Agenda item

Report CSL014 by the Community Safety and Licensing Service Manager.

(Enclosure)

Decision:

To approve the Premises Licence for EBL Express Newspapers, 109 Dudley Road, Grantham as applied for.

The Solicitor to the Committee introduced those present and confirmed who was to speak in connection with the application. The applicant Mr Vithiyakanthan Subramaniyam was represented by Mr Hook, his solicitor and the interested party present was Councillor Mike Cook Ward Representative for the area where the premises were located.

The Licensing Officer referred to the application which had been received on 17th May 2012 for a Premises Licence for the EBL Express Newspapers, 109 Dudley Road, Grantham and which Report CSL014 referred.  The week before the application was due to go to committee the applicant’s representative had contacted the Licensing Officer and it had been decided to adjourn the meeting as the content of the statements submitted did not make sense.  A reworded application had been submitted and circulated to Members. The applicant’s representative had liaised with one of the interested parties but had not been able to reach a conclusion. The application was for the premises to sell alcohol between the hours of 7am and 10pm.  No representations had been received from responsible authorities.

The applicant’s representative, Mr Hook then presented his case.  The application in his view was a straight forward one.  The premise was situated in a modest area where there were no other shops.   A public house was situated a short distance up the road (176 yards).  The shop was a small convenience store and following the submission of the first application and subsequent representations the applicant had retained Mr Hook.  Four CCTV cameras were situated at the premises, three within the shop and one outside. Recordings would be kept for 31 days. The shop would be staffed by the applicant and his sister. No representations had been received from the responsible authorities and all relevant notices had been published.  Two representations had been received from the Ward Councillors for the area. One of the representations referred to the nursery opposite the premises whose staff were fully aware of the proposal and had not submitted any representations.  As crime and disorder had been raised as an issue he had consulted the crime analysis for the area which showed only five incidents of crime.  The applicant had one other premise and was well aware of the need to take steps to ensure there was no  selling of alcohol to under age persons.

The interested party present then presented his case. Councillor Cook, one of the Ward Representatives for the area congratulated the applicant on opening the premises but queried the need to sell alcohol. He referred to the other outlets on London Road and Bridge End Road and the problems of people congregating at these premises.  He could not see why the premises had to sell alcohol from 7am in the morning until 10pm at night.  Although the nursery staff were aware of the application he had spoken to some of the parents of the children who were unhappy with an alcohol outlet being situated opposite the nursery and he asked if the times could be reduced.

Mr Hook, for the applicant then responded to Councillor Cook stating that all advertising had been complied with and the number of other outlets was not a matter for this Committee to discuss.  The official guidelines also stated that the sale of alcohol should be the same as the opening hours for the premise.

Members then asked questions of Councillor Cook to which he responded.  It was suggested that if the parents had strong concerns about the proposal then they would have submitted letters to this effect.  Another Member stated that the fact that a nursery was opposite the premises of itself had no relevance on whether or not a premises licence should be granted.

The Licensing Officer then gave his closing statement. He reminded Members to have regard to the representations made at the meeting where relevant and the four licensing objectives he then listed the options available to the Committee: -

(a)        to grant the licence subject to conditions that are consistent with the  operating schedule modified to the extent that the Committee considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and any mandatory conditions that must be included under the Licensing Act 2003. 

(b)    to exclude from the scope of the licence a licensable activity to which the   application relates.

(c)    to refuse to specify a person in the licence as premises supervisor;

(d)    or reject the application.

Mr Hook then gave his closing statement on behalf of the applicant he repeated that the application was a straightforward one, the second application had taken account of the concerns raised and the hours had been reduced to accommodate those concerns.

(10.25am the applicant, his representative, the Licensing Officer and the interested party left the meeting)

Members discussed the information they had been given and the representations made.  A comment was made about reducing hours to which the Solicitor replied.  It was proposed, seconded and unanimously agreed to grant the licence as applied for.

(10.35am the applicant, his representative, Licensing Officers and the interested party returned to the meeting)

The Solicitor to the Committee read out the decision of the Committee stating that the Committee had considered all the representations received and whether the four licensing objectives were being promoted. As there was no evidence to support the undermining of the licensing objectives the Committee had decided to grant the premises licence as applied for.

Meeting adjourned between 10.35am and 10.40am