Meeting documents

It was agreed that Councillor G Allman Chair the Hearing.

(Councillor G Allman in the Chair)

Councillor G Allman introduced the parties and explained the procedure to be followed. The Hearing Regulations 2005 stated that the Authority must allow parties an equal maximum period of time in which to present their evidence. It was agreed that the maximum time for each presentation be 10 minutes.

Mr Veasey (Interested party) requested that the Members consider adjourning the meeting on the grounds that due to his lack of knowledge of Licensing and procedures he had not put together all of the information required to make a full representation. He informed Members that he would like to contact other interested parties to get more information. Mr Veasey confirmed that this was not the fault of the Licensing Authority and he had received all of the paperwork, including the procedure, for the meeting.

Mr Veasey made comments regarding various planning issues. The Legal Advisor reminded Mr Veasey that the nature of the meeting meant that planning issues could not be considered.

The applicant's representative responded that she was disappointed that an adjournment had been requested as Mr Veasey had lots of notice that the meeting was taking place and could have done his research.

At 3.15pm the Sub Committee adjourned to discuss the request and re-convened at 3.25pm.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report. There were no questions for the Licensing Enforcement Officer.

The applicant's representative then presented the application. It was noted that there had been no representations from the responsible authorities. The applicant's representative informed the Members that the store was already operating on a 24 hour basis and that the application was a completion of the current license.

A Member asked if customers often consumed their purchases on site. The applicant's representative responded that they did outside as there was a big enough area for customers to park. There was not an area to consume purchases inside and although it looks like there would be a seating area on the plans, this was not the case. The applicant's representative was willing to remove the wording regarding indoors provision of late night refreshments to make it clear that provision of late night refreshment was only for consumption off the premises.

In response to a question from a Member, the applicant's representative reported that the door to the store would be locked between the hours of 10.30pm and 5.00am, during these hours items are purchased through a hatch.

A Member reported that the majority of garages would not sell a large amount of alcohol after 12.00am and asked if the applicant would consider not selling alcohol between the hours of 12.00am and 6.00am. The applicant's representative stated that this would not possible as when other garages have sold alcohol through the night it had been a success, plus the suggestion went against the Licensing Act guidance.

In response to other questions from members, the applicant's representative stated the following:

- as the garage is situated on a large site there was CCTV cameras in place to deter people from using the site to drink alcohol on. If there were problems the police would be called to move them on.

- there was currently one member of staff working during the early hours of the morning but if it became busier then another member of staff would be brought in to assist.

- a variety of training was given to all employees such as retail law, alcohol sales and, health and safety. There were also a number of certificates that could be gained.

- the company does operate a mystery shopper policy.

In response to a question from an interested party, the applicant's representative stated that the intention was to operate fully on a 24 hour basis but after a period of time it would be assessed to see if it was worthwhile.

Mr Veasey then presented his objections as detailed within the report of the Licensing Enforcement Officer. Mr Veasey asked if he could present additional evidence, this included a plastic bag full of rubbish and photographs of items blocking the emergency exit of the garage. All parties agreed for the additional items to be accepted. A Member reminded Mr Veasey that the issue with the blocked emergency doors was a planning issue and could not be considered at the meeting.

Mr Veasey explained that the bag of rubbish that he had collected was on his garden and had been dropped there by customers of the garage. The applicant's representative explained that there were a number of litter bins on the site and a cleaner who dealt with the bins once a day. It was agreed to carry out an assessment as to whether additional or larger bins were needed.

There were no questions for Mr Veasey.

Mr Veasey gave a brief closing statement and explained that the objections were based on public nuisance and that the local properties had lost value due to the garage.

The applicant's representative gave a brief closing statement.

At 4.10pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 4.35pm.

The Legal Advisor explained that in reaching its decision the Sub Committee had had regard to the evidence and representations of the applicant and objectors, the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy and guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.