Agenda item

CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003

To consider an application of a new premises licence under The Licensing Act 2003 for Ditton Manor, Ditton Park Road, Datchet, SL3 7JB.

 

The applicant is Active Hospitality Management Limited.

Minutes:

The Reporting Officer presented the application.  The application was to:

1. To Licence an historical landmark premises and grounds operated as a meeting / conferencing and events venue. Set in a prime location surrounded by a centuries old moat and situated within beautiful manicured just off the M4 and 10 Minutes from Heathrow Airport. There were 15 function rooms which could accommodate up to 330 delegates, a permanent marquee was also available

which had a capacity of 1050.

 

2. The premises had the benefit of an existing premises licence which also covered the botanica offices of CBRE – PL060139. This licence will be a stand-alone licence for Active Hospitality Limited.

 

A summary of the application is as follows:

· Performance of Plays (Indoor and Outdoor): Monday – Sunday 10am – 1am

· Showing of Films (Indoor and Outdoor): Monday – Sunday 10am – 1am

· Live Music (E) (Indoor and Outdoor): Monday – Sunday 10am – 1am

· Recorded Music (F) (Indoor and Outdoor): Monday – Sunday 10am – 1am

· Performances of Dance (Indoor and Outdoor): Monday – Sunday 10am – 1am

· Anything of a similar description to that falling within e,f or g. Race Nights and

Similar (Indoor and outdoor): Monday – Sunday 10am – 1am

· Late Night Refreshments (Indoor and Outdoor): Monday – Sunday 10am – 1am

· Supply of Alcohol (On and Off the premises): Monday – Sunday 10am – 1am

 

The Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) was Mr. Robert Lees.

 

Where, as here, relevant representations had been made, the licensing authority must hold a hearing to consider them, unless agreed by the parties. The Licensing and Public Space Protection Order Sub-Committee could take steps as were appropriate for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives as relevant.

 

To be “relevant”, the representation had to relate to the likely effect of the grant of the licence on the promotion of at least one of the four licensing objectives which are set out in the Licensing Act 2003.

 

The four licensing objectives are.

• The prevention of crime and disorder.

• Public safety.

• The prevention of public nuisance; and

• The protection of children from harm.

 

In this case no representations had been received from the responsible authorities; Environmental Health, RBFRS, Planning Officer, Local Safeguarding Children's Board (LSCB), Public Health, Trading Standards, Thames Valley Police and RBWM Licensing.

 

Three representations had been received from other persons which were in Appendix C. 

 

The Reporting Officer went through the options that the Sub-Committee had. 

 

Questions to the Reporting Officer from Members:

 

Councillor Baldwin asked about the reference to firework displays and that there could only be ten every year. Was this a RBWM policy or was this agreed at the stage the initial application was granted. The Reporting Officer informed the Sub-Committee that this was a legacy number and not a Borough policy nor was it in the Licensing Act. 

 

Councillor Cannon asked how long the current licence had been in act. The Reporting Officer could not confirm an exact date. However, the licence had never been under review since it had been granted.

 

Councillor Cannon asked if this was a mirror application of the last one. The Reporting Officer responded that it was identical, the only changes were amendments to the conditions by Thames Valley Police, Trading Standards and Environmental Health. 

 

Councillor Bhangra asked if there had been any issues with the existing licence and was informed that there had been none.

 

Questions to the Reporting Officer from Applicants 

No questions were asked.

 

Applicants Case:

 

Sally Hills, Applicant’s representative, informed the Sub-Committee that the change s to the licence were only operational and had come about after discussions with Thames Valley Police, who had advised that it would be better to have three separate licences to cover the venue rather than one.

 

The three separate licences would cover the botanic, Active Hospitality Limited and White Rabbit Events Limited.

 

The conditions had been slightly amended by Thames Valley Police, Trading Standards and Environmental Health and these had been agreed by the applicant.

 

There had been three objections and the Applicants representative had responded to the objectors advising them that a licence had already been in place and that it was only operational.  The objectors had asked further questions which had also been answered by Ms Sally Hills. The issues that had been raised had been related to a private property on the grounds.

 

Questions to the Applicant from Members:

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that there seemed to be inconsistencies in the schedules such as for indoor and outdoor events. Sally Hills explained that some events could be totally outside, not in the marquee, so the schedules were correct and there were no inconsistencies. 

 

Councillor Baldwin asked what the policy was on drugs. The DPS, Mr Robert Lees, informed the Sub-Committee that there were security staff present on the site and if drugs were caught, they were confiscated and the police were contacted.  The drugs were put into the safe and the police would advise on what to do with the people involved, either they would be held or contact details taken and then taken off premises. 

Councillor Cannon asked if the objectors were from the estate and Sally Hills confirmed they the objectors were not from the estate but from nearby Slough. The gates of the estate were closed and locked after events.

 

Councillor Bhangra asked about what the policy was for when people left the premises after events. Sally Hills commented that people were asked to leave quickly and quietly. There were security at the gates. No-one was permitted to leave the site on foot, only by car, taxi or bus.  The security officers were there until everyone left the site. There was 24-hour CCTV so the total site was secure.

 

Objectors Case:

The objectors were not present. The written submissions were considered by the Sub-Committee.

 

Questions to the Applicant from the Reporting Officer:

No questions were asked. 

 

Summary from the Applicant:

The Applicants representative had said all that needed to be considered. 

 

Summary from the Reporting Officer:

The Reporting Officer reminded the Sub-Committee that it was obliged to determine this application with a view to promoting the four licensing objectives which are:

· The prevention of crime and disorder.

· Public safety.

· The prevention of public nuisance

· The protection of children from harm.

 

In making its decision, the Sub Committee was also obliged to have regard to national guidance and the Council’s own Licensing Policy. Of course, the Committee must have regard to all of the representations made and the evidence that it heard.

 

The Sub-Committee must, having regard to the application and to the

relevant representations take such step or steps as it considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. The steps were:

 

(a) Reject the application.

(b) Refuse to specify a person in the licence as the premise’s supervisor.

(*Note – not all of these will be relevant to this particular application)

(c) Grant the application but modify the activities and/or the hours and/or

the conditions of the licence.

(d) Grant the application.

 

Where conditions were attached to a licence then reasons for those conditions must be given.

 

The Sub-Committee were reminded that any party to the hearing may appeal against the decision of the Sub-Committee to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of the notification of the determination.

 

 

Decision:

After careful consideration of all the evidence, the Sub-Committee decided to allow the application as applied for, subject to the updated conditions by Thames Valley Police, Trading Standards and Environmental Health. 

 

The Sub-Committee considered the written submissions provided by the applicant, Officers of the Council, and objectors.

 

The Sub-Committee also heard oral evidence provided from Craig Hawking's, the Reporting Officer at RBWM, Sally Hills, Applicant’s representative, Robert Lees, DPS and Julia Chapman, White Rabbit Events Limited. 

 

In making their decision, the Sub-Committee had regard to its duty to promote the four licensing objectives. 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: