Resolved – That Councillor S Niblock be appointed Chair for this meeting.

Members of the Sub-Committee are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non pecuniary interests, in connection with any application on the agenda and state the nature of the interest.

Members of the Sub-Committee were asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non pecuniary interests in connection with any application on the agenda and state the nature of the interest.

No such declarations were made.

The Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment reported upon an application that had been received from Shell UK Oil Products Limited to vary a Premises Licence in respect of Shell, 48 Arrowe Park Road, Upton CH49 0UE under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003.

The hours requested within the variation were outlined within the report.

The applicant had submitted an operating schedule setting out how the business would be conducted/managed in accordance with the four licensing objectives. A copy of the full application was available.

Representations had been received from four local residents. The representations related to noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour within the vicinity of the premises and concerns that this would exacerbate should the application be granted.  A representation had also been received from Merseyside Police who had proposed a number of conditions which they considered would promote the licensing objectives should the application be granted.  Copies of the representations were available.

Mr Clarke, Advocate for Shell, attended the meeting together with Mr Lockett, Lockett & Co and Mr Matthews, applicant.  A local resident was also in attendance.

The Licensing Manager confirmed that all documentation had been sent and received and that apologies had been received from a number of local residents.  The Licensing Manager advised that the representation from Merseyside Police had been withdrawn following the agreement of a number of conditions with the applicant.

Mr Clarke addressed the Members of the Sub-Committee on behalf of the applicant.  He advised that the premises was a well-established convenience store that had held a Premises Licence since 2013.  Members were advised that the premises had been subject to significant refurbishment which had resulted in a need to amend the plan attached to the Premises Licence.  Members noted that the new layout was designed to provide protection to staff and ensure alcohol was only sold to those the law allowed it to be sold to.  Members were informed by Mr Clarke that the premises received advice and guidance from Lockett & Co regarding legislation relating to the sale of alcohol, this included the provision of a staff training manual which was used to provide training to staff on a quarterly basis.  Members were informed that the premises operated a refusal log and an incident log as well as a Challenge 25 Policy throughout the store.

Members were informed that the premises had operated with a Premises Licence since 2013 without any breach of licence conditions and no evidence of incidents relating to the sale of alcohol.  Members were advised that the purpose of the application was to bring alcohol sales in line with the hours other products were sold from the premises.

Mr Clarke made reference to the Thwaites case which highlighted the need for evidence and referred to the representations made by local residents, however, he believed that these were mostly speculation and there was no evidence that these premises would exacerbate any problems that already existed in the area.  He also referred to paragraphs 9.12 and 9.42 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment reported upon an application that had been received from Moose in the Hoose Limited for a Premises Licence in respect of Hoose, 43 Market Street, Hoylake CH47 2BG, under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003.

The premises had previously held a Premises Licence which had lapsed due to the previous Premises Licence Holder being dissolved.  The hours requested were outlined within the report and the application had been amended since it had been submitted to withdraw Live Music from the application and to add a condition in respect of the rear courtyard to be closed no later than 11.00 pm.

The applicant had submitted an operating schedule setting out how the business would be conducted/managed in accordance with the four licensing objectives. A copy of the full application was available.  Members were advised that the proposals set out in the operating schedule may become conditions of the licence should the licence be granted.

Representations had been received from four local residents. The representations related to a history of noise from entertainment emanating from the premises.  Copies of the representations were available.

The Licensing Manager confirmed that all documentation had been sent and received and that Mrs McKinley would be speaking on behalf of another resident. Members were also advised that the applicant wished to submit some video footage to which Mrs KcKinley had no objections.

For clarification the Licensing Manager informed all parties of the permissions under the Live Music Act.

The applicants, Mr Jones and Mr Russell attended the meeting together with Mrs McKinley, local resident.

Mr Jones addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that

Members heard from the applicant that there were four owners of Hoose who were all professionals.  He advised that he had operated from the premises since February 2014.  He acknowledged that the premises had had a troubled past but that since he had operated the premises he had sought to comply with all relevant legislation and there had been no significant issues in respect of any of the licensing objectives.  He informed Members that there was a noise policy in place and that the premises operated a Challenge 25 Policy.  He advised Members that there had been complaints logged that the premises had not complied with planning requirements and public nuisance had been caused by noise coming from the premises, however he subsequently submitted evidence both in writing and through video footage that not all complaints could be upheld.  He referred to the fact that no representations had been received from any of the Responsible Authorities and that since he had owned the premises Merseyside Police had never made any visits.

The applicant responded to questions from Members of the Sub-Committee and Mr D K Abraham, Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee.

Mrs McKinley addressed Members of the Sub-Committee and expressed her concerns in respect of noise nuisance which affected the residents who lived above and within the direct vicinity of the premises.  She informed Members that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.