New Forest Borough Council
Councillors:
48
Wards:
27
Committees:
15
Meetings (2025):
72
Meetings (2024):
78
Meeting
Licensing Sub-Committee - New Forest
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Tuesday, 20th May 2025
10:00 AM
Tuesday, 20th May 2025
10:00 AM
End:
Tuesday, 20th May 2025
2:00 PM
Tuesday, 20th May 2025
2:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
20 May 2025
20 May 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Appletree Court, Beaulieu Road, Lyndhurst, SO43 7PA
Council Chamber - Appletree Court, Beaulieu Road, Lyndhurst, SO43 7PA
Meeting Attendees
Officer
Christa Ferguson
In attendance
Officer
Solicitor
Richard Davies
In attendance
Officer
Democratic Services Officer
Andy Rogers
In attendance
Agenda
1
Election of Chairman
To elect a Chairman for the meeting.
Minutes
Cllr S Clarke was elected Chairman of the Sub-Committee.
2
Declarations of Interest
To note any declarations of interest made by members in connection with an agenda item. The nature of the interest must also be specified.
Minutes
There were none.
3
Application for a licence variation at David Lloyd Leisure Centre, Ringwood
To determine a licence variation application for David Lloyd Leisure Centre, Christchurch Road, Ringwood, submitted under the Licensing Act 2003.
Attachments:
- Document David Lloyd report v02 12 May 2025
- Document Appendix 1 12 May 2025
- Document Appendix 2 12 May 2025
- Document Appendix 3 12 May 2025
- Document Appendix 4 12 May 2025
- Document Appendix 5 12 May 2025
- Document Appendix 6 12 May 2025
- Document Appendix 7 12 May 2025
- Document Further Submission from Mr D Johnson 12 May 2025
- Document Letter to Objectors 12 May 2025
- Document current licensing plan - Ringwood - 1977.2 (ground floor) 12 May 2025
- Document proposed licensing plan 088-D-210.4 12 May 2025
- Document Bundle of Documents 12 May 2025
- Document Thwaites (full judgment) 12 May 2025
- Document Thwaites (para 63) 12 May 2025
Minutes
Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee hearing held at Appletree Court, Lyndhurst on 20 May 2025 at 10.00am.
1. Parties and their Representatives attending the Hearing
Applicant:
Patrick Robson, John Gaunt & Partners (Applicant’s solicitor)
Mr Chris Linda (David Lloyd Leisure Centre, Ringwood - Centre Manager)
Objector:
Mr Sweeney
The Parties who had indicated they would not be attending the hearing, but were to be represented by Mr Sweeney are:
Mr Mears
Julie Wallom
Ms H Porter
Council Officers:
Ms Christa Ferguson - Licensing Manager and
Peter Donelan - Licensing Officer
2. Officers attending to assist the Sub-Committee
Richard Davies – Legal Advisor
Andy Rogers – Democratic Services Officer
3. Absence of Parties
At the outset of the hearing it was noted by the Sub-Committee that a number of the parties were absent as set out below:
Objectors:
Those who had indicated that they would not be attending:
Mr D Johnson
Those who had not indicated whether they would be attending:
G Solly
J Solly
J Donabie
S Lawes
D Robb
N Aubin
M Barnes
A Watts
4. Evidence
Some absent parties had not indicated whether or not they would be in attendance. The Sub-Committee considered whether it was necessary in the public interest to adjourn the hearing or to hold the hearing in the absence of those parties. The Sub-Committee decided to proceed with the hearing in their absence and take into consideration their written representations in reaching its decision.
The Sub-Committee considered the application along with the evidence, both written and oral, supplied by the Applicant and all those who had made relevant representations. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee has had regard to:
· The Home Office Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003,
· The Council's own Statement of Licensing Policy.
· The steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives
· Relevant Representations presented by all parties.
At the hearing, the Sub-Committee carefully listened to all the evidence that was provided, and considered what action, if any, was appropriate for the promotion of the four licensing objectives namely, the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm.
The Council’s Legal Advisor, Mr Davies explained that the purpose of the hearing was to determine an application for a variation to the premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”) and, in accordance section 35 of the Act, where relevant representations had been made to the Licensing Authority in response to a premises licence application, the Licensing Authority must hold a hearing to consider them.
The Legal Advisor explained that many of the objections received, raised similar concerns about changes to provision of sporting facilities at the Leisure Centre, as well as planning and parking considerations, but reminded the Sub-Committee that consideration should only relate to the licensable activities and their impact on the four licensing objectives, as set out in the report.
