|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
| Public Entertainment Licence Application (Dec '02) NOTE SOME PAGES WERE NOT EASILY SCANABLE SO DO NOT APPEAR ONLINE Full versions of the application made in print are available from Milford Haven, Haverfordwest and Tenby libraries, and from Pembrokeshire County Council of course. Chequers Application by Thomas H Sinclair Jnr. BIIAB EL OL Principality Taverns Limited, Leaseholders for the Premises and Operating Company, 5th Floor, Citrus House, Dale Street, Liverpool LS1 5AW The applicant is not a fit and proper person because, amongst other things, he has a propensity to unfairly criticise, via a number of public forums, the Local Authority in its licensing function? GARETH WATTS - 14 NOVEMBER 2002 APPLICATION CONTENTS Part I Foreword. Part II 1. Introduction Part III Comments and Representations 1. Statutory Authority Comments with Applicants Reponses. Part IV Operational Planning 1. Health & Safety. Part V 1. Correspondence from Applicant to Pembrokeshire County Council. General Appendix “ Documents Cross Referenced with the main body of the text. E1 “ Evidence relating to reasons why officers may dislike Chequers for ˜personal reasons.. Other Back Ground Information 1. Press Cuttings 1997-2002 ______________________________________________________________ Bibliography · Legal Companion for the Licensee, England & Wales Edition, Edward Whyte, Whyte Publications, EJ 92/6, (1992) Part I Foreword from the Applicant Such is the enormity of this application I have decided to write a foreword in order I may introduce the submission and my reasoning behind what I have included. Although voluminous, the content is in every way relevant, in as much as it highlights the scale of the civil conspiracy?[1] surrounding Chequers, which has already seen one man wrongly jailed, put many out of work, and cost the taxpayer millions of pounds[2]. I have been involved in the Licensed trade since 1997. I have run my own events, been party to many applications for public entertainment licenses and am on first name terms with Pembrokeshire County Councils licensing team who know me very well. I have been the Managing Director of Evolution Event Promotions Limited for a number of years as well as having a role in the application for Gigawatt 98 as event manager. I have sat in front of the licensing committee previously as the advisor to Mr Bill Davies, managing director of Music Live Limited who was subsequently granted a Public Entertainment Licence, despite many objections, for an outdoor music concert spanning two days[3]. I have also worked behind the bar in a number of licensed premises both in Pembrokeshire and beyond. I currently hold a BIIAB certificate[4] in respect of both the Justices On-Licence and Entertainment Licensing to Level 2. Despite my first major attempt at promoting a licensed event was unsuccessful when Gigawatt 98 was turned down after police objections I have always had a good relationship with both Mr Tony Davies, licensing officer for Dyfed Powys Police and the various members of the licensing team at Pembrokeshire County Council, namely Alan Williams, Sarah Oliver and Gareth Watts. As one can imagine, being the Managing Director of Pembrokeshires best known promotions company means being in contact with these people constantly and in dealing with them a level of mutual trust develops. In April 2002 I had to make the biggest decision of my life. I knew that the market was bottoming out of large-scale events largely due to the closure of the ITV Digital call centre in Pembroke Dock, so I decided to look at alternatives. This is something that any sensible business individual would do. During my enquiries I came across Principality Taverns Limited. The Managing Director of which was Mr Carl Ryan of Milford Haven. He informed me that Principality Taverns Limited were buying the lease for the Chequers Country Club in Penally, and he asked if I would be interested in managing the premises due to my ˜considerable experience in both retail management and the club scene[5]. I agreed. It was only a few days after that when I was sitting in Eddies Snooker and Social Club in Haverfordwest when Mr Tony Davies and Mrs Sarah Oliver came in to discuss opening an arcade with the licensee Cllr Mark Edwards. As I was there I took the opportunity to speak with Mr Davies and Mrs Oliver about the Evolution Experience event, promoted my company, Evolution Event Promotions Limited, on 11th May at the County Show Ground. I mentioned the application for Chequers to Mrs Oliver and Mr Davies. They seemed shocked to put it mildly Mr Davies said, and Mrs Oliver concurred that if I got involved with Mr Ryan then I would be burning my bridges? and that it would be a very bad move?. Mr Davies went on to explain that if I applied for the Entertainment License and I was found to be unfit and proper? that I would not be able to apply for a license for another 5 years? until my unfitness expires?. I was shocked. I explained to them that any decisions that I would make would be strictly professional and that I could not base my judgement on the opinion of these licensing officers - Especially when Mr Davies had already warned me in March 2001 that Carl Ryan was bad news?. I also understood at the time from reading The Milford Mercury that Carlco Limited, also directed by Mr Ryan, was pursuing Mr Davies for damages for alleged misfeasance in public office. I just ignored Mr Davies and Mrs Olivers comments as not being impartial and proceeded with the application.[6] If was after this had happened that I acquired a copy of the book Dafydd and Goliath written by the previous licensee of Chequers, Mr Dafydd Gittins[7]. Mr Gittins, as I know now, is a well-known businessman and former chairman of the CBI in mid-Wales and a founding director of the Powys TEC. As well as being a past Plaid Cymru parliamentary candidate, Mr Gittins was managing director of The Welsh Whisky Company and United Clubs (Wales) Limited. He was the co-licensee of Chequers Night Club until its forced closure in 1997. It was my interest in Mr Gittins book relating to the forced closure of Chequers and his wrongful imprisonment, which has inspired me to dig deeper into the reasons why this club has closed, and why there is so much animosity from the statutory authorities towards the nightclub. It seems like the worst case scenario: applying for an Entertainment License for a premises that the officers do not want open[8], when the Managing Director of the lease holding company is suing the police licensing officer for millions of pounds in damages. I almost expected to have problems every step of the way, and it is the challenge that has kept me going. I have dedicated every day of six months of my life to this application and have left no stone unturned and no scrap of evidence overlooked. I have prepared some pretty hefty applications in my time, Gigawatt, Music Live etc, but I knew that this one was going to top all of those. What I present to the Members of the Licensing Committee today is my very best submission based on that research. A documented proof that Chequers Club in Penally, Pembrokeshire was; 1. Wrongly closed in the first place after nearly 40 years of trading with little or no problems; I, and others, believe that this is the single most important application that Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee have ever had to deal with. The outcome of this application will be fundamental to the Sub-Committees attitude towards the way in which the Authority has dealt with this application from start to finish. In this report, as well as my submissions, Members will read the comments of the County Council and the Police who are both opposed to the application due to their obvious alternative agenda[11]. In my responses to their submissions I will demonstrate that their arguments are frivolous, petty, and unfortunately in some cases derisory Lastly, anything in this document outside of this foreword is not printed unless it can be supported by evidence to show that it is fact and not opinion. After five years of relationship building I am sad to say that I have now entirely lost my faith in both the Police and County Councils licensing departments and now leave this application in your capable hands for determination.
