Agenda and minutes

To confirm the procedures for the hearings (attached).

The procedures were noted.

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

There were no declarations of interests.

To agree the minutes of the meetings held on 5 January 2012, 23 January 2012, 25 January 2012, 1 February 2012, 13 February 2012 – attached.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 5 January 2012, 23 January 2012, 25 January 2012, 1 February 2012, 13 February 2012 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them.

To hear and determine an opposed application for a new premises licence as detailed in the licence application attached at Appendix ‘A’.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

David Dadds – solicitor on behalf of the applicant

Councillor Gareth Roberts – representing Councillor Janet Langhorne and Mike Langhorne, interested parties

Mr Dadds introduced the application and drew attention to the various conditions that were being offered, as well as the ones detailed in communications with Trading Standards.  He also said that, if the sub-committee felt that it was necessary and proportionate, he was willing to offer a further condition which prevented the previous licence holder from entering the premises.  It was reported that the lease for the shop was to be transferred to the applicant upon the granting of a licence to sell alcohol.  Mr Dadds drew the sub-committee-s attention to another premises in the borough that the applicant was successfully operating without incident.  He felt that this demonstrated the applicant’s suitability to hold a premises licence.

Mr Dadds described the area, stating that those who had objected were some distance away from the shop.  Because of this, he believed that they would not be affected by the granting of a licence.  It was added that there was now a Waitrose store opposite, which meant that far more alcohol would be purchased there than in Hampton Supermarket.

Following questions, the sub-committee was advised that:

·         Mr Dadds felt you could not judge one individual by another’s actions e.g. the applicant’s successful operation of an off-licence with his brother’s failed test purchases.

·         The applicant would be relinquishing his current store in favour of Hampton Supermarket.

·         The High Court had previously ruled that a condition such as the one offered excluding Mr Munawar Malik from the store, was enforceable.

·         The applicant had recently passed a test purchase operation at Hampton Supermarket.

Councillor Roberts said that Hampton Supermarket had a local reputation for selling alcohol to children, which meant that youths regularly congregated nearby.  He said that adults were often regularly approached by children, who asked them purchase alcohol.  He felt that a strong message needed to be sent, which said that alcohol was no longer going to be available.

Following questions, the sub-committee was advised that:

·         The issue of children congregating existed before Waitrose opened.

·         Hampton Supermarket’s reputation was a contributory factor the number of youths in the area.

Councillor Roberts said in his closing statement that Councillor Langhorne and Mr Langhorne had requested that the application be refused.  This was because the licensing objectives of preventing public nuisance and protecting children from harm would not be met by a change of licence holder.  The shop’s reputation was such, that the only way in which these issues could be tackled was to refuse.

Mr Dadds said that there had been no objection from Environmental Health or Trading standards.  There was no evidence to support the argument about cheap alcohol, or youths congregating outside the premises.  Mr Dadds said that if youths ever did gather outside the store, they were always asked to move on.  A test purchase operation had been passed by the applicant, who Mr Dadds felt should not be judged on the actions of the previous licence holder.

RESOLVED that the licence be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the attached decision letter.  The reasons for the decision were:

“The Licensing Sub-Committee considered that as Mr Dadds, solicitor for the Applicant, had represented to the Licensing Sub-Committee that the lease was being assigned to the applicant, that landlord’s consent had been provided to allow the applicant to be assigned the lease, and that the Applicant was in attendance on site at the last successful refused underage test purchase, the Licensing Sub-Committee in considering the application could not refuse the application.  Whilst the Applicant was given the benefit of the doubt in respect of the application not being a sham (or being a front for the former licence holder), the Committee considered that to protect the public, it was necessary and proportionate to impose a condition that the Premises Licence would lapse, if Mr Munawar Malik were found to be on the premises.”

To hear and determine an opposed application for the renewal of a sex establishment licence.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

Clive Sullivan – on behalf of the applicant

Colin Mason – on behalf of the applicant

Janice Singleton – on behalf of the applicant

Rosemary Jarvis – interested party

Mr Sullivan introduced the application for a renewal of the existing sex establishment licence.  He said that none of the mandatory reasons to refuse the application applied, which meant that the discretionary ones applied to this application.  He said that the objections that had been raised in this instance were the same as ones considered previously.  Mr Sullivan felt that issuing a licence was preferable, as this afforded the council control over the premises through conditions.  This ability would not exist, should the application be refused, which meant the shop could legally return to the previous façade that many residents objected to.  It was reported that the school 300 metres away had established itself after the shop had opened

Following questions, the sub-committee was advised that:

·         There had been no complaints from residents during the course of the year.

·         The applicant was not aware of any signs in the area advertising prostitutes.

Mrs Jarvis said that she was against the granting of a sex establishment licence because of the mainly residential setting of the area.  She had calculated that 80% of the properties within a 100m radius of the Private Shop were residential and the stores surrounding it were of a family nature.  She also raised the Council’s nil policy and a recent refusal of a sexual entertainment venue licence in Twickenham.  Mrs Jarvis drew many similarities between that and this application.  She also believed that the advertising for the application was insufficient.

In a closing statement, Mrs Jarvis re-emphasised her points about the surrounding area being a residential and family place.  She said that the council already had a means of control, with the sale of sex articles being significantly restricted as a result of not granting a licence.  She asked the sub-committee to refuse the application for the same reasons as the Piano Lounge.

Mr Sullivan made a closing statement whereby he said that all items the shop was selling were legal, which meant that the government had determined that they were not harmful.  The application had been advertised in the local paper, as well as on the premises, which had resulted in three objections.  He added that control over the shop was being offered, much in the same way it would be for a public house.

RESOLVED that the application be granted under the existing conditions.

[The decision letter is attached to these minutes.]