The Licensing Manager outlined the Application. It was explained that the Application was to vary the premises licence for David Lloyd Leisure Centre at Ringwood.
The variation application sought a modest expansion to the outside terraced area and to the inside licensed area by way of reconfiguration of the servery counter and some changes to seating. The outside terrace bounded in green on the plan was already licensed and was not the subject of this hearing. No changes to the licensable hours had been requested.
The Sub-Committee noted that no objections had been received from the responsible statutory authorities, (i.e. Police, Fire Environmental Health etc.), nor had those authorities suggested any amendments to the application. Also, that no complaints had been raised against the premises on issues of licensable activities since the granting of the premises licence in 2005.
The Sub-Committee noted statements from Mr Sweeney, objector, who raised concerns around the adequacy of the publication of the statutory notice of the proposals by the Applicant. The notice gave the details for submitting of representations. Mr Sweeney also queried the use of the Lymington Times for advertising the public notice relating to the proposals, claiming that this was not widely read in Ringwood.
The Sub-Committee was satisfied with assurances from the Licensing Manager that notices had been adequately posted at the premises. The Sub-Committee also accepted the Licensing Manager’s explanation that the Lymington Times covered the New Forest area and was routinely used by the Council for public notices concerning all parts of the District, and was also available to view online. The Licensing Manager also pointed out that, unlike planning matters, there was no requirement to notify local residents of licensing applications.
The Sub-Committee heard that some 34 people had made written representations in response to the public notices posted at the site, though only 13 of these included reference to licensable activities and were included in the agenda pack. The other 21 representations did not relate to licensable activities and were therefore not relevant to the application.
Mr Sweeney claimed that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the plans in the application and other plans submitted, specifically in relation to the green line showing the demarcation of the existing outdoor area. Furthermore, he felt the plans were inadequate and hard to read. Mr Sweeney had requested an adjournment of the licensing hearing so that the application could be better advertised and better plans circulated.
The Chairman stated that the hearing would not be adjourned, and did not accept Mr Sweeney’s submissions in respect of advertisement of the application. The Sub-Committee felt that the publicity arrangements had met the legal requirements and that the plan was suitable for the hearing.
Further, the Sub-Committee considered the green lined area referred to by
Mr Sweeney, which he suggested was being misleadingly represented by the Applicant. It was explained that this area was part of the existing licence, that had been granted in 2005, and therefore was not relevant to the current application and not for discussion.
It was emphasised repeatedly by the Chairman that the Sub-Committee's role was solely to consider those aspects relating to the licence variation application, specifically the areas highlighted in yellow on Appendix 5 to the Licensing Manager’s report, which indicated the additional licensed area outside the clubhouse on the patio and the internal change to the bar area.
The solicitor for the Applicant pointed out that there were residential properties to the east of the site, which were screened from noise by the premises building. The Sub-Committee also noted that no objectors lived in the immediate vicinity of the premises and that since the granting of the premises licence on 24 November 2005, the Licensing Authority had not received any complaints, either from the Responsible Authorities or neighbours as a result of the granting of the premises licence.
The Applicant acknowledged safety concerns raised by objectors relating to car parking, but it was noted that these were not relevant to the licensing application. Nevertheless, the Applicant explained that it had undertaken an audit of the area and was investigating this.
The Sub-Committee acknowledged Mr Sweeney’s queries and concerns about the existing operation regarding areas used for the sale of alcohol on the premises, but explained that such concerns must be raised separately via an application to review the licence. The purpose of the current hearing was to consider the application for a variation to the licence.
The Sub-Committee noted that whilst the objectors had raised a number of challenges to procedures adopted by the Council and the Applicant, these were found to be unsubstantiated, and considered that procedures had been followed correctly.
The Sub-Committee also noted that the Centre had voluntarily held additional meetings with its customers to explain the proposals, and continued to offer an open dialogue on their concerns over loss of facilities.
5. Decision of the Sub-Committee
The application is granted on the terms and conditions applied for.
6. Reasons for the Decision
The Sub-Committee heard that the Responsible Authorities had been consulted on the application, and no comments or objections had been received nor amendments to the application suggested. It was also noted that since the granting of the licence in November 2005, no complaints had been received about the licensable activities on the site.
The Sub-Committee was mindful that there was a presumption in favour of granting an application unless there was evidence which undermined the promotion of the licensing objectives. No such evidence had been received.
