There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Harland declared that he worked at a licensed premises in the city but that this was some considerable distance from the applicant’s premises.  He was able to consider the application with an open mind, without being biased or having predetermined the application.

The sub-committee received a report of the Executive Director (Environment & Place) concerning an application by Mr Thomas Davies for the variation of the premises licence at Milos, 83 Broadway, Leigh on Sea, SS1 1PE.

The application was presented by the applicant’s agent.  The Applicant was in attendance at the hearing and gave evidence.

The sub-committee noted that no letters of objection to this application had been received from any of the Responsible Authorities, although conditions had been agreed between the applicant and the Council’s Environmental Protection Team during the consultation period, should the application be granted.  These conditions were set out in Appendix 2 to the submitted report of the Council’s Executive Director (Environment and Place).

Three (3) representations had, however, been received from local residents, objecting to the application. Copies of their written representations were provided to the sub-committee in advance of the hearing.  Two of the objectors attended the hearing and gave evidence.

The representations essentially related to the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance.

In response to the concerns regarding the number of patrons permitted in the premises at any one time, the applicant and his agent discussed a potential maximum number of patrons to be permitted in the premises at any one time.  They agreed that a maximum capacity of 50 patrons would be acceptable.  The current number of covers provided at the premises was 32 with a further 8 at the bar area. The extra 10 patrons would enable flexibility should there be an event for a special occasion such as a family birthday party.  This would also ensure the viability of the business.

In response to questions from the sub-committee, the applicant’s representative accepted two additional conditions to the licence should the application be granted.  These were as follows:

• The requirement of clearer visible signs being clearly displayed at the exit of the premises and in the outside area and the toilet with appropriate wording informing patrons to be quiet and respect the residents; and

• The requirement of the CCTV camera covering the point of sale to be at face level.

The sub-committee carefully considered all the evidence submitted in writing and orally at the meeting. It listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the documents.  It had regard to the Statutory Guidance Notes and Southend-on-Sea City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. It 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.

The sub-committee concluded that, on the basis of the evidence presented to it in respect of this application, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate that the concerns raised in the representations would occur or could be attributed to this premises, or that could not be addressed through the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The sub-committee, therefore, did not consider that the promotion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.