1. Introduction Chequers Country Club is a purpose built nightclub and pub build at Crackwell, Penally near Tenby on the A4193 between Penally Training Camp and Lidstep. The club first opened in 1961. The freeholders of the property are brother and sister Mr & Mrs Davies of the nearby property, Crackwell Farm. The club has had the advantage of both a Public Entertainment License from 1982 when the new regulations brought in by the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions act came into force until 1997 when the club was closed after a raid by Dyfed Powys Police when drugs were ˜found to be used on the premises. The then co-licensee, Mr Dafydd Gittins was jailed and later cleared in the Royal Courts of Justice[12] when it was found that the police had at best exaggerated? and at worst lied? about evidence which lead to the conviction. Mr Gittins is now famously perusing a claim for damages in excess of £3m against Dyfed Powys Police. As the premises has been closed since 1997 the club is now in a poor condition and in need of renovation work, despite £56,000 The club has generally run well and received a commendation and letter of praise from Dyfed Powys Police in 1989[14]. The club has always been busy and was renowned in the mid nineties for being the place where the Welsh club-scene was born, paving the way for similar ˜dance clubs in Swansea, Cardiff and beyond. The dance nights promoted by Andrew Price, now a successful businessman with a string of hair dressing salons and Daniel Slade, now known to all as Danny Slade. Danny Slade is acclaimed as Wales number one DJ and is now the resident disc jockey at the Escape super club in Swansea as well as being a BBC Radio presenter[15]. 2. The Way This Document is Set Out This document is set out in a number of parts, each one clearly separate from each other in a manner that makes the document easy to read. The first part is a foreword detailing the concerns the applicant has regarding the way that the application has been handled and the second part concerns the historical aspects of the premises, the outline of the application and the operating company Principality Taverns Limited. Part Three deals with the comments of the statutory authorities and other interested parties and goes on to answer these comments or objections in point by point manner in order negate the same. The fourth section deals with the operational details of the premises, for example health and safety, security and management plans and the final section is an appendix of important documentation to support the information contained in this application. The final pages of the document will explain the concerns the applicant has over the way that the application process has been handled from start to finish. 3. The History of Chequers General History: There have been a number of factors, which have apparently caused managers of the club and the authorities difficulties over recent years. The historical concerns of the statutory authorities fall into the following. I have put in brackets a summary of how this application negates these historical concerns as an overview: · Public Order - disturbances in Penally village (These concerns are hear-say and there is no documented evidence of disturbances, save the caravan park next door which is of concern to this application as only 31 October - 31 March are the periods of operation, when the Caravan park is closed) It is interesting to note however, that the observations of Dyfed Powys Police to South Pembrokeshire District Council in 1994 were recorded as follows: ...the Police objection was in respect of the licensee being an unsuitable person and did not particularly relate to the premises. On that occasion the Public Entertainment Licence was renewed. Disturbance History. What is hearsay? Folktale sets Chequers as a controversial club with a history of drugs and public disorder. However, it needs to be considered how much of this is a direct result of the Gittins case, which was widely reported in the newspapers[16], and how much as actually fact. It was upheld in the Royal Courts of Justice that much of the evidence presented by the police regards to public disorder was ˜hear-say[17] and was in relation to incident which were said to have happened when people were on the way to the premises, and as such an not be admitted in this report as a sensible reason why the club can not open. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that there are more than one licensed premises is Penally - even the Paddock Inn near The Night Owl has a Public Entertainment License, recently granted by this Committee, so public disorder, if any, can not be blamed on Chequers. With no written evidence of incidents to rely on, any previous or historical problems are merely too speculative for submission which is almost certainly the reason that the Police and Pollution Control teams all but omit this from their reports. Club Chronology 1962-2002 The Club Chronology is given at the end of this report The Wrongful Closure in 1997The closure of the club was a direct result of the polices raid on the club in 1997 and their complaints that the club had been suffered for the use of the sale and use of Class A, B and C drugs. The centre point of this was the prosecution of Mr R. V. Dafydd N. Gittins, which was overturned in the Royal Courts of Justice. There were issues surrounding the Electrical Certificate at the premises, however this was rewired in 1999 before Sams members club were about to open, but never did, as previously explained. ˜A Civil Conspiracy and Why They Want to Keep the Club ClosedIt is difficult for anyone to put their exact finger on the circumstances surrounding Gittins alleged ˜Civil Conspiracy and why after the club was closed it seems that the ˜powers that be want to keep it closed. However, research has shown that the officers who have been the ˜powers that be in Licensing in Pembrokeshire over the last decade or so have had some personal run ins with the club and its management which may or may not explain their negative view on the premises. Firstly, Mr Tony Davies, Licensing Support Officer for Dyfed-Powys Police was assaulted outside the club in 1992 Tony Davies was defeated in Court in 1994 by the clubs then licensees who refused to conform to the 10:45pm last entry policy. The Court said that Chequers was a ˜special case because of its remote location. Chequers Licensee Mrs H G Jones in won costs against South Pembrokeshire District Council totalling some £16,400 in Tenby Magistrates Court when the club successfully defeated SPDC over various legal matters.[18] To summarise, there has been animosity between the officers working in licensing in both Dyfed Powys Police and South Pembrokeshire District (now amalgamated into Pembrokeshire County Council). It seems that this has become ˜personal with evidence contained in the appendix (E1) to this report substantiating this theory. Subsequent Applications After ClosureSAMS MEMBERS CLUB by SAMS MEMBERSPlanned to open on July 9th 1999 as a private members club (not needing a Public Entertainment License) with a committee of five. £56,000 was spent on the renovation of the premises during the Sams Members Club period. Sams Members Club could not open because there was a change in policy by Pembrokeshire County Council regard to members clubs effectively blocking the move. Also, there are other reasons why the Members Club could not open: As Mr Gittins appeal drew nearer and the prospect of his conviction being overturned seemed more of a likelihood Sams Members Club needed to consider the possibility that Mr Gittins would again become the licensee off the premises with his Justices License being re-instated. Further to that, both the Freeholders of the property, Sams Members Club and their legal advisors had heard from sources inside Pembrokeshire County Council that the Statutory Authorities were planning to set the premises up by bussing undercover Council Workers and Police to the premises once opened, causing a scuffle, and then seeing how many non-members could be omitted - possibly leading to a prosecution. Understandably all parties involved in the Sams Members Club application were cautious. They were mindful of the prosecution of Sams Members Club in Milford Haven (operating at the Wall Street nightclub), which is currently under appeal at Swansea Crown Court. OCEANS NIGHT CLUB by DAMIEN BROWN & OTHERSIn 2001, the above application was made but was withdrawn before it got to committee. The reasons around this are unclear, although it is true that there were a large number of public objections at the time for this all year around license. The above applicants did not do any renovations work at the premises, save a small patch-up job on the roof.
