| 621 | The Sub Committee received a report of the Corporate Director for Place concerning an application by Shell UK Oil Products Limited for the grant of a premises licence in respect of Shell Sovereign 96-118 Prince Avenue, Southend-on-Sea, Essex SS1 6PL.
At the commencement of the hearing Mr L Charamalides, Counsel for the applicant, made a submission that the authorisation should be deemed to have been granted as the Licensing Authority had failed to process the application as required under paragraph 19 of the Provisions of Services Regulations 2009 (SI2009/2999) ("the 2009 Regulations"). Under the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 ("the 2005 Regulations") the Licensing Authority is required to commence a hearing within 20 working days of the receipt of the closing date for the receipt of representations. The time limit specified in the 2005 Regulations may be extended by the Licensing Authority. However, paragraph 19 of the 2009 Regulations requires that the application is processed as quickly as possible and, in any event, within a reasonable period running from the time when all documentation has been submitted and, when justified by the complexity of the issue, the period may be extended once for a limited time. Otherwise the application is deemed to be granted.
The Sub Committee considered the representations made by the applicant's Counsel and the Licensing Authority and reviewed a chain of emails provided by the Licensing Authority. The Sub Committee did not consider that the Licensing Authority had been in breach of paragraph 19 of the 2009 Regulations giving rise to deemed consent. In all the circumstances of this application it considered that the Licensing Authority had arranged a hearing within a reasonable period and as quickly as possible.
In reaching this decision, he Sub Committee took into account the initial consent of the applicant's agent to any hearing date to be delayed due to leave until after 27th August 2013; that Police objections were not withdrawn until 16th October 2013 following agreement of additional conditions with the applicant; that by the end of 31st October 2013 the applicant's agent had indicated that they were seeking further data from the applicant to assist in determining the issue of primary use and had requested that a date to be fixed on or after 25th November 2013. The Sub Committee appreciated that any delay could also affect the resident objectors but heard no evidence to this effect.
The Counsel for the applicant made a further submission that Section176 of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended) was essentially discriminatory in nature having regard to the 2009 Regulations. Whilst noting this point, the Sub Committee refused this submission on the grounds that the provisions of section 176 of the Licensing Act 2003 had not been repealed nor did the amended guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 support this submission.
The application was then presented by Mr L Charamalides. Mr C Lockett (applicant's agent) and Mr M Chaudhry (Designated Premises Supervisor and Manager) were in attendance at the meeting.
The Sub Committee noted that objections to the application had been received from nine residents, none of whom attended the meeting. The Sub Committee also noted that no objections had been received from the Police, although conditions had been agreed between the applicant and the Essex Police Licensing Unit. These conditions were set out in Appendix 3 to the report of the Corporate Director for Place. Representations had however, been received from Mr A Penn on behalf of the Licensing Authority, who attended the hearing and gave evidence.
The Sub Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions, and read all the documents. It had regard to the Statutory Guidance Notes and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council's Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee further considered the four licensing objectives namely the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.
Each contested application is decided on its merits.
|
