Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (adopted July 2012), which includes all the provisions relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI), personal and prejudicial interests , Members are asked to declare any DPI and also any personal interests (and whether or not such personal interests are also "prejudicial") in relation to any matter on the Agenda for this meeting. A DPI is defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1464) and Appendix 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct.  A personal interest is defined in paragraph 2.8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 2.9. In the interests of complete transparency, Members of the County Council, who are not also members of this committee, are encouraged to declare any interests they may have in any matters being discussed even though they may not be under any obligation to do so under any relevant code of conduct.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Sub-Committee noted the procedure to be followed when considering Licensing Applications under the Licensing Act 2003.  The Chairman introduced the members of the Sub-Committee and the Officers present at the hearing.

The Chairman confirmed that the Officer’s report relating to the case, the procedure to be adopted during the hearing and the documents which the authority is required to provide under the Regulations had been received by all Parties in advance of the meeting.

It was confirmed that no representations had been withdrawn.

The Specialist – Licensing presented the report.  She informed members that an application had been received from Oliver Dowding and Jane O’Meara for a premises licence at Apple HQ, Shepton Montague, BA9 8JP.  She advised that the applicants had applied for the supply of alcohol for consumption both on and off the premises, 7 days a week starting at 8.00am and finishing at 7.00pm with the opening hours the same as for the supply of alcohol.  The applicants had put forward some steps that they would follow to comply with the licensing objectives which included staff training, following a challenge 25 proof of age policy and restricting the consumption of alcohol to small sample tasting at the premises.  The Specialist – Licensing said that she had received three representations against the granting of the application and in addition received further documentation to which the applicant had responded.  She confirmed that the required notices had been displayed and advertised in a local newspaper for the requisite period.

At this stage of the hearing, there were no questions raised by members.

The Sub-Committee was addressed by the Applicant in support of his application.  He informed members that his business produced apple juice and cider which took place at his new premises built last September.  The premises was built knowing it was going to be a cider producing building and the application would allow the cider to be moved off the premises. From time to time there would be some customers that would want to collect cider from the premises and there could on occasions be customers who would want to taste before they buy; this would be the only time that alcohol would be consumed on the premises without a temporary event notice.  Most of the cider produced would be distributed off to shops, restaurants and through mail order and the hours requested would allow flexibility in getting cider off the premises. 

The Sub-Committee was then addressed by two people representing ‘Other Parties’ in objection to the application.  Points raised related to following:

·         The processing plant was immediately adjacent to residential properties and a public right of way within 50 metres of it;

·         There was no street lighting within the village;

·         The planning application although approved was highly controversial;

·         There were limited parking spaces;

·         The live music box had been ticked on the application but no details completed;

·         There was no limit on the number of people attending;

·         Only samples would be served inside the premises, there was no limitation on the sale of alcohol outside the premises;

·         In terms of prevention of public nuisance, planning limited the operation of the industrial site to Monday to Saturday in the interest of residential amenity – extending to Sunday would automatically create public nuisance;

·         The proposed music would create public nuisance;

·         Exterior lighting which was specifically prohibited by planning to protect visual amenity would create public nuisance;

·         Increase in traffic movements and noise would create public nuisance;

·         No health and hygiene facilities on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.