URL: https://watford.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7347

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose: Application is to Open 24 hrs- serve Popcorn/snacks to 05:00 and to remove some conditions

Content: Application Ref No: 23/01535/PREMV Date of hearing: 2 December 2025   Sub-committee members: [Chair]:            Councillor Amanda Grimston                                                                         Councillor Asma Suleman                                                                         Councillor Sam Summer   Officers:         Kerrie Marks, Community Protection, Service Delivery Lead                         Kevin Chin, Licensing and Compliance Manager                         Kerry Musgrave, Lawyer (Employed Barrister)                         Laura MacMillan, Democratic Services Officer             1.               This was an application for a variation of a premises licence in respect of:  Vue Cinema, Woodside Leisure Park, Watford WD25 7JZ   2.         The Sub-committee heard oral evidence from the following witnesses:   1.     Tony Jackson – Objector and local resident 2.     Roger Osborn – Objector and local resident 3.     Tim Williams – Objector and local resident 4.     Jonathan Smith – Applicant’s Solicitor 5.     Steve Wallace – Applicant 6.     Elizabeth Morris – Applicant             3.         The following persons were also present but took no part in the Hearing:   1.     none                                     4.         The Sub-committee also took into account the representations from the following in their absence:             1.     Interested Parties as indicated in the report.   5.         The following representation was withdrawn prior to the Hearing:                           None   6.         The Sub-committee took into account the following provisions of the Licensing Act 2003:               Sections:        Section 4                                     Section 18                                     Sections 34 and 35 (variation of a premises licence)                                    The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearing) Regulations 2005 (as amended)   Reasons:   These were the relevant sections of the Act for this application.   7.         The Sub-committee took into account the following provisions of the Secretary of State’s guidance under section 182 of the Act (February 2025):   Paragraphs:  Paragraph 2.1 – 2.4 (The Licensing Objectives)                           Paragraph 2.15 – 2.21 (The Prevention of Public Nuisance)             Paragraph 9.37 – 9.44 (Determining Applications and Imposing Conditions)                         Paragraph 14.64 – 14.71 (Licensing Hours)   Reasons:        These were the relevant paragraphs of the Secretary of State’s guidance for this application.   8.         The Sub-committee took into account the following provisions of its statement of licensing policy:   Paragraphs:  Policy LP6 – Prevention of Crime and Disorder               Policy LP7 – Public Safety                         Policy LP8 – Prevention of public nuisance   Reasons:       These were the relevant policies of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy.   9.         The Sub-committee did not depart from the guidance under section 182 of the Act.   10.      The Sub-committee did not make an exception to its statement of licensing policy.    11.      The Sub-Committee has resolved to grant the application.   Licensing Objectives Considered The Sub-Committee determined that all four licensing objectives were relevant to this application: Prevention of crime and disorder Prevention of public nuisance Public safety Protection of children from harm   Representations Reviewed The Sub-Committee considered all written representations and heard oral submissions from:   Tony Jackson, Roger Osborn and Tim Williams – Objectors and local residents Applicant’s Solicitor – Jonathan Smith, Vue Area Managers Steve Wallace and Elizabeth Morris   Sub-Committee Findings Whilst the residents’ concerns were noted and understood, there was no evidence that the existing licensing arrangements had caused any problems and without clear evidence that cinema goers were a problem, it was difficult to let those views prevail over the licensing objectives.  It was noted that there had been no objections or observations from the responsible bodes. Moreover, there was no evidence that the proposed extension would in itself create new or additional problems.   Members also noted that here may be a possibility of the extended hours bringing some employment to the area.    The committee was keen to support and foster residents’ consultations and were pleased to hear that this was going to be offered in the future.   Reasoning and Legal Considerations 1.     The application to amend the existing conditions and redesign seating, was not objected to and the committee unanimously allowed that part of the application.   2.     The committee also unanimously allowed the extension of hours, having heard the submission and discussion from all parties, they were happy to follow the proposal of an extension to 4 am and 24 hours on 20 days per year.  The future plans for liaison with residents and notification of days to be used for 24 hours were noted and very much welcomed.   The objective of prevention crime and disorder, public safety and public nuisance was addressed by: i)                the existing record of the site and no representation from responsible authorities. ii)               The fact that when the cinemas had used its extended hours until 3am or used a Temporary Event Notice for longer hours, there had been no specific problems as far as anyone was aware. iii)             Security measures on the site iv)             The restriction of alcohol sales v)               The apparent majority access by car rather than foot. vi)             The recent refurbishment of the cinema, reducing seat numbers. vii)            The staggering of showing, so as to prevent number leaving at same time. viii)          Digital reminder signs to leave quietly.   The prevention of children from harm: i)                Existing licensing conditions and business practices restricting access to unaccompanied children after certain hours. ii)               There are no assertions or evidence that children are at risk and the cinema management is proactive in engaging with local schools.   Advisory ·       To have 6 monthly meeting with residents, through local councillor. ·       To when possible (i.e. information given by film distributor) to inform residents 7 days in advance of use of extended hours.     Right of Appeal   Under Schedule 5 of the Licensing Act 2003, the applicant, any responsible authority, or any person who made a relevant representation may appeal against this decision to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receiving this written notification.     Signed [Chair]:          Councillor Amanda Grimston                                     Councillor Asma Suleman                                     Councillor Sam Summer   Date: 2 December 2025  

Date of Decision: December 2, 2025