Due to the lack of any relevant evidence, the Sub-Committee was not persuaded by the objectors’ submissions that the application for the variation of the licence by extending the licensable areas stated would adversely affect the promotion of the licensing objectives, and they therefore found no sufficient cause to prevent the granting of the application.
The Sub-Committee also noted that the main concern of the majority of objectors related to changes to the Centre’s sporting areas and activities, which were not within the remit of the Act and therefore, not for the Sub-Committee to consider. The Sub-Committee also noted that the Centre had voluntarily held additional meetings with its customers to explain the proposals, and continued to offer an open dialogue on their concerns over loss of facilities.
The Sub-Committee was mindful that granting the application would not be a departure from the Council’s Licensing Policy or statutory guidance.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee concluded that it was appropriate to grant the application in in accordance with the application and changes reflected in the plan at Appendix 5 of the Licensing Manager’s Report.
Should there be any concerns in the future regarding operation of the premises, the Licensing Act 2003 provides a statutory mechanism for any person to call the premises licence in for review.
Date: 20 May 2025
Licensing Sub-Committee Chairman: Cllr Steve Clarke
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Decision notified to interested parties on xxxx May 2025
1. Parties and their Representatives attending the Hearing
Applicant:
Patrick Robson, John Gaunt & Partners (Applicant’s solicitor)
Mr Chris Linda (David Lloyd Leisure Centre, Ringwood - Centre Manager)
Objector:
Mr Sweeney
The Parties who had indicated they would not be attending the hearing, but were to be represented by Mr Sweeney are:
Mr Mears
Julie Wallom
Ms H Porter
Council Officers:
Ms Christa Ferguson - Licensing Manager and
Peter Donelan - Licensing Officer
2. Officers attending to assist the Sub-Committee
Richard Davies – Legal Advisor
Andy Rogers – Democratic Services Officer
3. Absence of Parties
At the outset of the hearing it was noted by the Sub-Committee that a number of the parties were absent as set out below:
Objectors:
Those who had indicated that they would not be attending:
Mr D Johnson
Those who had not indicated whether they would be attending:
G Solly
J Solly
J Donabie
S Lawes
D Robb
N Aubin
M Barnes
A Watts
4. Evidence
Some absent parties had not indicated whether or not they would be in attendance. The Sub-Committee considered whether it was necessary in the public interest to adjourn the hearing or to hold the hearing in the absence of those parties. The Sub-Committee decided to proceed with the hearing in their absence and take into consideration their written representations in reaching its decision.
The Sub-Committee considered the application along with the evidence, both written and oral, supplied by the Applicant and all those who had made relevant representations. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee has had regard to:
· The Home Office Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003,
· The Council's own Statement of Licensing Policy.
· The steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives
· Relevant Representations presented by all parties.
At the hearing, the Sub-Committee carefully listened to all the evidence that was provided, and considered what action, if any, was appropriate for the promotion of the four licensing objectives namely, the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm.
The Council’s Legal Advisor, Mr Davies explained that the purpose of the hearing was to determine an application for a variation to the premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”) and, in accordance section 35 of the Act, where relevant representations had been made to the Licensing Authority in response to a premises licence application, the Licensing Authority must hold a hearing to consider them.
The Legal Advisor explained that many of the objections received, raised similar concerns about changes to provision of sporting facilities at the Leisure Centre, as well as planning and parking considerations, but reminded the Sub-Committee that consideration should only relate to the licensable activities and their impact on the four licensing objectives, as set out in the report.
The Licensing Manager outlined the Application. It was explained that the Application was to vary the premises licence for David Lloyd Leisure Centre at Ringwood.
The variation application sought a modest expansion to the outside terraced area and to the inside licensed area by way of reconfiguration of the servery counter and some changes to seating. The outside terrace bounded in green on the plan was already licensed and was not the subject of this hearing. No changes to the licensable hours had been requested.
The Sub-Committee noted that no objections had been received from the responsible statutory authorities, (i.e. Police, Fire Environmental Health etc.), nor had those authorities suggested any amendments to the application. Also, that no complaints had been raised against the premises on issues of licensable activities since the granting of the premises licence in 2005.
The Sub-Committee noted statements from Mr Sweeney, objector, who raised concerns around the adequacy of the publication of the statutory notice of the proposals by the Applicant. The notice gave the details for submitting of representations. Mr Sweeney also queried the use of the Lymington Times for advertising the public notice relating to the proposals, claiming that this was not widely read in Ringwood.
