To consider an application for a new premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for Braywick Leisure Centre, Braywick Road, Maidenhead, SL6 1BN.

Craig Hawkings, Licensing Team Leader, introduced the item and outlined the application and the issues for the Sub Committee members to consider. He stated the application was to licence a leisure centre and outlined the facilities that were included within the leisure centre. He summarised the various aspects of the application and the timings each point was applicable for. He stated that activities did not fall outside of framework hours and therefore considered acceptable. Craig Hawkings confirmed that the application had been advertised in the correct manner by local newspaper and by notification notices being placed in the locality. He stated that there had initially not been enough notices put up but following engagement with the applicant more had been provided. Members were told that the application had to have regard for the four licensing objectives: public safety, prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder, and protection of children from harm.

Craig Hawkings told Members that the application had come to the Sub Committee for determination as three objections had been received. One of these, at page 46 of the agenda, had been withdrawn since publication and Craig Hawkings stated that its contents should be disregarded. The other two objections remained relevant. Members were informed that a number of conditions that would help promote the four licensing objectives had been agreed between the applicant, Trading Standards and Thames Valley Police, and these were included in Appendix D of the report pack. It was noted that no objections had been received from any of the responsible authorities. Craig Hawkings reminded Members of the options open to them in relation to the application, which were to reject it; refuse to specify a person in the licence as the premises’ supervisor; grant the application but modify the activities and/or hours and/or the licence conditions; or grant the application in full.

Councillors Baldwin asked if the objections that had been raised by residents should be read into the record. Members were told there was no capacity to do this, and in any event the objections were available publicly on the Council website and had been so for some time. The Sub Committee members and applicant indicated they had no further questions for the Reporting Officer.

Mark Camp-Overy, on behalf of the applicant, stated that the terms of the application were the same as those currently in place at the Magnet Leisure Centre. He said the conditions had been agreed with the authorities and would be adhered to. He said the applicant had met with those residents who had made objections. From this it had been agreed to install additional signage to remind centre users to be respectful to neighbours when leaving the site, and a staff member had been nominated as a single point of contact for residents wishing to raise concerns.

Councillor Haseler asked how frequent events such as live music and plays would take place. Mark Camp-Overy said it would be on a regular basis and the terms of the licence simply allowed the venue flexibility to arrange events as and when required. He gave examples of events to include school events and choirs, faith events and exhibitions, and a roller disco which would be transferring over from the Magnet Leisure Centre.

Councillor Baldwin asked what risk assessments would be carried out with regards to the planned boxing events. Mark Camp-Overy said the applicant had liaised with Thames Valley Police over this, and this included how the event would be delivered in terms of logistics and security. Additionally a separate medical risk assessment had been conducted. Councillor Baldwin asked about noise control measures. Mark Camp-Overy said decibel readings were routinely taken around the perimeter of the venue site and this formed part of the risk assessment. He confirmed this information had been shared with residents who had raised concerns. Following a question from Councillor Haseler, Mark Camp-Overy confirmed that the conditions raised by Thames Valley Police and Trading Standards had been considered and accepted by the applicant. There were no further questions for the applicant.

Craig Hawkings reminded the Sub Committee members that they had to have regard for the promotion of the four licensing objectives, and reminded members of the options open to them. He added that if additional conditions were to be imposed then reasons for these would need to be given in writing. Craig Hawkings also drew members’ attention to the background papers that should be taken into consideration by the Sub Committee when reaching a decision. All parties left the meeting in order the Sub Committee to deliberate and reach a decision on the application.

In their deliberations, members confirmed they were satisfied the promotion of the licensing objectives had been met and highlighted the fact that the applicant had confirmed the conditions proposed by Trading Standards and Thames Valley Police had been accepted. Additionally they noted they had engaged with residents and were of the view that this dialogue would continue following the appointment of the single point of contact. The Sub Committee also noted that other leisure facilities, including the rugby club and a restaurant, were in close proximity to the application site. The Sub Committee confirmed in their deliberations they had had regard for the submissions made by all parties and relevant legislation.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the application be granted in full, subject to the agreed conditions listed in Appendix D of the report being met.