Purpose

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

Decision

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following representation was withdrawn prior to the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