An application was made for a Justices On-License for the small pub next to Chequers to open it as a pub and restaurant. The application went before the Licensing Justices at Tenby Magistrates Court in July 2002. Mr Tony Davies, Licensing Officer representing Dyfed Powys Police said that he thought that Thomas Sinclair Junior was in fact Mr T S Junior - despite knowing Mr Sinclair since 1997, successfully argued that the public notice was ˜defective. In what only can be described as a farcical court case the application was struck out on the ground that the public would be confused! John Morse, acting for Principality Taverns Limited, tried to argue that the confusion between Mr T H Sinclair and Mr T H Sinclair (his father) would be avoided by the addition of Junior to the end of his name. Mr Sinclairs Driving License, Cheque Book, Bank Cards, and even BII Certificate named him as Thomas Sinclair Junior (without brackets around Junior) in order to distinguish him from his father, incidentally a well-known County Councillor for Pembrokeshire - despite this, the Police delaying tactic worked and the application was withdrawn. Ironically the Police write to Mr Sinclair as Thomas Sinclair Junior (without brackets around Junior) when sending speeding tickets or parking fines as do the DVLA. Amazingly even Mr Tony Davies and Pembrokeshire County Council have written to Thomas Sinclair addressing him as Thomas Sinclair Junior (without brackets). They use T H Sinclair, Thomas Sinclair, Thomas Sinclair Jnr, Thomas Sinclair (Junior), Thomas Sinclair Junior and Thomas Sinclair Jnr. whenever it suits them as the correspondence annexed to this report clearly demonstrates.
The Application is for Music and Dancing and Entertainment of the Like Kind at Chequers, Penally during the periods 31 October and 31st March each year. The reason these dates were chosen was that the operation is designed to cause minimum problems to Crackwell Caravan Park next door to the club, which has caused conflict in the past. The application is to be made by Thomas Sinclair (Jnr). His Curriculum Vitae is shown below. Mr Sinclair has considerable experience in the licensing field as demonstrated in the foreword to this report.
A 23 year old, highly qualified and dynamic retail & events manager with a wide range of experience in the running, and the management of, both small and medium size stores and music events. Is able to work on own initiative and as part of a team. Proven leadership skills involving managing, developing and motivating teams to achieve their objectives. Has first-class analytical, implementation and problem solving skills. Is dedicated to maintaining high quality standards, and able to meet deadlines, achieve and surpass targets. Possesses a good sense of humor and able to communicate at all levels. Personal goals include high levels of customer service and excellence in of store standards and shop-ability. Hobbies and interests include computing, Internet, cinema and travel. Major Achievements: · worked as a Trainee Sales Floor Manager at PC World, Enfield, London - the chains second largest store with a turnover of £20m. Implemented new systems for faster checkout processing of customers during peak season. Career History July 2001 - August 2002 Managing Director, Evolution Event Promotions: July 2000 - July 2001 General Manager, Currys: August 1999 - July 2000 Trainee Sales Floor Manager, PC World: March 1996 - August 1998 Sales Advisor & Trainee Manager, Currys: Education & Qualifications Other Qualifications:
Applicants Contact of Employment The applicants contract of employment can be found at the appendix (E2) of this document. Applicants BII Certification The applicant Thomas Sinclair (Jnr) is qualified to Level 2 in both the BIIAB examinations in Justices On Licensing and Entertainment Licensing For copies of certificates see appendix. The Applicants Experience in the Licensed TradeThe applicant confirms to the Licensing Committee that although Pattersons Good Practice Guide, p878:2002 makes clear the considerations which make an applicant fit our unfit to hold a justices licence “ the same is not true with Public Entertainment Licences. With no firm standard to go on in this case, the applicant submits the Justices Licence criteria, as defined by Pattersons Licensing Acts along with an explanation of how the applicant meets those criteria: (a) Age and experience in the licensed trade 1. The applicant is 23 years old and has unprecedented experience within the licensed trade. (b) Training Undertaken, or proposed to be taken, and any qualifications arising there-from. a. BII Level 2 (Licensed Hospitality) “ Justices ON-License (c) The Character of the applicant This is from the applicants CV: I am motivated, enthusiastic, and responsible person. I believe in honesty and integrity, as these are two key disciplines in my life. I enjoy facing challenging tasks and learning new skills. I have a good sense of humour and enjoy embarking on large projects, organising events and dealing with people. I have a keen interest in current affairs and local issues. I am interested in local politics and the Internet. I am just starting a law degree with the Open University and am learning Japanese and Cantonese-Chinese in my spare time. I believe that if one goes about something in the right way that anything is achievable!? (d) Knowledge and understanding of Licensing Law The applicant is familiar with Licensing Law and has used his knowledge to help other applicants gain licenses.[19] He is familiar with Pattersons Licensing Acts and is a subscriber to Butterworths Licensing Website. The applicant also has, as previously mentioned, the relevant qualifications. (e) Knowledge and understanding of any conditions and undertakings to which the license may be subject. The applicant will have knowledge and understanding of any conditions and undertakings to which the licence may be subject once the licence has been granted. (f) An expressed intention in the case of a protection order that the applicant intends to apply for the transfer of the licence. N/A for PEL (g) An assurance that the applicant is no way disqualified from holding a licence. The applicant is in no way disqualified from holding a public entertainment licence. (h) That the applicant exercise effective control and supervision of the premises. The applicant will exercise effective control and supervision of the premises and will use his knowledge and experience outlined above to ensure that this is the case. 5. The Operating Company An Overview of Principality Taverns Limited Principality Taverns Limited was incorporated in 2001 and already has the lease of two premises, namely Chequers in Penally, Tenby and the Fusion Theme Bar in St Marys Street, Cardiff. The Directors of Principality Taverns Limited are Mr Carl Ryan, Mrs Francis David, Mr Richard Scott Imlach and the applicant Mr Thomas Sinclair Jnr. The shares in the company are owned between three of the directors. Ordinary shares pursuant to the Companys Act 1985 limit liability of the companys shareholders. The Company Secretary of Principality Taverns Limited is Drink Up Limited. Both Principality Taverns Limited and Drink Up Limited share a registered office at Citrus House, Dale Street, Liverpool and the company has a local office at 11A Hamilton Terrace, Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire, where business dealing in connection with this application are carried out. The directors, a bank loan and a large investment by breweries finance the Chequers project.
