant explained that he had assumed a Premises Licence covered the entire premises and did not realise that, aside from planning permission, licence variations would be required.  Actions had been taken to be considerate towards local residents; sound monitoring machines had been installed with records taken and kept for 2 months at a time, sound proofing measures had been undertaken and the premises was currently being re-insulated.  The premises was licenced until 00:30 but always closed at midnight out of consideration for the local community.

The Chair sought confirmation that there were other members of staff with knowledge of the relevant rules and regulations if the applicant were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.