Agenda item

The meeting was a hearing under the Licensing Act 2003.

The Chair introduced the members of the Sub Committee and the officers present.

The Sub Committee’s Legal Advisor, Giles Salter, outlined the procedure for the meeting.

The Sub Committee considered the application for the grant of a premises licence at The Loft Bar and Grill, 11A Church Street, Exmouth, EX8 1PE.

The applicant, present and entitled to make representations, was Miss Kerry Roach.  Miss Roach was represented by Kate Waddams, Solicitor, supported by Faye Dunn, Paralegal, both from Vine Orchards Solicitors.

The interested person, present and entitled to make representations, was Mr Thomas Gordon.

The Licensing Manager summarised the application and raised that there had been claims that other representations had been sent in respect of this application.  However, after checking on more than one occasion with the post room and other departments across the council, Licensing Officers had not located any other letters of representation sent before 14 May 2026, this being the last date for representations to be received in respect of this application.

Responses to questions for the Licensing Manager from Councillors included the following points:

·         The Licensing Manager clarified how the timings in the previous premises licence differed from those in the current application.

·         The applicant had reached an agreed position with Environmental Health where there would be no persons to be admitted to the rooftop terrace on any occasion, and this agreed condition would go on the Premises Licence, if granted.

·         The Licensing Manager clarified the CCTV conditions set out in previous licence.

Responses to questions for the Licensing Manager from the interested person included the following points:

·         Licensing Officers were not informed of any non-compliance with CCTV conditions under the previous licence, and this was left to police investigation. 

There were no questions for the Licensing Manager from the applicant’s representative..

The applicant’s representative made the case for the application and highlighted the following points:

·         The applicant’s late father had been the leaseholder for 11 years and the lease had been inherited by the applicant on his passing, with 9 years remaining on it.

·         The permitted use of the premises was as a wine bar licensed for sale of alcohol, food and refreshment to the public.  The premises must be used for permitted use only and the applicant would lose her livelihood if the licence was not granted.

·         The applicant’s father had held a premises licence, but the applicant had thought that the licence was in her name.  As soon as she became aware that this was not the case and the licence had lapsed, she immediately closed and applied for a licence.

·         It was not the case that windows were left open for extended periods, and noise levels were not excessive.  Music stopped at midnight and there had been no live music since June 2025.

·         The interested party had claimed that he had had to adjust the opening hours of his business due to lack of sleep caused by noise levels from the premises; however, the premises had operated reduced hours since the pandemic, opening only weekends and bank holidays, and Mr Gordon’s shop was not open on those days.

·         There had been no evidence of drug use or antisocial behaviour at the premises, and there had been no police callouts.  Random police inspections had revealed no illegal substances or non-compliance at the premises.

·         The roof terrace was not accessible to the public.

·         Six CCTV cameras had been in operation during opening hours.  The premises did not need door staff but when hired for private functions, organisers were required to provide their own door staff.

·         The premises was fitted with smoke alarms, heat alarms, carbon monoxide detectors and fire extinguishers in compliance with fire regulations.  Outstanding issues relating to the roof and glazing were the responsibility of the freeholder.

·         The premises had been a licensed bar for over 40 years and there were 2 other licensed venues in the immediate area.  Many of the claims made in representations were conflating issues that had or may have occurred at the other licensed venues, and many were based on the nature of the premises some years ago, before the applicant’s time, or were hypothetical. 

Responses to questions from the Sub Committee included the following points:

·         Due to low income and customer base, the premises had been opening from 7pm to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays only; however, the applicant was now requesting to open throughout the week.

·         The applicant would like the option to open up the second floor as a restaurant in the future.

·         If the second floor was opened up, the applicant would put an alarm and signage on the door to the rooftop terrace to highlight that it was out of bounds and to alert staff should anyone open the door.

·         When the CCTV system was found by police to not be operational, it had not been working for six weeks.

·         The applicant had now purchased a new CCTV system with a larger hard drive. 

·         Currently there was no CCTV on the second floor but the applicant would put a camera in place in the event that this area was opened to the public.

·         The applicant had held a personal licence for more than 21 years.

·         All actions specified by the fire service had been completed.  The applicant had also purchased fire-resistant upholstery, emergency lighting on the stairwells and exit lighting.

·         The second floor was currently used as an arts and craft studio for the applicant’s personal use only, and the door to the second floor was kept locked.

·         There were fire doors on the other side of the building which were kept closed but unlocked, as they were the fire exit from upstairs.  The applicant confirmed that this door could be alarmed, if required.

·         There was soundproofing in the building over the windows on the street, which was also to stop lights from shining into neighbouring homes

In response to a question from the Sub Committee, the Licensing Manager confirmed that officers had not received any complaints of antisocial behaviour at the premises, and Environmental Health had not given any indication that they had concerns due to noise complaints. 

Responses to questions from the interested party included the following points:

·         The Council’s Licensing Officers had brought to the applicant’s attention in December 2025 that as her father, who was the premises licence holder, had died, the premises licence had lapsed.

·         The applicant outlined the personal impact of her father’s death and explained that she had been under the misunderstanding that the licence was in her name since the Council had always dealt with her and not with her father. 

The interested person made their case and highlighted the following objections to the application:

·         The rooftop terrace was accessible to the public through the staircase that was the fire exit, and if the doors to this staircase were alarmed then this would stop anyone from using it to access the roof.

·         The off licence was mainly to allow drinking on the rooftop terrace.  It would therefore be advisable to not grant an off licence, to reinforce the condition that the rooftop terrace was not to be used.

·         There was a long a consistent history of nuisance from the premises including under Miss Roach’s control; however, it had proved difficult to gain evidence to combat non-compliance with conditions.

·         Exit from the premises was onto a narrow pavement causing customers to step out into the road, creating a hazard to themselves and car drivers.

·         Since the smoking ban, car drivers had had to slow down or stop due to smokers congregating and blocking the road.  Smokers were also disturbing for the 7 residences directly opposite and constituted a new nuisance since the previous premises licence was originally applied for.

·         If there was a condition for an SIA door supervisor at all opening times, they could stop customers from exiting when a car was coming, and could direct smokers around the corner where they would not cause nuisance.

·         The Edwardian sash windows were not double glazed or sound glazed and the insulation over two of the windows was ineffective.  The other licensed premise in the vicinity had live music but was double glazed and did not create the same nuisance.

·         If CCTV with extended hard drive was required to operate 24 hours everywhere on the premises, this would enable statutory bodies to see what happened outside of the times that the venue was open for licensable activities.

In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the interested person made the following points:

·         There was one door which was the only entrance and exit for the public normally, and this led out to a narrow pavement of approximately 24 inches, and then onto the road.  Whilst a light traffic area, the street was the main route around the pedestrian precinct. 

·         There had been a history of items, including tables and chairs, being stored on the rooftop terrace despite a condition on the licence that it was not to be used for any purpose at all.  

There were no questions for the interested person from the applicant’s representative.

In response to a question from the legal advisor, the Licensing Manager stated that the conditions on the previous licence were quite extensive.  The Sub Committee was then provided with a printed copy of the licence, for reference.

In summary, the applicant’s representative stated that the applicant was willing to work with Licensing to achieve a position that was acceptable to all.

The Chair thanked everyone for attending and advised that the decision would be notified in writing to all parties within five working days.