To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).

The procedure for the meeting was noted.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To hear and determine an opposed application for a new premises licence.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

·         Mrs Amin (applicant)

·         Professor Roy Light (barrister on behalf of the applicant)

·         Mr Richard Baker (consultant on behalf of the applicant)

Mr Light introduced the application on behalf of the applicant.  He confirmed that the applicant had agreed to a start time for the licence of 7.00am, as opposed to 5.30am.  Mr Light stated that he believed Mr and Mrs Amin’s application was modest and he was surprised by the response that it had received.

The applicant lived above the store, which meant that they would be aware of disturbances that occurred around the premises.  Mr and Mrs Amin had also consented to a number of police requested conditions.

The objectors’ locations were plotted on a map and brought to the sub-committee’s attention; Mr Light believed they were sufficiently far away to mean that they would not experience any disturbance as a result of this licence being granted, considering that there were many closer households which had not objected.  He urged the committee to carefully consider the amount of weight they gave to the two ‘valid’ objections they had received.

Attention was drawn to the petition in favour of the sale of alcohol, where Mr Light said that 90% of the signatories lived in within 300 metres of the premises.  He added that there had been concerns about anti-social behaviour, although the police had no record of such incidents.  There were also concerns about introducing competition into the area, and although this was not a licensing consideration, the neighbouring licensed store had not objected.  The licensable hours would end at 10.00pm, which would not cause issues nearby, as the neighbouring store was able to sell alcohol until11.00pm.

Mr Baker presented the training manual, which Mr and Mrs Amin would be using, to the sub-committee.  He said that it was very thorough and built in opportunities for follow-up training and updates to reflect changes in legislation and conditions on licenses.  Mr Amin, as the designated premises supervisor, would be responsible for training staff initially, as well as for providing occasional refresher training.

As part of the training, all those staff selling alcohol, would have written authorisation to do so.  Further evidencing of training would be available in the form of retained test papers for staff, documented periodic training and a monthly checklist that the DPS would be responsible for completing.

In response to questions from members of the sub-committee, the applicant’s party gave the following information:

• Mr Baker would provide the store with details of updates to legislation, as and when future changes happened.
• The store currently employed three people – the applicant, his wife and one staff member.
• This was an individual store and not one that belonged to a chain.
• The training manual was designed to be useable in a variety of stores, from small convenience type ones, to large outlets.
• If staff encountered intimidating behaviour, they were advised to call on the store’s owners, or in extreme circumstances, to call the police.
• The applicant had offered a concession to the police in the form of reducing the number of hours he was applying to sell for; a further reduction would mean the applicant considering their options, as they believed there was no need for further restrictions.
• There was no evidence that anti-social behaviour was an issue in the store’s vicinity - no objections had been received from either the police, or nearby schools.

RESOLVED that the sub-committee approve the application, subject to the conditions contained in the attached decision letter.  The reasons for the decision were:

The Licensing Sub-Committee decided to grant the application during the times as applied for, as it felt that the applicant had met all four licensing objectives.