Agenda item

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 had been made by a senior police officer in the country about the proliferation of off licences which were a serious threat to public order.

A question was asked to Mr O’Neil about why no other residents had attended if they felt that strongly about the variation.  The Licensing Office advised that that in discussion with Mr O’Neill it had been made clear that only one objection letter had been received from Mr O’Neill which was backed up by the petition; if other people had attended they would not have the opportunity to speak unless they had submitted a relevant representation.

The Licensing Officer then gave his closing statement reminding Members to have regard to the representations they had received and the need to promote the four licensing objectives:

-       The prevention of crime and disorder

-       Public safety

-       The prevention of public nuisance

-       The protection of children from harm 

They could modify the conditions of the licence or reject the whole or part of the application. 

Mr Lopez from Tesco’s then gave his closing statement referring to guidance which suggested opening and trading times should be the same in principle. That litter patrols were carried out in the car park and immediate surroundings of the store.  That there were regular patrols and no anti social behaviour was evident as the police had not made any objections to the variation.  The statement made by the senior police officer was aimed more a small off licences rather than supermarkets.

Mr O’Neill then gave his closing statement referring to the people who had signed his statement so that he could take the issue on board rather than people journey up from Market Deeping.  He felt that the senior police comment was valid and that the people who had signed the petition had genuine fears and concerns about the variation.

(12 noon Licensing Officers and all interested parties left the meeting)

Members discussed the representations they had received from all parties. The Committee was mindful that there was no representation from Lincolnshire police and no evidnce that the licensing objectives were currently being undermined. The Committee was satisfied that Tesco’s procedures, checks and safeguards were adequate in terms of promoting the licensing objectives if the modest variation was approved.It was proposed, seconded and unanimously agreed to grant the variation as applied for.

(12.15pm Licensing Officers and all interested parties returned to the meeting)

The Solicitor to the Committee read out the Committees decision.  The Committee had considered the representations made by all parties, however they were satisfied that there was no evidence which suggested the undermining of the licensing objectives and they felt that Tesco’s had robust processes in place and therefore the variation was approved as applied for.  The Committee wished to remind Tesco to work with local residents to address concerns they had.  He reminded those present that any problems in the future could be addressed by a responsible authority submitting an application for a review.  The decision was appealable to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of written notification of the decision.