Agenda and minutes

The Chairman introduced himself and asked his fellow colleagues to do likewise.  He outlined the procedure that would be followed at the meeting and invited the Head of Governance and Law to speak to the issue of a late representation by Strathclyde Police.

Mr Reppke advised that the response from Strathclyde Police had been received outwith the statutory time period allowed by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 for making objections or representations.  He stated that it was competent under Paragraph 3(2) of the Act for the Licensing Authority to entertain a late objection or representation if they were satisfied that there is sufficient reason for it not being made within the time allowed.  He then asked Inspector Davidson to outline the reasons for the late submission.

Inspector Davidson advised the Committee that an administrative backlog had occurred over the festive period as a result of the public holidays and that this had resulted in a delay with the response being lodged timeously.

The Committee agreed that they were satisfied with this explanation and that they would like to take account of the representation.  Copies of the letter were distributed to the Committee and also to the applicant.

The Chairman ruled and the Committee agreed to take a couple of minutes to read the letter and thereafter invited the applicant to present his case.

Mr Wright appeared on behalf of the applicant stated that he was here to take the case for a late hours catering licence forward in the hope of obtaining a fair hearing and positive outcome to the application.

He advised he intended to address the main areas for objection which had been lodged in response to the application.  The first objection he referred to was that from the Environmental Health Manager (EHM) in relation to the potential for disturbance stating that he felt was based on conjecture and supposition by the EHM rather than reality and actuality and that there was no evidence to back this up.  He then discussed the suggestion by the EHM that a three month trial period for hours from 11pm to 2am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday asking why this was being proposed when other Late Hours Catering Licences were granted until 2.30pm on Friday and Saturdays.  He did not feel this was compliant with equal opportunity legislation.  As a concession, he formally moved amendment of the hours applied for, requesting 11pm to 1.30am on Thursdays and 11pm to 2.30am on Friday and Saturdays.

He then moved on to discuss the objection by Ms Munro in relation to the impact on her existing business.  He stated that this carried no weight as every business works in free enterprise.  Although he did sympathise with Ms Munro he considered this had no bearing on whether a licence was obtained or not.  He also discussed her concerns regarding adequate policing of an additional street stating that if there was additional policing required, the premises for which the licence was being requested was approximately 2 minutes from the Police Station and that he considered the Police to be able and competent to handle policing in the area.  He then addressed the objection to a 3am licence stating that this had been amended earlier in his presentation.

Mr Wright then discussed the terms of the letter from Strathclyde Police questioning the term “high density” and its application.  He suggested that Main Street was more dense with residents which would give more rise to the anti-social behaviour they were suggesting could occur and reminded the Committee he had responded to this in his comments relating to the EHM representation.  He stated that the licence could actually help disperse crowds from Main Street as residents of Longrow may choose to use this premises rather than the unit in Main Street and that his client hoped to be in a position to boost local employment opportunities should the licence be granted.  Mr Wright’s last point was in relation to a statistical report by Inspector Harper which indicated that there were no calls relating to any specific premises and therefore concluded that a licence should be forthcoming on this basis.

The Chairman asked Inspector Davidson and Mr MacLeod (who was representing Ms Munro) whether they wished to question Mr Wright on his submission.  They both stated they had no questions at this stage.

The Chairman then invited Inspector Davidson to speak to his representation.  Inspector Davidson advised he was standing in for Inspector Harper and that in principle the Police had no objection but did wish to raise observations which were based on their records and own experience.  The Police view was that there was potential for an increase in anti-social behaviour should the licence be granted.  He stated that the reduced hours would be more acceptable in terms of policing and that the force had adequate resources to deal with this.

Mr Wright and Mr MacLeod both indicated that they did not wish to question the Inspector on his submission.

Mr MacLeod then spoke on behalf of his client, Ms Munro.  He referred to Ms Munro’s letter of 26 December 2010 which raised an issue of overprovision.  He stated that trade was not good within the area, his client having takings over the most recent weekend of £70 for Saturday night and £22 for Thursday.  He advised that other premises had also indicated that they were suffering from the economic downturn with MacGeochan’s being the most recent business to suffer due to lack of trade.  He advised his client was not seeking the monopoly of business which was evidenced by the fact that she had not objected to the granting of a Late Hours Catering licence two years ago.  With regards to comments by Mr Wright about equal opportunities, he directed the Committee to the last comment within his client’s letter regarding a probationary period of trade that she had been required to undertake.   He indicated that the reduced hours would go someway to addressing this concern but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.