Please note: Mr Richard S Imlach, previously a probationary Metropolitan Police Officer and co-licensee at the Cardiff Premises looks after Health & Safety issues in Principality Taverns Limited The Lease Principality Taverns Limited has a 25-year repairable lease with the freeholders of the property. All works to be done on the premises prior to the opening will be financed by Principality Taverns Limited. The Company will provide details of the way that the club is to be financed to the members of the Licensing Committee on the day of the hearing. However, we will not release this information prior to the date of the hearing, as it is confidential and sensitive information, which is not for the public domain. The lease gives Principality Taverns Limited control of the complete site including car-parking areas. How will the Club will be Managed? With the applicant as the controlling mind at the premises, he will have in place department managers as follows: 1. Operations Manager These positions have not been appointed and cannot be until provisional grant of the license has been made. However it will be in the applicants best interests to appoint people into these roles who are suitable qualified and will be able to cope with the job in hand. It is likely that the applicant will fill the positions by advertising them in local newspapers or through a recruitment agency. Below, Figure 2 shows the management structure of the club. Please note that the applicant has considerable retail experience and has managed operations on a larger scale than this in his employment with the Dixons Stores Group Plc[20].
Company Policy Statement Principality Taverns Limited has a number of published policies, which are included as appendixes (E17) to this report, and they cover the following topics: · Company Health & Safety Policy (detailed below) Company Health & Safety PolicyPrincipality Taverns Limited recognises that the management of health and safety matters at work is integral to the success and prosperity of its business activities, and that it has a duty to protect and promote the health, safety and well-being of its employees and of visitors to its premises and others who may be affected by the conduct of the Company's business. This policy applies throughout Principality Taverns Limited. The Company's policy is to: · Provide healthy and safe working environments and working practices for its employees. · Ensure that its activities are conducted on safe premises. Overall responsibility for the management of this policy lies with the board of Directors. Day-to-day implementation is delegated through every level from managing directors to department managers and individual employees. Each business unit in Principality Taverns Limited is responsible for establishing and maintaining its own organisational arrangements and its own procedures to give effect consistent with this policy i.e., both the Cardiff and Chequers divisions respectively Management of Health and Safety and Fire Safety As a well-being organisation, caring about the health & safety of our staff and customers, and of everyone else who comes into contact with the business, is an essential element in the way we will run Chequers. Our policy statement clearly states our vision for health & safety. Our approaches are: · Health & safety (including fire safety) are line management responsibilities which are delivered through the line management structure of the business as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of this report. Most importantly Principality Taverns Limited has a Director for Health & Safety at Board level, supported by our company-wide Health & Safety Working Party. Our strategic vision is provided by the Board of Directors and takes account of the recommendations of the Health & Safety Working Party. Mr. Richard Imlach is the Director of Health and Safety. Senior management accountability for health & safety (and fire safety) is recognised at certain levels by the role of Director of Health & Safety. This director is responsible for establishing local Health & Safety Advisers, fire marshals, and first-aiders, amongst other duties including providing for effective consultation with staff. Consultation Depending on the group with whom we are consulting, there are a variety of ways in which we facilitate consultation. For example, with staff, insurers, health & safety enforcing agencies or fire authorities. Insurers We regularly consult with our property insurers about fire protection issues and their surveyors regularly inspect our premises. We have established a company-working group to co-ordinate the process. Proposed Lead Authority Partnerships We intend to have established lead authority partnership arrangements with all Local Authorities and Fire Authorities with licensed premises in their jurisdiction; and wish to regularly consult with them about health & safety and fire safety practices.
All certificates of Public Liability Insurance, Employers Liability Insurance and Buildings Insurance etc will be shown before a full grant is asked for.
Name & Registered Office: Status :Active Accounting Reference Date: 31/10 Last Members List: 10/10/2002 Previous Names:
In 1989 a ruling of Lord Justice Mann and Lord Justice Rose set a precedent when they upheld a decision in The Queen v Preston Crown Court Ex Parte Cooper, G.[21] that a license could be refused if the company behind the business was seen to be unfit and proper. Notwithstanding that Principality Taverns believes itself to be fit and proper in every way, a new ruling in Regina v Warrington Crown Court & Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary[22] superseded this Judgement. The whole transcripts of both cases are appendices of this report. In Regina v Warrington Crown Court & Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary, the House of Lords overturned the ruling of Warrington Crown Court which was that one Mr Kehoe was ˜not a fit and proper person to hold an license on the grounds that he refused to let the police know who was behind the company running the premises known as Weavers Hotel, Runcorn.? The House of Lords ruled that when considering an application for a license Justices [on in this case a Licensing Committee] cannot look beyond that applicant in the determination of fitness, as it is the applicant applying for the license and not the company. The ruling made headlines in licensing publications across the UK as soon as it was announced in June 2002. Some of the articles appear as an appendix (E4) to this report. To summarise, any arguments by the statutory authorities that they do not know enough about Principality Taverns Limited, despite this lengthy report, are in contradiction of the Regina v Warrington Crown Court & Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary case - and therefore can not be taken into consideration. Part III Comments and Representations 1. Statutory Authority Comments with Applicants Reponses In order to negate the negative comments of the Statutory Authorities with regard to this application I have copied out their representations and added my own comments showing clearly that each and every issue has been overcome.
