Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/190A

2 pages

LICENSING ASSEMBLY

28^th September, 2000.

Before: M.C. St.J Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and

Jurats Myles, Potter, Tibbo, and Allo;

Jurats Gruchy and Vibert.

Application by Luminar Leisure, Ltd. for provisional 1^st, 3^rd, and 7^th Category Licenses

Application for provisional 1^st, 3^rd, and 7^th Category Licenses; development permission under the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964 obtained, building permit pursuant to the Public Health (Control of Building) (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended, not yet obtained; Assembly unable to consider application because requirements of Article 8(2) of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 have not been met.

Assembly invited to consider whether it had any fundamental objection to the grant of a liquor licence.

Assembly of view that it does not have any objection; but Assembly hearing the application will not be bound in any way by views expressed today because the Law requires that that Assembly reaches the decision which it believes to be correct

Advocate A.R. Binnington for the applicant company;

The Solicitor General;

Advocate A.J. Olsen for C.T.P. Ltd.;

John Bisson, Esq. For the W.E.B.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

            Luminar Leisure Limited has applied for provisional 1st, 3rd and 7th Category licenses in respect of premises on the St. Helier waterfront.  The premises will form part of the general entertainment complex to be built on the waterfront.

            Although development permission under the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964 has been obtained, a building permit pursuant to the Public Health (Control of Building) (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended, has not yet been obtained.  This will be applied for as part of the building permit for the overall development.  Because the building permit has not yet been granted, we cannot consider this application because the requirements of Article 8(2) of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 have not been met. 

            Despite this, the Applicant has asked whether we would give a "preliminary" or "in principle" view because of the very substantial expenditure which will be incurred in obtaining the building permit.  During the course of the submission Advocate Binnington, on behalf of the applicant, refined this to inviting the Assembly to consider whether it had any fundamental objection to the grant of a liquor licence in respect of these premises. 

            As it is constituted today, the Assembly is of the view that it does not have any objection in principle to the grant of a liquor licence in respect of these premises.  But we must emphasise the following:-

(i)      the decision on the application will be made by the Assembly  that hears the formal application.  That Assembly must reach its own decision taking into account the information then provided to it and any objections then made;

(ii)      that Assembly will not be bound in any way by the views expressed today because the Law requires that that Assembly reached the decision which it believes to be correct;

(iii)     we express no view on the number or categories of licences which would be appropriate for the premises.

            It follows that the applicant cannot assume that the views which we have expressed today will necessarily be those of the Assembly which hears the formal application.