Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

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

Date:
Tuesday, 17th March, 2015
Time:
10.00 am
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 Paul Kirton(Chairman), Cllr Eileen Johnson, Cllr Bill Woodhead,
Officers:
C Barnes(PH), J Nertney(LD)
In Attendance:
Mr Mohammed Sarwar(Applicant), Mr Harvard, Solicitor(Representing Mr Sarwar), Mrs Cole, Mr Owens, Mrs Thacker(Local Residents), Mr Shan(Local Business Owner), Mr Cassidy, Solicitor(Representing Mr Shan)
Item Description Decision
Public
LSC
58/14
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
RESOLVED that Councillor Kirton be appointed Chair for this meeting only.
LSC
59/14
EVACUATION PROCEDURE
 
LSC
60/14
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
 
LSC
61/14
LICENSING ACT 2003
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A LICENCE
HIGH GRANGE NEWS, 50 CASSON WAY, BILLINGHAM

RESOLVED that the application for grant of a licence for High Grange News, 50 Casson Way, Billingham, be approved as detailed above.
10:00 am

Preamble

ItemPreamble
LSC
59/14
The Evacuation Procedure was noted.
LSC
60/14
There were no declarations of interest.
LSC
61/14
Members were required to determine what action to take in relation to an application for the grant of a premise licence under the Licensing Act 2003 to which there had been representations from interested parties.

An application for grant of a premise licence had been received from Mr Mohammed Sarwar in relation to High Grange News, 50 Casson Way, Billingham.

The Committee noted that the application was for:-

Supply of alcohol for consumption: Monday to Sunday: 06:00 to 22:00 hours
off the premises.

Hours premises are open to the: Monday to Sunday: 06:00 to 22:00 hours
Public

The Committee noted that the premises currently operated as a newsagents and convenience store between 06:00 to 18:00 hours.

Four representations had been received from interested parties who lived within the vicinity of the premise. Three local residents and a local shop owner and his solicitor were in attendance at the meeting and given the opportunity to make representation.

No representations had been received from Responsible Authorities.

The Applicant and his Solicitor, Mr Harvard were in attendance at the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation.

Mr Harvard stated that this was a modest application for an existing convenience store. The premises were on a parade of shops with ample car parking provision in the area. Mr Harvard noted the objections from local residents and the petition but submitted that it was relevant that Cleveland Police had not objected to the application. Mr Harvard stated that although he had sympathy with the residents there concerns were based on nervous speculation. Mr Harvard stated that the applicant had 25 years experience in the trade and had submitted a comprehensive operating schedule which would give sufficient assurance as to how the premise would be run. The shop had excellent CCTV systems in operation and would operate a Challenge 25 policy. Mr Harvard noted that some of the objections had expressed the view that there was no need for a further premise supplying alcohol but this was not a relevant consideration for the Committee and to take that into consideration would be unlawful. Mr Harvard stated that if the licence was granted for the hours sought then it would close an hour earlier than Spar which was close by. Mr Harvard stated that Mr Shan who had lodged an objection had a commercial interest as he also had a premise close by which already had the benefit of a premises licence.

The Committee heard from three local residents parties who were in attendance at the meeting. The Committee also noted that a petition had also been received signed by a number of local residents. All of the residents explained that the area suffered with anti-social behaviour caused by groups of youths and they were concerned that if a licence was granted for the supply of alcohol then the problems may get worse. The residents were disappointed that the Police had not objected to the application as they believed that the police had evidence of anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the premise.

Mr Cassidy, Solicitor, was in attendance to make a representation on behalf of his client Mr Shan. Mr Cassidy asked the Committee to have regard to the elderly demographic of the area. The residents were quite clear that there was already anti-social behaviour in the area and to grant a licence to supply alcohol was likely to lead to more disorder and anti-social behaviour. Mr Cassidy stated that his client feared that more premises supplying alcohol would lead to gangs of youths congregating which may cause fear and distress to local residents and businesses

The Committee gave consideration to the report, the application and the representations which had been received.

The Committee were mindful that any evidence to persuade the Committee to refuse or vary the application had to be linked to the licensing objectives. The Committee were mindful that this was a new application for a premises licence and as such there was no previous licensing history for either the premises or in relation to Mr Sarwars management of this or other premises.

It was noted that the applicant had provided a very comprehensive operating schedule which would be attached to the licence as conditions if granted. It was clear to the Committee that the detail and assurances provided in the operating schedule had clearly gone some way to persuading the responsible authorities not to submit an objection to the application.

After giving consideration to all of the evidence and representations made both in writing and orally the Committee were of the view that as the locality of the premises had a large number of elderly residents then they were of the view that there were justified in restricting the terminal hour for the supply of alcohol. The application for the premises licence was granted but with a reduction in the terminal hour sought by the applicant.

The Committee were of the opinion that a terminal hour for the supply of alcohol of 22:00 hours was too late as the premises were located in an area surrounded by elderly residents. It was also noted that at the present time the closest premise supplying alcohol was the Spar store. It was noted that the applicant currently stayed open till 18:00 hours as a convenience store and as such an extension of the hours till 22:00 hours was likely to have more of an impact on local residents. As this was a new application it was clearly a matter for the applicant to demonstrate that he could operate without causing nuisance or disorder to local residents.

The Committee resolved to grant the application:-

Supply of alcohol for consumption:
Monday to Sunday: 06:00 to 20:00 hours
off the premises.

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