The comments of the above statutory authority are given in italic print and the response by the applicant is given in bold print. I have been instructed to make representations in respect of the application for a Public Entertainment License for the above names premises by Thomas Hutton Sinclair (Junior) 1. The Police will make representations that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to be granted a Public Entertainment License. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT until the Police explain their submission the applicant cannot comment any further. It is suggested to Members that reading my foreword to this report may give some help in this regard. THE APPLICANT FURTHER SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT he has made a number of attempts to ascertain the reasons for the police objection but these have fallen on deaf ears. 2. The premises is [are] not suitable for a Licence from 7pm to 2am taking into consideration the Noise Abatement Notice issued in previous years. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this is not really an issue now the Caravan Park will be closed during the periods that the club will operate. Members are reminded that this is a purpose built club: a purpose built club not being suitable to be a club? We beg to differ. 3. The actual building is in a very poor condition and the Police have not received any evidence that the applicant intends to carry out the required work to bring it up to the present day standards including the Disability Discrimination Act requirements. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT while this is not an issue for the Police, we have included all the answers to the above, as well as evidence in this report. At this moment in time the Police have not received copies of the following documentation: - (a) Financial plan showing that the applicant is capable of carrying out the extensive work required on the building, fire exits and car park. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT the applicant will demonstrate to the committee confirmation from financial backers, private investors and the companys own standing that the company has more than enough capital to enable it to run the premises efficiently, and to carry out the repair works to the required standard set out in Pembrokeshire County Councils Standard Conditions. (b) Business Plan to show clearly how the applicant intends running the business. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this is shown in the report (c) Management structure showing who will be responsible for different aspects of running the business. THE APPLICANT AGAIN SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this is shown in the report (d) Measures to be adopted to limit intensity and duration of noise affecting neighbouring property and any proposed works to improve the property. THE APPLICANT AGAIN SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this is shown in the report (e) A report from an electrical engineer clearly stating what work is required to be carried out internally and externally on the electrical installation. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this does not need to be given to the Police, or any other statutory authority as long as the Electrical Certificate is produced before a full grant is made. (f) Appropriate certificates of flame retardency of the carpets that are already fitted. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this does not need to be given to the Police, or any other statutory authority as long as the Certificate, if required by the Mid and West Wales Fire Authority is produced before a full grant is made. (g) A copy of the current Public Liability Insurance. Principality Taverns Limited have a duty to ensure that employees are covered by Employees Insurance which usually contains Public Liability Insurance for any actions carried out by employee[s]. I ask that this be produced. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this does not need to be given to the Police, or any other statutory authority as long as the Certificate is produced before a full grant is made. When the Police receive the documentation required from the Applicant we will write further in more detail, our representations, in particular the assertion that the applicant is not fit and proper. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT it looks forward to Mr Tony Davies further submission. COMMENTS OF: MR GARETH WATTS, PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL - POLLUTION CONTROL TEAM The comments of the above statutory authority are given in italic print and the response by the applicant is given in bold print. With reference to the application by Mr Thomas Sinclair Junior for the grant of a Public Entertainment Licence in respect of the premises formerly known as Chequers? Penally, Tenby. The following observations are based on a personal history of the premises since 1996, the duration of the application form and supporting detail, and a site meeting and a multi agency site meeting on 8th November 2002. The Commercial Pollution and Licensing Team object to the grant of this license on 2 main grounds: 1. That disturbance and general amenity loss will be caused to the owner/occupiers of caravan units within the adjacent caravan park, and to a lesser extent, the residents of Penally as a result of the mass exiting of persons in the early hours. Specifically the team has reservations that the requisite noise standard, as historically applied to this premises, can be achieved within the adjoining caravan park. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT there will be no amenity loss nor noise problems caused the caravan-park as the caravan park, on the advice of its owner, will be closed during the periods that the Entertainment License is to run. 2. That Mr Sinclair is not a fit and proper person and of sufficient proprietary to hold a Public Entertainment License given amongst other matters his pretensity to unfairly criticise the Authority in a variety of public forums on the manner it approaches its licensing function.[23] THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT the Authority, in its own submission by backing down on frivolous issues following constructive criticism showed that the ˜criticism” was not ˜unfair”, but merely an attempt to get things done properly and legally. The continual highlighting of a variety transgressions in the Authorities approach to licensing functions has now, according to Mr Watts, made the applicant unfit and proper to hold an Public Entertainments License in this County. Surely any fair-minded person would submit that the applicant is indeed ˜more fit and proper™ than any other, due to his in depth knowledge of the statutory and local procedures in this regard. Not withstanding the generality of the foregoing the following points are made 1. The premises are currently in a very dilapidated condition. Committee need to be satisfied through the site of reports/undertaking that the premises is structurally sound and free from wet/dry rot. This point is made specifically with regard to long standing penetration of rain into the structure. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT he appreciates that a significant amount of works need to be carried out at the premises, but at this stage of applying for a provisional grant, the current condition need not be taken into consideration. It is established the premises needs to be repaired with a significant amount of money needing to be spent - however, the application can be granted Provisionally, subject to the required works being carried out. A brief check by a registered builder shows that there is not wet or dry rot and that despite the previous leak in the roof above the centre of the dance floor damage is minimal. The submission by Mr Watts that the building is in a ˜very dilapidated condition is unfair. £56,000[24] was spent in 1999 and the premises have a brand new toilet block etc. The ONLY interior problems with the premises are the leaking roof and the buckled dance floor as a result of the leak. No doubt that the Committee will be shown ˜spectacular photographs of the leaking roof and buckled dance floor in an attempt to shock members into the poor state of repair. This is however, as members will appreciate, irrelevant, as the works should be carried out AFTER a provisional grant and not before. 2. A specialist heating and ventilation engineers report should be provided as part of any pre-license consent in order that the Authority can be satisfied that suitable and sufficient ventilation and heating is provided to the building in the interest of both occupants and persons resorting their-to. The Councils own Standard Terms and Conditions? advises specifically on the required competence of the engineer(s). THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT a specialist heating and ventilation engineers report will be provided, pursuant to the Councils own Standard Terms and Conditions?. Members will be interested to know that is was on the application of one of Principality Taverns Directors, Mr Carl Ryan, that Ventilation Reports became standards conditions of Entertainment Licenses in Pembrokeshire, so the company is fully aware of its obligations. 3. A specialist drainage report should be submitted to the County Council as a pre-condition of any consent given that foul drainage passes through a pumping station/sump shard with the adjacent Crackwell Holiday Park. Specifically the reports needed to establish that the system has sufficient capacity to deal with anticipated occupancy at the premises that adequate steps will be taken to prevent or mitigate odour problems at the mains sewer connection in the vicinity of the Penally Training Camp, which has historically caused odour nuisance. This matter must be explored between the applicant and the adjoining caravan park proprietor. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT there will be no sewage problems caused the caravan park as the caravan park, on the advice of its owner, will be closed during the periods that the Entertainment License is to run. Either the Caravan Park or the club will be in operation - not both at the same time. 4. The County Council commissioned an independent noise report by Acoustic and Noise Partnership of Newport, Gwent when the previous licensee was in-situ. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT the author of this report was guided by the fact that the club was open all year around. Should this application be successful, this will not be the case. The applicant knows this report and he has advised during the site visit that all matters and recommendations made in that report will be complied with prior any license being granted. