Agenda and minutes

It was moved by Councillor G Hoult, seconded by Councillor R Morris and

RESOLVED THAT:

Councillor J Clarke take the chair for the remainder of the meeting.

There were no apologies for absence.

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring disclosable interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is pecuniary or non-pecuniary.

Councillor R Morris declared a non-pecuniary interest in the matter before them as the applicant was a relative of the operator of the post office in his ward which he had assisted with council issues but did not know personally.

PREMISES:    The Spar, Delven Lane, Castle Donington, Derby, LE65 2LJ

APPLICANT:Liluben Odedra

To determine an application for a premises licence in respect of the above.

Representations have been received from 3 members of the public, 2 of which were rejected.  A Notice of Hearing inviting them to attend has been sent.  If they fail to attend, the hearing can be held in their absence or adjourned.

The following documents are attached: -

a)    Report of the Licensing Enforcement Officer

At the beginning of the Hearing, the authority shall explain to the parties the procedure it is proposed to follow.  The Hearing shall take the form of a discussion led by the authority and cross-examination shall not be permitted unless it is required to consider the representations.

The Chairman introduced the parties in attendance and outlined 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 limit for each presentation would be ten minutes.

Paul Dennis, Licensing Enforcement Officer, presented the report to Members, highlighting the licensable activity applied for, the licensing objectives, Licensing Policy and representations received.

There were no questions for the Licensing Enforcement Officer.

The applicant’s representative, Mr Anil Bhawsar, addressed the meeting to present the application.  The Committee was advised of the steps the applicant intended to take to promote the licensing objectives including the installation of CCTV, ‘Challenge 25’ and ‘No ID No Sale’ posters, and full staff training.  Members were also informed that an application had been made to the Highway Authority to drop the kerb at the front of the premises to allow for customer parking away from the shared access.

Following a question from the interested party, a lengthy discussion ensued in relation to the parking provision and the impact the premises would have on traffic in the area.  The Members were reminded that parking and traffic issues were a matter for the Council’s Planning Department and the Highway Authority, therefore they could not be considered under the licensing regime.

There were no further questions for the applicant’s representative.

Mr Robey, objector, addressed the meeting to present his representation.  The main concern was the anti-social behaviour that was already occurring in the area and how the proposed sale of alcohol from the premises would exacerbate it.  Members were informed that people gathered around the buildings close to the premises drinking alcohol.  Concerns were also raised that persons aged over 18 were purchasing alcohol for persons under 18.

In response to a question from a Member, the objector acknowledged that there were other licensed premises within the area and it was difficult to know where the people causing anti-social behaviour were purchasing alcohol from but they felt another licensed premises would only increase the problems.

In response to a question from the applicant’s representative, the objector confirmed that they did report the incidents of anti-social behaviour to the police.  The applicant’s representative explained that CCTV would be installed around the outside of the premises which would not only assist with the security of the premises but also the surrounding area.  It was felt that this would help reduce anti-social behaviour in the area as individuals could be identified.  The objector disagreed as the CCTV would not cover the whole area.  The applicant’s representative explained that the applicant was investing a lot of money in the business and other residents were happy with the proposals.  The CCTV would be in operation 24 hours a day to protect staff, customers, the premises and the immediate area.  He stressed that this was not a corner shop, it was being operated like a supermarket with home deliveries and zero tolerance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.