Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence received.

There were no interests declared.

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

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report to members, highlighting background information and the representations received.

In response to a question from a member, the Licensing Enforcement Officer confirmed that the advert had been placed in the Ashby Times and circulated a copy for information.

In response to a question from a member, the Licensing Enforcement Officer advised that he was unaware of the opening hours of the takeaways adjacent as they were not licensed by the authority.

There were no questions for the Licensing Enforcement Officer from the Applicant.

In response to a question from an interested party, the Licensing Enforcement Officer advised that the applicant had discussed CCTV at the premises with Trading Standards, and the agreement was set out on page 20 of the agenda.

The applicant presented his case. He stated that he had liaised with Trading Standards and had agreed to operate a Challenge 21 policy. He added that he would be putting CCTV inside and outside the premises for security. He explained that he had been a retailer for 21 years and had held licences for 15 years. He stated that there should be no problems with litter, and he would not allow people to congregate outside the shop. He added that he wanted to help the community which had been without a store for some time. He also stated the Mr and Mrs Khoda had previously operated the store as a licensed premises for a number of years with no problems.

In response to questions from members, the applicant stated the following:

- The store had been a hairdressers for the past 6 years.

- There was currently no convenience store in the precinct.

- The CCTV at the front would cover the shop front only, but could be extended to cover more of the precinct if other retailers were willing to contribute to the cost.

- The applicant had been a licensee in Staffordshire and Derbyshire. He had recently sold the businesses concerned but retained his personal licence.

- The majority of floor space in the store would be non-alcoholic goods. Alcohol would represent a quarter or less of the total stock.

In response to questions from interested parties, the applicant stated the following:

- Food would also be sold at the premises.

- The opening hours were required to enable the store to cater for the whole community, to allow the sale of newspapers in the early morning, right through to a bottle of wine with a takeaway in the evening.

Mr K Elliott presented his representation. He stated that there were 2 takeaways on the precinct at the moment which were kept very clean. There had been a third takeaway which caused a lot of trouble but thankfully this had gone. He added that the surroundings were a large residential area and he felt that this was not the type of premises that people wanted here. He reported that there were 3 supermarkets in the village open until 10pm, the nearest one being 10 minutes walk away from the premises. He added that the public houses in the village would suffer. He explained that there was an existing underage drinking problem in the village, and any additional locations where alcohol could be purchased would not help the problem. He added that late night traffic would increase, and there had been problems when the fishing tackle shop had sold alcohol. He explained that the police were often called, there was a stabbing and people urinating everywhere. He added that the residents did not want this problem again. He explained that the village operates a no alcohol zone, however this was ignored. He stated that the takeaway caused problems with vermin and residents did not want to see this issue recur. He reported that youngsters congregated under the canopy, and older teenagers with cars in the lay-by. He stated that there would be loud music, swearing and shouting. He expressed concerns that cars already exceeded the speed limit and this could become a danger. He stated that the houses in the area were band D properties, and the residents contributed a lot to the Council, so it would be unfair to force this on to them.

In response to questions from members, Mr K Elliott stated the following:

- Youngsters were gathering under the canopy currently and there was an existing anti social behaviour problem.

- He had personally called the police a number of times, on average twice per week.

- He no longer kept a log of the respective incident numbers.

- He had not personally called the police in the last month.

- He did not feel that the takeaways caused the gatherings.

- The takeaways in the precinct closed between 10 and 11pm.

- The underage drinking problem had occurred prior to the introduction of the no alcohol zone, however this had not solved the problem.

- The police did drive around the area occasionally.

- The vermin problem was caused by a takeaway.

There were no questions from the applicant or the interested parties.

Mrs J Hart presented her representation. She stated that had purchased her bungalow 10 years ago and ran the neighbourhood watch. She explained that a lot of elderly residents got in touch with her regarding the noise and drinking. She added that there were parties in the car park with drinking and loud music, and a boy fell off the wall and had to be taken to hospital. She stated that youngsters in cars regularly gathered there and she had contacted the police, Anne Marie Brannigan and David Taylor in the past. She reported that the situation had improved over the last 3 years but she still could not sell her bungalow. She stated that there were problems with litter.

In response to questions from members, Mrs J Hart stated the following:

- The bottles and cans were purchased from the supermarket down the road and thrown from car windows

- She regularly reported issues to the police.

- The current situation in respect of anti social behaviour had been a little better in the last 3 years, due to repeated calls to the police.

- The gangs which congregated in the area were age 11 upwards, the older ones arriving in cars as it becomes darker.

- She had installed security cameras on her property.

There were no questions from the applicant or interested parties.

Mrs P Allen presented her representation. She stated that the main areas which would be abused were the 2 car parks, the open grass area opposite the shop and the lay-by. She stated that alcohol was already purchased from local shops and brought to this location, and permitting the application would only make this easier. She added that there were already shops in the area which were open until 10pm, and felt that the area did not need another.

In response to a question from a member, Mrs Allen stated that younger children gathered in the area. They were not drinking however were causing problems with noise and litter. She reported that later on in the evening youngsters aged 15-20 were gathering with cars and bikes, and were drinking.

