Agenda item

In attendance for this item was the Applicant, Mr. Andrew Slater, as well as two companions in support of the application.

 

Members agreed to proceed with the hearing with the other interested parties not being present.

 

The Chair introduced the item and welcomed those present.

 

The Chair explained the procedure that would be followed and stated that the hearing was not a Court and as such strict Court rules did not apply.  Any evidence given would not be given under oath, but the Chair reminded parties that providing untrue statements was a criminal offence under the Licensing Act 2003.

 

With all those present confirming they had received the relevant documents, the Chair invited the Licensing & Enforcement Officer to present the report.

 

The Licensing & Enforcement Officer stated the Council was responsible for granting Premises Licences under the Licensing Act 2003 (the ‘Act’).  The Act set out 4 statutory objectives, each of equal importance, that had to be addressed by the Council when discharging its functions under the legislation.  Those licensing objectives were:

 

·       The prevention of crime and disorder;

·       Public safety;

·       The prevention of public nuisance; and

·       The protection of children from harm.

 

In addition to the legislation, the Council had to have regard to the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Act and to the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

In May 2024, the Council had adopted a revised Licensing Act 2003 Policy (the ‘Policy’).  The report set out paragraphs 2.2 and 2.4, 2.5 and 4.2 of the Policy, which outlined the general principles of the Policy and the Act.  Further information could be found in the Policy.

 

On 29^th July 2025, an application for a Premises Licence for The In-Between, 61 Main Street, Shirebrook, Mansfield, NG20 8AN was received by the Council from Sip & Socialize Ltd.  A copy of the application was attached at Appendix 1 and the proposed plan at Appendix 2.

 

Further details of the Premises Licence were provided in the report.

 

A copy of the Risk and Method Statement was attached at Appendix 3 and the Fire Plan and Risk Assessment attached at Appendix 4.

 

The Applicant, Mr. Andrew Slater, had provided a further supporting document, an Anti-Social Behaviour Policy, during the consultation period.  A copy was attached at Appendix 5.  However, it was noted this document had not been provided with the application, did not form part of the operating schedule, and would typically not be included within the licence conditions.

 

The application had been processed in line with the legislation and all Responsible Authorities notified – no formal representations from any of the Responsible Authorities notified was received.

 

On 21^st August 2025, a representation was received from Ms. Sharon James in

relation to all 4 licensing objectives.  A copy of Ms. Sharon James’s representation was attached at Appendix 6.

 

Following receipt of the representation, the Applicant and Ms. Sharon James had entered into mediation in an effort to resolve the concerns raised.  At the time of writing the report, Ms. Sharon James’s representation remained unresolved.

 

On 22^nd August 2025, a representation was received from Mr. Andrew Wainman in relation to all 4 licensing objectives.  A copy of Mr. Andrew Wainman’s representation was attached at Appendix 7.

 

Following receipt of the representation, the Applicant and Mr. Andrew Wainman had entered into mediation in an effort to resolve the concerns raised.  At the time of writing the report, Mr. Andrew Wainman’s representation remained unresolved.

 

Both Ms. Sharon James and Mr. Andrew Wainman had a legal right to make a representation.

 

On 26^th August 2025, the Applicant had forwarded a number of representations to the Council in support of the application.  The Council had subsequently contacted those who had made representations, confirming they were happy for their representations to be submitted and included in the report.

 

A total of 8 representations were confirmed.  Copies of these representation were attached at Appendix 8.

 

With no questions asked of the Licensing & Enforcement Officer, the Chair invited the Applicant to address the Sub Committee.

 

Mr. Andrew Slater thanked the Sub Committee for their time and stated the In-Between would be a new, independent micropub in the centre of Shirebrook.

 

No objections had been received from Responsible Authorities and the planning application had been approved.

 

Public Health had made contact – not to object but to say the submitted application for a Premises Licence for the In-Between had been their best received and asked to make use of elements to best advertise / explain what future applications should aim to achieve.

 

The Sub Committee was informed The In-Between would work closely with the police and it was estimated the business would be a ‘low risk’ premises.

 

Noise levels would be kept at a minimum with signage well placed to encourage customers to leave quietly.

