Agenda item

Decision:-

That the application in respect of The Hole in the Wall and Charlie’s Nightclub, 5 Cheyne Lane, Stamford be agreed, subject to varied hours for the sale of alcohol as follows:-

       11.00hrs to 02.00hrs – Thursday, Friday, and Saturday

       11.00hrs to 00.00hrs – Sunday to Wednesday

and subject to thirty minutes drinking up time, and also to a condition requiring that all external windows shall be kept closed when regulated entertainment is being provided, except in the case of an emergency.

The committee had before them the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing’s report ENV278 in relation to an application for conversion and variation to a licence for The Hole in the Wall and Charlie’s Nightclub, 5 Cheyne Lane, Stamford.  A full copy of the application was attached at appendix one together with a plan showing the location of the premises. A number of representations from nearby residents and comments from Lincolnshire Police were attached at appendix two.  Circulated to members at the meeting was a page with further details of the application, which had been omitted from the report originally circulated to members.

The Corporate Manager introduced the application and clarified who would be speaking for the applicants.  It was noted that the police representative was present but that there were no local residents who had commented.

The applicant was present at the meeting, accompanied by Counsel, and the Chairman sought and received confirmation from the applicants that they had received and understood the procedure to be followed.

In introducing the report the Environmental Health Manager drew the attention of members to the proposed hours of operation and other variations from the existing situation.  He reminded members that the public entertainment licence current at the time of the application would be converted if this application was approved.  He also drew the attention of members to the representations included at appendix two to the report.

The applicant’s representative, on behalf of the applicant, said that they were content with the police comments regarding hours and agreed that here was an advantage in staggering closing times from a public order point of view to provide flexibility to assist in policing of the town at closing times.  The applicant confirmed that he had been licensee of the premises since 1992 and that no problems had been experienced with any of the public authorities, such as planning, police or licensing.

The police representative confirmed no objection to the amended hours of 2am (plus thirty minutes drinking up time) on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

The applicant’s representative addressed the committee on the matter of the objectors.  He produced and circulated maps showing the premises and the location of the objectors, pointing out that these were not close to The Hole in the Wall and there were many other licensed premises nearer to the objectors’ location.  Significantly there had been no objection from residents near to The Hole in the Wall.  He suggested that the objections were immaterial to the applicant and his case. 

Members asked questions of the applicant in relation to numbers permitted in Charlie’s Nightclub and in The Hole in the Wall, and in relation to CCTV and door staff.

The Environmental Health Manager summed up the report, pointing out that agreement had been reached over the timing of alcohol sales, and asked the committee to determine the application.  The applicant’s representative said that he had nothing to add, other than to point out that the applicant was a very experienced licensee who had operated for more than ten years in the area with no problems.

The Corporate Manager clarified the hours and other suggested conditions and the applicants, officers and police representative then left the room.

During the ensuing general discussion on the application, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, as varied, and subject to the conditions mentioned.  On being put to the vote the proposition was agreed.

The applicants, officers and police then returned to the meeting and were advised of the decision, as noted above.