There were no questions from the applicant or interested parties.

Mr P Howard presented his representation. He stated that he lived opposite the shop with both windows facing. He added that he had even seen women urinating on the car park. He stated that the hairdressers closed as it couldn't survive. He reported that there had been 3 years of peace. He stated that he had seen 20 or 30 youngsters in the car park, and he and his wife had been sworn at. He stated that his wife had died of a heart attack and he felt that the disturbance had caused her death. He added that if CCTV cameras were put up, they would be pulled down as the canopy was too low. He explained that he had been trying to have the canopy taken down as this was the meeting place. He stated that he had picked up 5 bottles off the road in front of his house, one of which was a vodka bottle. He reported that there was no police presence since the beat bobby moved on.

In response to a question from a member, Mr Howard stated that he was not aware of any CCTV cameras that had been pulled down.

There were no questions from the applicant or interested parties.

Mr Beniston presented his representation. He reiterated the points made by other speakers and added that if the application were permitted it would not be a good situation for anyone in the area.

There were no questions for Mr Beniston.

Mrs L Manifold presented her representation. She stated that in 2007 she had petitioned to have 2 gaps closed on the estate to prevent anti social behaviour caused by people walking to the Londis shop. She expressed concerns that the issues would reoccur. She explained that the situation previously had made her ill and she had not felt safe in her home. She expressed concerns that the CCTV covered only the shop front and not the car park where the problem would arise. She stated that the shops on the high street were selling alcohol to underage children but this was caught on CCTV.

In response to questions from members, Mrs Manifold stated the following:

- The gaps had been filled in with fencing and residents had paid to have it landscaped so it was more difficult to climb over.

- The fencing was not very heavy and had been parted in places.

In response to a question from a member, the Legal Advisor confirmed that test purchase operations in respect of underage sales of alcohol were regularly undertaken in the area by Leicestershire County Council and Trading Standards.

There were no questions from the applicant or interested parties.

Mr C Manifold presented his representation. He reiterated the points made by the other speakers. He expressed concern for local residents, in particular, Mr Howard. He reported that he had worked closely with the neighbourhood watch team in respect of test purchases, and of the 3 which had been undertaken in the last 14 days, one was successful. He stated that the CCTV which had been installed on the high street was effective and had caught 20 crimes in the last 2 years. He asked the committee to consider the anti social behaviour issues that residents had experienced when the shop was a fishing tackle shop. He reported that there had been a number of problems with children accessing alcohol since Mr Khoda sold the business. He expressed concerns regarding the level of policing, should the application be approved. He stated that the Parish Council were proactive and had tried to meet with the previous landlords, however this had had little impact.

In response to questions from members, Mr Manifold stated the following:

- An organised litter pick was undertaken approximately every 3 months. This did not receive sponsorship, however parents did attend sometimes.

- There were anti social behaviour issues elsewhere in the centre of the village, at Tescos and Bosworth Road.

- There had been problems on the Peggs Road car park; a business owner had her car damaged. CCTV had been installed on the overlooking property as a result.

- There had been one incident on this car park in the last 12 months.

- If Mr Nagra was successful, the Parish Council would seek to develop a positive relationship with him. Mr Nagra indicated that he was also willing to work with the Parish Council.

In response to a question from the applicant, Mr Manifold stated that the Parish Council would like to install CCTV in the car park, however the cost was prohibitive. Mr Nagra stated that if the Parish Council was willing to contribute towards the cost, he would be prepared to add cameras to his system to cover the car park.

There were no questions from interested parties.

Mrs Khoda presented her representation. She stated that granting the application could only enhance the parade. She added that she and her husband had traded there for 10 years. They had evicted the previous tenant following complaints. She added that permitting the application would enhance other businesses, which had suffered since the supermarket had gone. She stated that the applicant was a very responsible citizen and would work with everybody.

In response to a question from a member, Mrs Khoda advised that she and her husband owned the premises.

In response to a question from an interested party, the Legal Advisor explained that if the store wished to extend the opening hours in future, this would require a further application to alter the conditions of the licence.

Mr Elliott made a brief closing statement reiterating points made previously in his representation. He stated that if the application were permitted, it would blight neighbouring properties.

Mr Manifold gave a brief closing statement. He stated that there was no requirement for any further alcohol distribution in Measham.

Mr Nagra gave a brief closing statement reiterating points made earlier. He stated that he wanted to brighten up the area and provide a convenience for the local community. He added that he had offered to operate a Challenge 25 policy in the store as he had in his previous business, however Trading Standards had advised him that Challenge 21 would be sufficient.

The Legal Advisor explained that members were obliged to determine the application giving consideration to the licensing objectives. He advised that the apparent oversupply of licensed premises in the area was not a matter for the committee to consider, as there was no saturation policy currently operating in Measham. He explained that the applicant had agreed conditions with Trading Standards regarding CCTV and the Challenge 21 Policy. He also advised that the enforcement of the alcohol free zone was a matter for the police.

At 7.50pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 8.10pm.

The Legal Advisor read out the Sub Committee's decision, findings of fact and the reasons for the decision.