Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Licensing Sub Committee (ceased to operate 10/04/2017) Minutes

Date:
Monday, 24th June, 2013
Time:
10.00 a.m.
Place:
Council Chamber, Town Hall, High Street, Stockton on Tees, TS18 1AU
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Cllr Michael Clark, Cllr Paul Kirton and Cllr David Wilburn.
Officers:
J Nertney (LD); P Edwards (DNS).
In Attendance:
T J Morris Limited t/a Home Bargains (represented by Mr Crank, Solicitor from DWF LLP) Ms Bell (Designated Premises Supervisor).
Apologies for absence:
None.
Item Description Decision
Public
LSC
10/13
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
RESOLVED that Councillor Kirton be appointed Chair for this meeting only.
LSC
11/13
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no interests declared.
LSC
12/13
LICENSING ACT 2003
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A PREMISE LICENCE
HOME BARGAINS, PARKFIELD ROAD, STOCKTON ON TEES

RESOLVED that the application for the premises licence be granted for the following hours:-

• The supply of alcohol - Monday to Sunday 08:00 to 22:00 (off the premises)


• Opening hours - Monday to Sunday 08:00 to 22:00

Conditions to be applied to the licence consistent with the operating schedule and the information provided by the applicant.
10.00 a.m.

Preamble

ItemPreamble
LSC
12/13
Members gave consideration to the report, the application and the one representation which had been received.

Mr Crank stated that the premise was a former MFI store and would be trading as a Home Bargains. The application was to allow the premise to sell alcoholic products for consumption off the premises. The store would display any alcohol in one location and it would not be spread out around the store. The company operated extensive due diligence procedures including use of CCTV systems, Challenge 25, their own Test Purchase regime, refusal records monitored by the manager and area manager and liaison with the Police.

Mr Crank noted that the Police had no objection to the application and they had agreed a number of conditions with the Police which would be attached to the licence if granted.

There were no representations from responsible authorities. Cleveland Police had withdrawn their representation following the applicant agreeing to amend their operating schedule whereby agreed conditions would be attached to the licence should it be granted.

Mr Atkinson was not in attendance at the meeting so Members had regard to his written representation which raised a number of issues including:-

• The premise is situated close to a residential area;
• Concern that the availability of cheap alcohol may attract undesirable persons to the locality with the risk of a rise in crime;
• Car parking provision is insufficient; and
• Sufficiency of premises in the locality;

All parties were given an opportunity to sum up with the applicant having the final submission.

Members noted that the application before them was for a new premises licence requesting the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises.

The applicant had agreed conditions to be attached to their operating schedule and Cleveland Police had withdrawn their representation. Members noted that as the Police had withdrawn their representation it followed that they had no concerns over the premise undermining the crime and disorder objective.

Members noted that Mr Atkinson was not in attendance and therefore had regard to his written representation. A number of issues raised by Mr Atkinson were not relevant considerations for the Committee and they were disregarded. Mr Atkinson referred to sufficiency of premises in the locality and as there was no cumulative impact policy in place in relation to Stockton this was not a relevant consideration that Members could consider. Members were satisfied that the nature of the application was not one which would add to public nuisance and crime and disorder.

Members had no evidence before them that demonstrated the licensing objectives would be undermined if the licence was issued. Members were mindful of the relevant case law. Members had not been provided with any statistics detailing the level of anti social behaviour in the vicinity.

The Licensing Sub Committee were legally obliged to consider the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 and irrelevant issues could not form part of their decision making and had to be disregarded. Members were satisfied that the there was no evidence to persuade them that the licensing objectives would be undermined if granted.

Members also wished to remind Mr Atkinson that should there be any crime and disorder, public nuisance or other relevant issues linked to this premise in the future then these should be raised firstly with the premise and also with the responsible authorities such as Cleveland Police, the Council's Environmental Health Section or Licensing Section. The Licensing Act 2003 provided legal routes for persons to ask for a review of the premises licence should the premise cause problems linked to the four licensing objectives. Applications for a review would have to be supported by evidence and it was therefore in the best interests of residents to report any matters of concern linked to this premise to the appropriate authorities.

Can't find it

Can't find what you're looking for? Let us know and we'll do our best to point you in the right direction