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT any relevant recommendations would of course be complied with prior to the license being granted; however as the report is most concerned with the caravan park it is almost entirely negated. The original recommendations made by the Consultant (and which verified the existing views of the Commercial Pollution Team) stated that substantial sound installation should be carried out to the roof structure, complemented by total renovation of the inadequately attenuated ventilation outlet above the dance floor. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT notwithstanding my previous statement above, the roof of the premises will be renewed with improved sound insulation. The ˜inadequately attenuated ventilation outlet above the dance floor will be improved in line with the recommendations in the report prior to any full license grant. 5. It is considered appropriate that the applicant should be able to provide to Committee independent confirmation that those recommendations have been considered by an external Noise Consultant, that there are firm proposals to undertake the said improvements and that a detailed specification, supported by that Noise Consultant as provided for the attention of Committee/Officers. This will ensure that the specification and changes to the structure of a roof, which the applicant proposes to carry out, is independently verified as being sufficient to meet the noise standard. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT expert advice will be brought in regarding the materials used in the re-roofing of the premises. This is not relevant to this winter only application due to the closure of the caravan park, however we wish to make radical improvements to the roof and carry out other sound insulation work so that any future application for summer operation will not cause sound related problems, as alleged in the past. 6. In relation to the foregoing, Committee are asked to explore the relationship between the applicant, the company referred to as Principality Taverns Limited, and the joint freeholders of the premises Mr R Davies and his sister Mr H Davies in relation to which party would be specifically responsible for carrying out not only the repairing obligation? of the premises buy any improvements works? as a result of the sound attenuation recommendations. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT any works to the premises at all will be carried out at the expense of the applicants employer, Principality Taverns Limited. It is understood that a draft? has been established between the freeholders and Principality Taverns Limited, and it is suggested that Committee should make specific enquiries in to the exact agreement. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT they should enquire with officers as to the relevance of delving in to this topic, which under normal circumstances would be subject to commercial confidentiality. However not to be seen as obstructive we have included the lease in the appendix (E5) of this report. Furthermore Committee are asked to enquire as to the specific arrangements made in the lease for maintenance and any improvements to the car park area and on all entrances/exits in relation to the premises. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT any works or maintenance to the car park of the premises will be carried out at the expense of the applicants employer, Principality Taverns Limited. 7. There is a historical Prohibition Notice on the premises under Section 22 to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in relation to the safety and integrity of the electrical installation. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT such a Prohibition Notice does not exist as the repair works were carried out in 1999 and the notice lifted. Evidence of this is at the appendix of this report. Given the dilapidated condition of the premises and the penetration of rain water/dampness Committee must be satisfied that the electrical installation of the premises can:- (a) be made safe Significantly the electrical report should also cover the safety and integrity of street lighting in the car park/entrance area and also that the electrical supply there-to is under the direct and continuous control of the applicant/leaseholders. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT if the premises do not meet the required standards then the full grant can simply be refused. The arguments regarding the propriety of the company and its applicant are not relevant. Committee must be mindful that this is an application only for a provisional grant. Members may find if of interest to read Principality Taverns Health & Safety Policy earlier in this report. 8. The Applicant intends to use a single entrance into the premises to the right hand side and formerly known as Bogeys Bar?. Committee are asked to make specific enquiries into how migration between this part of the premises and the main dance area will be controlled and that the Mid and West Wales Fire Brigade have had sight of, and given agreement to this proposed means of access. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT the entrance to Bogeys Bar, at all materials times when the club is in operation will be manned by a registered doorperson who will click in and out those in the bar in a similar set of circumstances as those employed at the Kings Function Centre, Milford Haven, before its closure. The applicant has direct experience of this having run many events at the Kings Function Centre without any problems relating to cross-migration, despite the Kings Function Centre having a much large occupancy figure. 9. There is concern that there will be a significant loss of amenity to the Caravan Park because of the proposed traffic flow. Whist primarily a matter for the Highways Authority, it is quite obvious that there is inadequate car parking space for the proposed occupancy. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT once the proposed works are done to the car park there will be more than enough parking spaces for all expected cars. Members are advised to draw their attention to the Traffic Management and Car Park planning enclosed in this report. Members are further advised that the management of traffic proposed by the applicant are a result of those recommendations made by Mr Geoff Sutton of Pembrokeshire County Councils highways department. This will therefore lead to potential problems with traffic flow, preparation of pedestrians with cars/buses/taxis/etc and the Committee needs to be satisfied that there are adequate and safe controls in place prior to any licence coming into effect. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT whist we are also concerned with the safety of the public, as demonstrated in the companys Health & Safety Policy. Our traffic management plan, drawn up with the kind help of Mr Sutton, combined with the widening of the car park to entertain a larger number of vehicles will allow Chequers to operate in a safe and controlled manner for the benefit of all patrons and staff. On this point, the surfacing of the existing lane? [meaning car park] is extremely dilapidated and requires total repair or ideally resurfacing. Again Committee need to enquire as to the responsibility of this work. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT any works or maintenance to the car park of the premises will be carried out at the expense of the applicants employer, Principality Taverns Limited. 10. There is a single story structure to the left hand side (and within the curtilage) of the premises. Committee need to make enquiries as to whether or not this will be used for any purpose, particularly if it will be used as a takeaway or a source of amplified music. This point has been raised given the historical problems of this nature. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT there is no intention to use this structure for anything more than a store for frozen food products. It will certainly note be used for amplified music nor as a takeaway. Officers are aware that the kitchens are located inside the premises, and the plans submitted demonstrate their continued use in this new application. 11. The Committee should enquire as to the applicants current status with the parent company, Principality Taverns Limited, and such enquiries should be made in relation to the financial aspects, senior managerial control and any other aspect (subject to legal advice) which will satisfy themselves that the directing mind? of this Company as suitable and sufficient proprietary. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT the employer of the applicant, Principality Taverns Limited, is not a parent company, nor part of a group of companies as suggested in the above statement by Mr Watts. Principality Taverns Limited is a stand-alone company with four ˜human directors, Mrs R David (Administrative Director), Mr P C Ryan (Director, Cardiff Operations), Mr R Imlach (Director of Health & Safety) and Mr Thomas Sinclair (Director, Chequers Operations). The company secretary, as confirmed earlier in this report is a corporate body called Drink Up Limited, as sanctioned under section 225 of the Companies Act 1985. The directing mind in the operation of the premises will by the applicant himself being a director of the company responsible for both the profitability and the day-to-day nuts and bolts? running of the premises. The applicant will obviously be answerable to the Board of Directors and to the companys shareholders in relation to the Chequers operation. However, the reason that Mr Gareth Watts mentions ˜subject to legal advise in his submission is that he is well aware of the House of Lords ruling mentioned briefly earlier in this report, and annexed in full in the appendix, which disallows the delving into the companys background etc for the purposes of considering whether the applicant is fit and proper. Notwithstanding the above, and for the purposes of clarity, there will be no other directing mind in the day-to-day operation other than that of the applicant himself. Decisions to be made at board level would be those of staff wages, company policy, and larger decisions such as applying for longer hours, different periods of opening etc. There is not point hiding the fact that one of the directors of the company is Mr P C Ryan, who has had previous revocations (currently subject to legal argument with the help of John Saunders QC)[25] In addition, Committee need to be satisfied that not only will there be sufficient financial resources to undertake all the foregoing works in the interest of public safety and nuisance, but that also the day to day operation of the premises such as routine maintenance of the equipment can be ensured. