Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to declare any personal or disclosable pecuniary interests, including the nature and extent of such interests; they may have in any items to be considered at this meeting;

LSC.5/20   

Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered during the course of the meeting.  These were recorded as follows:-

Cllr Holway declared a personal interest in agenda item 3: ‘Application for a Variation to the Premises Licence at The Boathouse, 28-30 Island Street, Salcombe TQ8 8DP’ (Minute LSC.3/18 below refers) by virtue of knowing two of the objectors for the application.

LSC.6/20          

The Sub-Committee considered a report that sought to determine an application for a new premises licence at Calancombe Winery, Modbury, Ivybridge PL21 0TU.

The Senior Case Manager – Licensing introduced the report and outlined the details of the application (as stated in the application form at Appendix A of the presented agenda report).  In so doing, she highlighted that the ‘wards affected’ in the published agenda report had incorrectly shown that the premises were located in the ‘Ermington and Ugborough’ Ward when they were actually sited in the ‘Charterlands’ Ward.

1.      Address by the Applicant

In his address, the applicant provided some background information to the establishment of the business and proceeded to make specific reference to:-

-        there being absolutely no intention for either a farm shop, pub or restaurant to be created through the proposals.  Furthermore, Mr Whitehead confirmed that he had no desire to open the premises outside of the hours that were being sought as part of the application;

-        planning permission not being required alongside this licensing application.  At this point, the Monitoring Officer clarified to the Sub-Committee that this Hearing was solely concerned with consideration of the merits of the application in line with the four Licensing Objectives and the planning merits were therefore outside the jurisdiction of this Hearing;

-        the intention to tightly control the numbers and timings of groups visiting the application site.  When questioned, Mr Whitehead advised that, whilst difficult to predict demand, he did not envisage groups being in excess of 12 people at any given time.  Also, Mr Whitehead was of the view that there would be no more than six tours taking place each week and it was the aim of the business to target both local visitors and tourists;

-        the local economic benefits of granting this application.  In expanding the point, Mr Whitehead informed that the premises would be recruiting a number of employees;

-        the potential to expand the business into alcoholic spirits that were based upon the fruits grown on site; and

-        he was fully aware and appreciative of the concerns that had been raised over traffic implications.  Whilst Mr Whitehead had suggested a number of potential traffic mitigations to the objectors, unfortunately each one had been rejected by them.

2.      Addresses by the Objectors

In their respective addresses, the objectors made particular reference to:

-        the traffic access routes into the application site being wholly inappropriate (and indeed dangerous) for any additional vehicular movements.  In addition, the objectors were of the view that the applicants had vastly underestimated the access issues especially when considering that a number of drivers were unfamiliar with driving on such narrow and dangerous roads;

-        if approved, a condition should be imposed whereby tours should be booked by advanced appointment only;

-        the lack of dialogue with the applicants was felt to be unfortunate and causing some ill feeling between the objectors and the applicants;

-        some contradictions between the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16/20