Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure.

Apologies were received from Councillor Mark Shelford, for whom Councillor Michael Norton substituted.

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officeror a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There were none.

There was none.

These were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Chair will, if required, explain the procedure.

The Chair explained the procedure to be followed for Agenda Item 8.

The Committee is asked to consider passing the following resolution:

“that having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business and the reporting of the meeting be prevented under Section 100A(5A) because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.   

RESOLVED that, the Sub-Committee having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the pubic shall be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business and the reporting of the meeting be prevented under Section 100A(5A) because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended. 

Mr NMC confirmed that he understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report and circulated a DBS Certificate in respect of the applicant and a section 9 statement provided by him. The meeting was adjourned to allow Members time to read these documents. Members noted that the two most recent convictions fell within paragraphs 5(b) and 5(e) of the Council’s Policy relating to previous convictions.

After the meeting had reconvened, Mr NMC stated his case and was questioned by Members. He made a closing statement.

After an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to refuse the application.

Reasons

Members have had to determine an application for a combined Hackney Carriage/ Private Hire Driver’s Licence. In doing so they took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council’s Policy.

In making a determination Members took account of the applicant’s oral representations and his statement, and balanced these against the information provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service.

The applicant admitted his convictions and did not seek to go behind them, but offered explanations of the facts surrounding them. So far as his two most recent convictions were concerned, he described being compliant with ambulance and police services. He fully admitted his mistake in trying to move his vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol, and said that he did well in fulfilling the terms of his sentence. In relation to his most recent conviction, he described suffering from bereavement at that time, but said he is not a violent person by nature; his head was simply in a bad place.

Members noted that the Policy sets out minimum periods that the Council will expect an applicant to remain free from conviction, which states that they will not have been convicted of a serious motoring offence during the previous five years and not have been convicted of an offence during the previous three years. In this case Mr N M C has two convictions to which these parts of the policy apply. He also has a number of other convictions which are relatively more historic. Members took into account the fact that they may depart from this policy having had regard to the full facts of the case and having taken account of any mitigating or other circumstances, however they are not satisfied, based on what they have heard and read, that there are reasons for departing from the policy here. Members formed the view that Mr N M C has shown a pattern of behaviour of offending, and reacts badly in emotionally challenging situations. For all of those reasons, members are not satisfied he is a fit and proper person and accordingly his application is refused.

The Chair explained the procedure to be followed for the next two items of business.

Applicant: Star News Ltd, represented by Parminderjit Singh Heer (DPS) and John Milton (Knight Training)

Other Persons: David Attinger and Angelina Jenkins

Responsible Authority: Paul Kendall (Police Licensing Officer)

The parties confirmed that they understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report.

Mr Milton stated the case for the applicant. He said that Edmunds News was a tiny newsagents, which opened at 06:00 and delivered newspapers around the area. It would now also begin selling lottery tickets. As these were mostly purchased in the evening, it would be natural to seek an extension of trading hours for this purpose. There was a covenant on the building which prevented the premises opening beyond 22:00.

He said that it was proposed that the business would be further extended by adding the sale of alcohol. He submitted that the impact of sales of alcohol from the premises would be minute, because only small volumes could be stored there. The proposal was to sell beer, wines and spirits; the latter would be stored behind the counter, in accordance with the condition proposed by the Police and accepted by the applicant. There were already licensed premises nearby, which remain open after 22:00. The applicant had included in his operating schedule a condition preventing the sale of single cans of lager above 6.5% ABV, but he would be happy to extend that to all single cans of lager. They would be sold only in multiples of four to discourage anti-social drinkers.

He said that the applicant was already running a Post Office and newsagents in another area without any significant impact on local residents.

He said that all staff would be trained in the sale of alcohol.

He asked the Sub-Committee to grant the application.

Members put questions to the applicant. In reply Mr Milton stated:

• there are three primary schools in the area

• in general alcohol-related anti-social behaviour involved the purchase of single cans of super-strength alcohol

Mr Attinger and Ms Jenkins suggested that the condition about not selling single cans was irrelevant; why could not young people buy and share a 4-pack? Mr Milton suggested that it was more likely they would purchase 4-packs from a supermarket, where the price was lower. The applicant would not be buying in the volumes that supermarkets did, and so could not compete with them on price.

Mr Attinger stated his case. He said that he lived in St James’s Square and was a director of St James’s Square Ltd, which owns the garden and which effectively acts as the residents’ association. He therefore considered that he represented the residents of St James’s Square. He said that since notice had been given of the application many residents had expressed concern. He submitted that the application could cause public nuisance, and potentially threaten children going to and from the primary school. The primary school was only 47 metres from the shop front.  He believed that there was the potential for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

Applicant: Widcombe Social Club, represented by James Waterhouse

Responsible Authority: Paul Kendall, Police Licensing Officer

The parties confirmed that they understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. She informed Members that the Police had proposed additional conditions, which had been accepted by the applicant.

Mr Waterhouse said that he did not wish to add anything to the information in the report.

Mr Kendall said that the Police had felt that the conditions originally offered by the applicant had been inadequate. A meeting had taken place at the premises at which he had proposed the additional conditions set out in paragraph 5.13 of the report. The applicant had accepted these additional conditions. Mr Kendall said that there was one minor amendment to the agreed condition relating to the provision of CCTV, to remove reference to the Licensing Authority.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application for the reasons, and with the conditions, detailed below.

Reasons

Members have determined an application for a new premises licence at Widcombe Social Club, Widcombe Hill, Widcombe. In doing so they have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of evidence and must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives based on the information put before them.

In reaching a decision Members took account of all the relevant oral and written representations, disregarding the irrelevant and were careful to balance the competing interests of the applicant and the Responsible Authority.

Members noted that there were no representations from Interested Parties.

Applicant

The applicant indicated that he was content with the conditions proposed by the police and did not wish to add anything to his application documents and e-mail correspondence with the police.

Responsible Authorities

Paul Kendall as Police Licensing Officer for the Avon and Somerset Constabulary made representations in respect of the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives. He put forward suggested conditions as set out in the written representations, subject to one minor amendment, in order to promote those licensing objectives. The applicant agreed to all of these suggestions conditions.

Members

Members considered the premises were likely to have an effect on the licensing objectives of prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder however they felt that conditions would be effective in the promotion of these licensing objectives.

Members resolved to grant the application with conditions consistent with the operating schedule, the mandatory conditions and the conditions as proposed by the Responsible Authority subject to one minor deletion specified below and agreed to by the applicant.

The deletion to a condition proposed by the police is as follows:

“A CCTV system to be installed to the satisfaction of the police and the licensing authority.”  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.