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT the applicant will demonstrate to the committee confirmation from financial backers, private investors and the companys own standing that the company has more than enough capital to enable it to run the premises efficiently, and to carry out the repair works to the required standard set out in Pembrokeshire County Councils Standard Conditions[26]. 12. In relation to the foregoing point, the applicant has been less clear as to his current status within the parent company. Given that Committee should be minded to enquire as to the history of experience the current employment status should be enquired into. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT the applicant is in fact a director of Principality Taverns Limited. The Applicants full CV can be found earlier in this report if members wish to look at this in more detail.[27] 13. The applicant has answered in the negative on the application form that he has not unspent convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Committee are asked to enquire of the applicant whether or not he has any conviction or involvement in a company with the conviction involving the unlicensed use of loudspeaker in a street, so as to cause annoyance. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT he indeed was found guilty of the unlicensed use of a loudspeaker in the street, but this is not a criminal offence, but civil and does not require disclosure nor is subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. However, for the purpose of clarity, Mr Sinclair was using a vehicle-mounted loudspeaker (As used in elections) to advertise the Evolution Experience event at the Kings Function Centre, Carnival 2001. Mr Sinclair did some research after being stopped by the police and found that the Noise and Nuisance Act 1998 now disallowed this and pleaded guilty. Such was the frivolous nature of the prosecution, and the complexity of the law regarding the operation of the speaker, the magistrates admitted that not even they understood this new law. Subsequently they gave Mr Sinclair a conditional discharge and no fine. Interestingly, the magistrates said if Mr Sinclair had been selling fresh fish or ice cream when the police stopped him, then it would not have been unlawful. The applicant does not see how this is relevant to the Chequers Application. 14. In relation to the applicants proprietary, reference has already been made to financial standing. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT his own financial standing, with respect, is not the business of officers or Committee. It has been explained that the applicant is merely a servant of Principality Taverns Limited, albeit a director, and that his financial standing does not come into it. Committee are advised to enquire specifically into the applicants actions in relation to a dance event at the Carew Pavilion, Sageston, Bank Holiday Monday of this year when a significant number of predominantly young persons were stranded in the early hours of the morning at the premises given that a local bus company had allegedly not been paid for their services. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT he had no direct financial involvement in the dance event at Carew Pavilion and is unable to comment any further. However, the applicant can reveal that (a) the event was called Unity; THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this is a futile attempt by Pembrokeshire County Councils licensing and pollution control team to muddy the water regards the applicant who is clearly fit and proper in every way. 15. The applicants general attitude and proprietary in relation to failure to adequately control music noise levels during the holding of Evolution Promotion? events at the Withy bush Show Ground earlier this year. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT Evolution Experience Terminal One events were held at the Park House Exhibition Centre in Haverfordwest County Show Ground on 30th March 2002 and 11th May 2002. A further event was scheduled to take place on 20th July 2002 (Haverfordwest Carnival Day) The applicant is glad that Mr Gareth Watts has chosen to bring this subject up as it gives him the opportunity to clearly demonstrate the attitudes and the ˜hand of his team regards recent Evolution Experience Events. The applicant, being the Managing Director of Evolution Event Promotions Limited (but not the licensee of the premises) had consulted with Pembrokeshire County Council and Dyfed Powys Police in great detail regard the event. The first event on 30th March 2002 was a considerable success with 1,800 persons attending the dance with no trouble, not a single scuffle. Granted, there were a handful of complaints from residents, but the County Council refused to give their details so that Evolution Event Promotions Limited, through the applicant and Managing Director of the company could pacify them. On the advise of Mr Gareth Watts a strict noise control regime was put in place and even the council and police provided with VHF radios at the expense of Evolution Event Promotions Limited so that they could communicate with event control in the event of any disturbance. Sure enough, the sound levels were turned down during the night. In order to highlight how well this was one, and unbelievably, one of the members of the same County Council department was having a wedding reception in the Food Hall only yards away, and thanked the staff at Evolution Experience for the understanding way in which the event was conducted. Prior the second event taking place on 11th May 2002 at the same venue, and on the advise of Pembrokeshire County Council - namely Mrs Sarah Oliver and Mr Gareth Watts, the applicant in his capacity as director of EEP Ltd called at every house within a 2 mile radius north of the Park House Centre in order to warn them of the event and offer each person alternative luxury accommodation, or instead free tickets to the event so as not to cause a nuisance. Nine people accepted free tickets and none the alternative accommodation and the event went ahead. Mr Watts was given a radio to let the sound engineers know if the music was too loud. Unfortunately Mr Watts lost his radio, which the Council had to pay Rees Sound Systems Limited, the hirer. Due to this factor, the communications system broke down and unbeknown to the event management there were complaints coming in (possibly more than would have been expected if everyone had not have been forewarned and as the people in the area were now ˜listening out for a disturbance - complaints were to be expected) A third event planned for 20th July 2002 had to be cancelled at the last minute and 780 tickets refunded only eleven or so days before the Carnival and Birthday Spectacular, due to be held at the same venue, was to take place. Mr Watts issued a noise abatement order on the event even though if he had not lost the radio then complaints may not have happened in the first place. Mr Watts set a noise level of NR35 (a quiet whisper) at the façade of the nearest occupied premises for the duration of the event. Even the Acoustic and Noise Partnership, the Councils own Noise Consultant said that this was unobtainable due to traffic and background noise - and that NR35 was the wrong rating to use in this circumstance?. With only days to go to the event, and £10,000 having been spent by Evolution Event Promotions Limited the event had to be cancelled. Every person got a full refund. If the noise abatement order had been issued in good time then there was a prospect of an appeal, but it was timed so that this was not possible. Mr Watts in comments in his submission of the applicants general attitude and proprietary?. The applicant submits that his general attitude was that he bent over backwards to ensure that all conditions were met and he was put, as the Managing Director of EEP Ltd, in an impossible position by Pembrokeshire County Council The fact that EVERY person got a full refund from EEP Ltd is a clear demonstration of Mr Sinclairs good proprietary. His general attitude was exceptionally positive at all times, and the manner in which he approached the licensing team always professional. Furthermore the cancellation of the event and refunding of all the event tickets put a financial pressure on EEP Ltd so great that it caused some cheques the company had written to bounce. This was the reasoning behind Mr Sinclairs arrest at that time and he still remains on bail without having been charged with any offence. Mr Sinclair submits to the committee that if the noise abatement order had been issued in good time, or if it had not been issued at all (perhaps if Mr Watts had not lost the radios on 11 May 2002) then the event would not have been cancelled, the cheques not have bounced and Mr Sinclair not arrested. No doubt that the Council and Police will be bringing up the arrest at the hearing and therefore the applicant make the aforementioned submission. 16. The Committee needs to have site of Public Liability Insurance for the premises, in accordance with Condition 28 of the standard terms and conditions. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this will be provided at the full grant, and not provisional grant stage. With respect, Committee cannot expect the applicant to produce Public Liability Insurance before even a provisional grant is made. It is intended to make available a copy of the original Noise Consultants report to Committee a copy already being held by the applicant. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this is already enclosed in this report as an appendix (E8). A series of photographs were taken during the course of the site inspection on the 8th November and a copy of these is being made available to the applicant in advance of the Committee hearing. A copy of the photographs will similarly be provided to Committee to assist in the decision making process. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT no doubt that they will be shown ˜spectacular photographs of the leaking roof and buckled dance floor in an attempt to shock members into the poor state of repair. This is however, as members will appreciate, irrelevant, as the works should be carried out AFTER a provisional grant and not before. Committee are advised that they may find it of use to actually undertake a site inspection prior to determination, should they consider it appropriate. It is believed that this would assist them, given the current dilapidated condition of the premises, its history, the siting and aspect of the premises and to further put into context the various assurances/undertakings, which the applicant may wish to make. Gareth Watts THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT although the pictures show a leaking roof and buckled dance floor etc., that necessary repairs, as I have already said, will be carried out before any full grant can be made. This can be made a condition of the granting of this provisional license.