 

The protection of children would be ensured with the option of alcohol-free beverages for parents / adults to consume.

 

It was stated the In-Between would be a calm, welcoming environment with a focus on community, safety and family.

 

While many retail premises had closed in Shirebrook, the In-Between would provide a social experience that would hopefully attract new footfall into the area and encourage local regeneration that would benefit other businesses.

 

The In-Between would support local enterprise by stocking local suppliers in Derbyshire and across the East Midlands.  Local employment would likely take place through such partnerships.

 

Mr. Andrew Slater noted there were many towns similar in economic situation to Shirebrook, but that balance in growth and heritage could go be achieved.

 

It was reiterated the In-Between would have a strong sense of community and provide a safe, inclusive and responsible environment.

 

It was stated this would not be a short-term venue, with the goal for the In-Between to be a trusted part of the community as well as a catalyst for Shirebrook’s future growth.

 

The In-Between would be a relaxed premises aimed as a place between work and home, young and old, tradition and change.

 

It was reiterated the In-Between would be a low risk, responsible business that strengthens the local area.

 

To a question from a Member, Mr. Andrew Slater informed the smoking area would be fenced off, made attractive with shielding and greenery, and this space would close at 8pm Monday-Sunday to not disturb residents.  It was stated Environmental Health had raised similar concerns and the In-Between had agreed to limit the use of that space.

 

To a question from a Member, Mr. Andrew Slater stated seating areas would be arranged to keep children away from the bar area.

 

The Licensing & Enforcement Officer and Mr. Andrew Slater were offered to provide closing statements – both chose not to.

 

The hearing was adjourned at 10:25 hours and Mr. Andrew Slater, the two supportive companions, the Environmental Health Team Manager and Licensing & Enforcement Officer left the room for the Sub Committee to deliberate.

 

The hearing reconvened at 10:38 hours and Mr. Andrew Slater, the two supportive companions, the Environmental Health Team Manager and Licensing & Enforcement Officer returned to the meeting.

 

The Chair invited the Legal Officer to set out in summary the Sub Committee’s decision.

 

The Legal Officer stated that Members had considered what the interested parties had submitted, the Applicant’s efforts to address these concerns, and were satisfied that the Premises Licence be GRANTED.

 

The Sub Committee made the following findings of fact:

 

1.     The Applicant had applied for a premises licence on 29^th July 2025 and had complied with the various requirements under the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”) in respect of notifying the responsible authorities and advertising etc.

 

2.     Two members of the public (“Interested Parties”) raised objections to the application.  Both Interested Parties raised objections in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm.

 

3.     The Applicant entered into mediation with the Interested Parties in an effort to resolve the concerns.  The Interested Parties did not withdraw their objections so the matter was listed for a Sub Committee.

 

4.     The Sub Committee was held on 18^th September 2025.

 

5.     On the morning of the Sub Committee, both Interested Parties informed the Council that they were not going to attend.

 

6.     In light of the Interested Parties not being present, Members of the Sub Committee decided that the Hearing should go ahead in their absence.

 

The Sub Committee’s reasoning for their decision to grant the licence was:

 

1.     Members considered the representations made by the Interested Parties and the Applicant.

 

2.     In the absence of the Interested Parties the Members considered each of the written objections (in so far as they related to the licensing conditions).

 

3.     The Interested Parties’ concerns (where relevant to the licensing objectives) had been addressed by proposal by the Applicant  to screen the outdoor area and to restrict when it could be used.  Members considered that concerns about the wider antisocial behaviour in the area were external problems and not relevant to the application.

 

The Sub Committee had considered all the evidence carefully including:

 

·       The report of the Licensing Officer;

·       The written representations made by the Interested Parties;

·       The Licensing Act 2003, and the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005; and,

·       The written information shared by the Applicant.

 

The Sub Committee also took into account the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the licensing objectives, in particular:

 

·       The prevention of crime and disorder;

·       Public safety;

·       The prevention of public nuisance; and,

·       The protection of children from harm.

 

 

The decision letter would be posted to the Licence Holder within 5 days.  There was a right of appeal against the Sub Committee’s decision to the Magistrates Court, exercisable within 21 days of receipt of the notification.