The Sub-Committee was satisfied with assurances from the Licensing Manager that notices had been adequately posted at the premises. The Sub-Committee also accepted the Licensing Manager’s explanation that the Lymington Times covered the New Forest area and was routinely used by the Council for public notices concerning all parts of the District, and was also available to view online. The Licensing Manager also pointed out that, unlike planning matters, there was no requirement to notify local residents of licensing applications.
The Sub-Committee heard that some 34 people had made written representations in response to the public notices posted at the site, though only 13 of these included reference to licensable activities and were included in the agenda pack. The other 21 representations did not relate to licensable activities and were therefore not relevant to the application.
Mr Sweeney claimed that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the plans in the application and other plans submitted, specifically in relation to the green line showing the demarcation of the existing outdoor area. Furthermore, he felt the plans were inadequate and hard to read. Mr Sweeney had requested an adjournment of the licensing hearing so that the application could be better advertised and better plans circulated.
The Chairman stated that the hearing would not be adjourned, and did not accept Mr Sweeney’s submissions in respect of advertisement of the application. The Sub-Committee felt that the publicity arrangements had met the legal requirements and that the plan was suitable for the hearing.
Further, the Sub-Committee considered the green lined area referred to by
Mr Sweeney, which he suggested was being misleadingly represented by the Applicant. It was explained that this area was part of the existing licence, that had been granted in 2005, and therefore was not relevant to the current application and not for discussion.
It was emphasised repeatedly by the Chairman that the Sub-Committee's role was solely to consider those aspects relating to the licence variation application, specifically the areas highlighted in yellow on Appendix 5 to the Licensing Manager’s report, which indicated the additional licensed area outside the clubhouse on the patio and the internal change to the bar area.
The solicitor for the Applicant pointed out that there were residential properties to the east of the site, which were screened from noise by the premises building. The Sub-Committee also noted that no objectors lived in the immediate vicinity of the premises and that since the granting of the premises licence on 24 November 2005, the Licensing Authority had not received any complaints, either from the Responsible Authorities or neighbours as a result of the granting of the premises licence.
The Applicant acknowledged safety concerns raised by objectors relating to car parking, but it was noted that these were not relevant to the licensing application. Nevertheless, the Applicant explained that it had undertaken an audit of the area and was investigating this.
The Sub-Committee acknowledged Mr Sweeney’s queries and concerns about the existing operation regarding areas used for the sale of alcohol on the premises, but explained that such concerns must be raised separately via an application to review the licence. The purpose of the current hearing was to consider the application for a variation to the licence.
The Sub-Committee noted that whilst the objectors had raised a number of challenges to procedures adopted by the Council and the Applicant, these were found to be unsubstantiated, and considered that procedures had been followed correctly.
The Sub-Committee also noted that the Centre had voluntarily held additional meetings with its customers to explain the proposals, and continued to offer an open dialogue on their concerns over loss of facilities.
5. Decision of the Sub-Committee
The application is granted on the terms and conditions applied for.
6. Reasons for the Decision
The Sub-Committee heard that the Responsible Authorities had been consulted on the application, and no comments or objections had been received nor amendments to the application suggested. It was also noted that since the granting of the licence in November 2005, no complaints had been received about the licensable activities on the site.
The Sub-Committee was mindful that there was a presumption in favour of granting an application unless there was evidence which undermined the promotion of the licensing objectives. No such evidence had been received.
Due to the lack of any relevant evidence, the Sub-Committee was not persuaded by the objectors’ submissions that the application for the variation of the licence by extending the licensable areas stated would adversely affect the promotion of the licensing objectives, and they therefore found no sufficient cause to prevent the granting of the application.
The Sub-Committee also noted that the main concern of the majority of objectors related to changes to the Centre’s sporting areas and activities, which were not within the remit of the Act and therefore, not for the Sub-Committee to consider. The Sub-Committee also noted that the Centre had voluntarily held additional meetings with its customers to explain the proposals, and continued to offer an open dialogue on their concerns over loss of facilities.
The Sub-Committee was mindful that granting the application would not be a departure from the Council’s Licensing Policy or statutory guidance.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee concluded that it was appropriate to grant the application in in accordance with the application and changes reflected in the plan at Appendix 5 of the Licensing Manager’s Report.
Should there be any concerns in the future regarding operation of the premises, the Licensing Act 2003 provides a statutory mechanism for any person to call the premises licence in for review.
Date: 20 May 2025
Licensing Sub-Committee Chairman: Cllr Steve Clarke
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Decision notified to interested parties on xxxx May 2025
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in