Reference your memorandum of 23rd October 2002, regarding an application for a public entertainment licence for Chequers County Club at Crackwell, Penally, Near Tenby. You may recall that a site inspection was undertaken at this facility in September 2001, in connection with a previous public entertainment license application; I enclose a copy of my report following that meeting. (Enclosed over next few pages in this report) The application from Mr T H Sinclair Jnr does not address any of my concerns. Whilst not objecting to the granting of a license, conditions should be imposed which would, in the interest of public safety, i) Provide improved car parking facilities so that all vehicles are accommodated within the site. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT improved car parking facilities will be provided, as required, as shown in the Car Parking section in this report. ii) Provide improved maintenance of the car-parking surface. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT the car-parking surface will be improved at the expense of Principality Taverns Limited and again as shown in the Car Parking section of this report. iii) Provide adequate secure boundary fencing to restrict pedestrian entry/exit onto the highway THE APPLICANT SUBMITS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT this will be provided at the expense of Principality Taverns Limited, to the specifications demonstrated in this report. iv) Provide a traffic management system so that traffic enters/exits the site in a safer manner THE APPLICANT SUBMITS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT a meeting took place between Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Sutton at the site visit where Mr. Sutton explained the best way for cars to move throughout the site. This has been taken on-board and details of the Traffic Management System are given in detail in this report. In addition consideration should be given to ensuring that the property is improved in line with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The entrance and exits do not comply with the minimum access standards nor is there any disabled toilet provision within the building. The councils Access Officer can provide advice and information to the applicant if required. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT Principality Taverns Limited takes the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 very seriously, and prior to the statutory deadline for the introduction of the Act (January 2004) the applicant will undertake an access survey with the help of Pembrokeshire County Councils access officer. It is intended that Principality Taverns will make relevant improvements before this deadline to improve access for disabled customers, in accordance with statute. This will include the adaptation of the club to include one unisex disabled toilet, improved wheel chair access to the premises via the east fire exit. I also include photographs, which demonstrate the current dilapidated condition of the site. Please contact me if you require any further information. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT the photographs may be misleading as they only show the situation at present and there will obviously be many improvements to the premises and car park areas, as demonstrated in this document.
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT he agrees with the representations of the West Wales Fire Authority in full, save the small confusion over numbers. The Fire Authority forgot to add Bogeys Bars occupancy figures to their report. The total which should be allowed in the premises is 740 in total including Bogeys Bar. The applicant agrees with the Fire Authoritys figures for the Club (Ball Room).
Firstly, when the applicant made an application for a liquor license for Bogeys Bar this summer (the bar annexed to Chequers), Penally Community Council put up fly-posters In the village trying to get people to object out of time (see over) Secondly the applicant feels that Penally Community Council should be reflecting the view of the people of Penally rather than failing to accept the lack of objections and then actively seeking to encourage people to object out of time and paying for solicitors to try and stop applications (Bogeys Application and others) and to bus objectors to licensing and justices hearings. It seems the main cause of objection from Penally is not with the majority of residents themselves, many of whom have come out in support of the application as a welcomed amenity for Penally. (4,600 people signed a petition in support of the club having later opening hours in 1989 “ including nearly all the village), and more recently many have contacted me offering their support. The applicant expresses concern that Penally Community Council is also trying to drum up support its objections to the premises through the publication of a newsletter called Penally Community Gazette. Copies of these publications, which refer to the Chequers application “ as well as minutes from Penally Community Councils meeting with relevant content, are annexed to this report at E18. CLLR P CAVILL, LOCAL MEMBER, PENALLY Members will be aware that Cllr Cavill is a member of the Licensing Committee as well as being the local member for Penally. Cllr Cavill has written a number of letters to Pembrokeshire County Council objecting to the application ˜on behalf of Penally, however when confronted about the precise reasons for her objections, Cllr Cavill wrote back explaining that she wasnt objecting personally but she was ˜expressing the views of Penally. Cllr Cavills letters and the responses thereto are shown over the next few pages in this report. 3. Public Objections/Comments A public notice was placed in the Tenby Observer on Friday 2nd August 2002 inviting members of the public to make comments or objections to Pembrokeshire County Council within a twenty-eight day period. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT NO PUBLIC OBJECTIONS WERE RECEIVED WITHIN THE STATUTORY TWENTY-EIGHT DAY PERIOD. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT he hopes the Committee takes into account the fact that there were no objections within the statutory time, nor any individual objections from the public directly written for this application still. Pro-forma letters (organised by Penally Community Council whether officially or unofficially) signed by previous objectors are the only public representations saying that they wish their previous objections to stand. THE APPLICANT FURTHER SUBMITS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT he does not think it fair that out of time objections should be taken into consideration in this case because: i) The objections are not directly related to this ˜winter only application ii) The objections have only been collected after those objectors have been directly canvassed and therefore the canvassing authority has acted as ˜agent-provocateur. iii) The objections have not been given within the 28-day statutory time frame and taking them into consideration will render the terms of the advert invalid. i.e. If those making representations want them to be taken in consideration by the Authority then they must be sent to Pembrokeshire County Council within 28 days from the date of publication.? Human Rights Act: Article 8 “ Right to respect private and family life. This should not be used against this application because 28 days notice was published in a local paper and no objections were received within the required time period. Furthermore the club has operated over the last 40 years or so; whats changed now? Finally no firm evidence has been placed before the committee or in any of the statutory bodies representations regarding noise or disturbances in previous times. Human Rights Act and the allowance of late evidence or objections: The applicant submits that should Members of the Licensing Committee allow late objections then this would go against the law of natural justice “ as evidence must be produced within a reasonable time to prepare the case. The applicant would also like to refer members to the First Protocol, Article One: Protection of Property. Every Natural or Legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possession. No one shall be deprived of his possession except in the public interest? THE APPLICANT SUBMITS TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE THAT possession of an entertainment license is a right protected by Article One of the First Protocol, and interference such as the refusal to allow the use of a property for its designated purpose without factual evidence that it is in the Public Interest is a blatant contravention of Article One. MORE OF THIS REPORT TO BE UPDATED SOON... | ||||||||
| FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO PARTY! |
