Councillor Michael Bull was appointed Chair

No declarations of Interest were made.

The Chair welcomed those present and reminded them that the hearing was being recorded.  Parties agreed all relevant Notices, Applications and representations had been included in the hearing bundle, although Mr Dadds pointed out he had only received the ‘conditions agreed following a representation by Public Health’ just prior to the start of the hearing.

The Chair introduced the procedure.

Mr David Dadds gave a statement clarifying the application which included his concerns that there should be no duplication of legislation with the Gaming Act 2005, that the conditions agreed with the applicant should only be placed on the licence if they were appropriate and proportionate and that all conditions must be evidence based.  In particular, Mr Dadds stated that the condition for ‘no poker to be played on the premises’ was not related to the supply of alcohol.  Mr Dadds also pointed out there had been no crime and disorder incidents reported at the premises that had resulted in cautions or warnings under the Gaming Act. 

The Licensing Officer advised the Sub-Committee that the Licensing Authority has the authority to deal with such offenses.

Mr Dadds explained that the ‘private’ room can be used by members and the public, including for poker as allowed under the Gaming Act.  There was a glass wall which ensured visibility into the room.

In relation to the condition ‘all gaming machines must be in line of sight of the bar area’ Mr Dadds confirmed this was the case, and that the plan provided of the licensed premises was not accurate in this detail.  In response to a question from the Licensing Authority Officer, Mr Dadds explained the 48 hour delay for new members to use gaming machines requirement was enforced by staff who would know who the new members were, and that these new members were advised that they were not allowed to use the machines. 

In response to questions from panel members, Mr Dadds explained that an increase in drinking hours did not necessarily lead to an increase in irresponsible behaviour, and that as RS Snooker was a members’ club with rules, it is more restrictive than other premises might be.  To clarify the plans in the hearing bundle, Mr Dadds stated that the plan on page 42 is the desired plan, and that on page 43 was an old plan.

Discussion on the premises ensued, with Mr Dadds confirming it was only the first floor that was sought to be licensed.

In response to a question from the Legal Advisor, Mr Dadds confirmed that the application was for sales on the first floor only, and drinking would not be allowed upstairs, where there were seven snooker tables.  Mr Dadds also confirmed that it would be adults only at the bar and children would not be allowed in this area.

In response to questions from Panel members, Mr Dadds agreed that no high strength super lager would be sold, but pointed out that some ‘premium products’ do not fall into the ‘super  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.