Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors’ Broughton, Rowlands and Turner.

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

Councillor Russell disclosed an interest in agenda item 5 as he  is related to some of the senior management at Tesco, he therefore felt that in the interests of transparency and to avoid an appearance of bias it would be best to withdraw from the meeting before the item was discussed as it could be perceived that he was unable to fairly judge the public interest..

Councillor Howard sought clarification from the Solicitor to the Committee on whether he needed to declare an interest as he was a Town Councillor for Market Deeping as well as the current Mayor of the town. He believed that he had no personal or prejudicial interest but for the removal of doubt he wished for clarity from the Solicitor. The Solicitor replied that the new Code of Conduct referred to disclosable pecuniary interests and ‘other interests’ and the test in the current case was one of perception of the Councillor’s ability to judge the public interest. The fact that the Councillor was a Town Councillor and the Mayor did not automatically preclude him under the new code.

                                                                                                            (Enclosure)

The minutes of the meeting held on 21st September were agreed as a correct record of the decisions taken subject to the word term being added at page 3 paragraph 3 as follows:

Members of the Committee then asked Mr Wycherley various questions about his long term plans for the future to which he replied.

Report CSL018 by the Community Safety and Licensing Service Manager.

(Enclosure)

Decision:

That the premise licence for the sale of alcohol for the premises known as Zorbas 4, Broad Street, Stamford be revoked.

The Solicitor to the Committee introduced those present and confirmed who was to speak in connection with the application for the review.  Emma Milligan (Lincolnshire Safer Communities Trading Standards), PC Figgitt (Licensing Officer Lincolnshire Police) and Mr Kaya (Premises Licence Holder).

The Licensing Officer presented report CSL018 which concerned an application for a premise licence review under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003.  The premise under review was Zorbas 4, Stamford which held two premises licences, one for late night refreshment and one for the sales of alcohol. A review for the premise licence for the sale of alcohol had been submitted by Lincolnshire Safer Communities Trading Standards.  The review had been asked for on grounds relating to the prevention of crime and disorder.   In May 2012 the premises had been inspected by Lincolnshire Safer Communities Trading Standards and Lincolnshire Police.  During the inspection two bottles of counterfeit Smirnoff Vodka and five bottles of Extra Vodka displaying invalid duty stamps had been found.  The bottles were seized by Trading Standards as evidence and samples submitted to their public analyst.  A certificate of analysis was received for the Smirnoff Vodka which stated that the sample was unfit for human consumption, failing to meet the food safety requirements under food legislation.  The certificate of analysis for the Vodka Extra was received and no food safety concerns were raised. However, Bemrose Booth who were solely responsible for the UK duty stamps confirmed that the labels affixed to bottles three and four of those seized were counterfeit as the numbers were not registered on their data base.   As well as witness statements from Lincolnshire Trading Standards, Lincolnshire Police had also submitted a representation supporting the review by Trading Standards.

Emma Milligan from Lincolnshire Safer Communities Trading Standards then presented their case. She briefly gave the Committee background information on the work that they undertook targeting stores which sold counterfeit alcohol and referred to the extensive media campaigns about illegal alcohol and tobacco.  She referred to the bottles of vodka that had been seized and the samples from the Smirnoff Vodka that indicated the presence of iso-propanal which was used as a denaturant and was not fit for public consumption. A sample had also been sent to the Trade Mark holder who had also confirmed that the product was not genuine and therefore was in breach of the Trade Marks Act 1994. 

She then referred to the bottles of Vodka Extra which had been confirmed were displaying incorrect duty stamps. As the premise licence holder had not supplied receipts for these products it was assumed that the products were non UK duty paid.  She asked the Committee to consider revoking the alcohol licence as evidence suggested that criminal activities were being carried out at the premises.

PC Figgitt from Lincolnshire Police  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Report CSL021 by the Community Safety and Licensing Service Manager.

(Enclosure)

(11.08am meeting adjourned)

(11.18am meeting reconvened – Councillor Russell left the meeting)

Decision:

That the variation of the premises licence for Tesco General Store, Godsey Lane, Market Deeping be approved as applied for.

The Solicitor to the Committee confirmed who would be speaking in connection with the application.  Juan Lopez (Advocate for Tesco’s), Simon Priestly (Manager at Tesco’s) and Mr Kevin O’neill who was against the application.

The Licensing Officer introduced report CSL021 which was for a variation of the premise licence to vary the times for the supply of alcohol and the hours the premises were open to the public for Tesco General Store, Godsey Lane, Market Deeping. He referred to an error at paragraph 3.2 which should have read 3hrs Monday to Saturday and 5½ hours Sunday.  An objection had been received to the variation which related to public nuisance and public safety.  The objection letter was accompanied by a petition and assorted documents signed by residents of Market Deeping. The Licensing Officer confirmed that due to the size of the documents these had been sent in PDF format but the original was available for anyone to view.   No objections had been received from any of the responsible authorities.

Juan Lopez, the Advocate for Tesco’s then presented their case.  He referred to the planning consent which was already in place with regard to the deliveries and traffic which addressed public safety.  He then spoke about the robust training that took place within the premises with regard to the sale of alcohol.  This covered both people who were underage and proxy buying.  He referred to the management structure in place within the store and how protection protocols were in place and adequate at all times of the day.  Challenge 25 was in place and this was backed up at management level.  Tesco worked closely with PCSO’s and the police so that youths were not attracted to the store.  The variation in hours was modest and related more to convenience for their customers rather than the sale of alcohol.

Members asked questions about various aspects with regard to the variation and the sale of alcohol to which Mr Lopez replied that Tesco’s were confident that they had the protocols and safeguards in place.

Mr O’Neill then presented his case.  Although only one objection had been made it was backed up by a petition signed by 554 people.  Mr O’Neill referred to the litter and bottles found in park land and hedges and the rowdiness of youths in the area with binge drinking and bottles found in Tesco carrier bags.  He circulated a letter (with the agreement of the representatives from Tesco’s) which he had received from the local MP.  Mr O’Neill felt that the extended hours would contribute to more anti social behaviour, litter and more noise and also an increase in sales traffic.  He then concluded by reading out a statement that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

The Licensing Officer circulated to Members information on the Live Music Act 2012 which had come into effect on 1st October 2012.  The Act dis-applied live music related conditions if certain criteria were satisfied.   Live amplified music also ceased to be classed as regulated entertainment if the criteria were satisfied.  The Act also created a general exemption that live unamplified music provided anywhere should not be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment if it took place between 8am and 11pm, regardless of the number of people in the audience. However there were mechanisms for the protection of residents and these were:

-       Upon a review of the premises licence the Licensing Authority could determine that conditions on the premises licence relating to live music would apply even between 8am and 11pm.

-       If the licence did not presently authorise live music the Licensing Authority could add conditions to the Premises Licence as though the live music were regulated entertainment authorised by licence, again to apply between 8am and 11pm.

-       The Licensing Authority could determine that live music at the premises was a licensable activity and live music could no longer be provided without permission on the Premise Licence or a Temporary Event Notice.

-       Other noise legislation, for example in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, would continue to apply.  The Live Music Act did not allow licensed premises to cause a noise nuisance.

The meeting closed at 12.35pm.