Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

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

Date:
Tuesday, 30th June, 2015
Time:
10.0 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:
Councillor Kirton (Chair), Councillor Johnson, Councillor Woodhead,
Officers:
M McGivern, S Landles, J Allwood(DNS), C Barnes(PH), J Nertney(LD)
In Attendance:
Mr Walter Marufu, Premises Licence Holder of Cedars, PC Iceton (represented by Mr Langley, Force Solicitor), Mr Shwana Waisie Hassan Premises Licence Holder of Mardi and his wife Mrs Tracy Hassan
Item Description Decision
Public
LSC
1/15
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
RESOLVED that Councillor Kirton be appointed as Chairman for this meeting only.
LSC
2/15
EVACUATION PROCEDURE
 
LSC
3/15
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
 
LSC
4/15
LICENSING ACT 2003
APPLICATION FOR VARIATION
CEDARS, 30 YARM LANE, STOCKTON ON TEES

RESOLVED that the Application for Variation, Cedars, 30 Yarm Lane, Stockton on Tees be refused as detailed above.
LSC
5/15
LICENSING ACT 2003
APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF A LICENCE
MARDIN, 2 PRINCE REGENT STREET, STOCKTON ON TEES

RESOLVED that the Application for Variation of a Licence for Mardin, 2 Prince Regent Street, Stockton on Tees be granted as detailed above.
Confidential
LSC
6/15
LICENSING ACT 2003
APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF A LICENCE
MARDIN, 2 PRINCE REGENT STREET, STOCKTON ON TEES - EXEMPT APPENDIX 4

  • Appendix 4
RESOLVED that the information be noted.

Preamble

ItemPreamble
LSC
2/15
The evacuation procedure was noted.
LSC
3/15
There were no declarations of interest.
LSC
4/15
Members were required to determine an application for the variation of a premise licence under the Licensing Act 2003 to which there had been representations from Responsible Authorities.

An application for variation had been received from Mr Walter Marufu, in relation to Cedars, 30 Yarm Lane, Stockton on Tees. The proposed variation was for the following:

To add supply of alcohol Off the premises Monday to Sunday 17:00 until 03:00

The selling of alcohol Off the premises was to be by delivery only with a hot food takeaway

A copy of the application and a copy of the existing licence were detailed within the appendices.

Representations had been received from the following responsible authorities: Environmental Health, Trading Standards, Cleveland Police and Public Health. The representations related to the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm and public safety objectives.

A copy of the report and supporting documents had been provided to all persons present and to members of the Committee prior to the meeting.

The Applicant, Mr Marufu apologised to the Committee that the initial application had been lacking in detail. Mr Marufu stated that he had a takeaway with a late night refreshment licence to provide hot food until 3 a.m. He had given thought to how the business would operate and it was stated both his delivery drivers and the vehicles would be equipped with CCTV. If there was no adult present at the time of delivery then alcohol would not be supplied. Mr Marufu stated that he would amend his application so that no free alcohol would be supplied regardless of the value of the food order.

Mr Langley(Force Solicitor) called evidence from PC Iceton.

PC Iceton stated that there was only one licence in the Cleveland force area that offered an alcohol delivery service which was known as Moonshine. PC Iceton informed the Committee that the licence for Moonshine had very stringent licence conditions but Mr Marufu's application had, in her view, been lacking detail such as, what checks would be carried out to ensure that alcohol was not sold to persons under 18 years of age. Another major concern was that the business model appeared to be based on a cash on delivery basis which was also a concern shared by the Trading Standards Officer Miss Allwood.

It was highlighted to Members that Environmental Health had concerns in relation to the fact that deliveries could be made to residential areas in the early hours. This was different to a hot food delivery business as there was the potential for far more interaction with the customer if the driver had to check identification, with the potential for disputes with customers. The Applicant had also indicated that the delivery vehicle would be unmarked making it difficult for members of the public to report complaints if they were disturbed. The Environmental Health Officer stated that she was also of the view that the application was lacking in sufficient detail.

The Public Health Registrar Mr McGivern highlighted to the Committee that from the business plan put forward by the Applicant, it stated that he would like to offer the ability for customers to use tablet integration or mobile technology. The introduction of such technology caused great concern as it potentially removed the interaction with the customer. It was also not unreasonable to suggest that persons ordering alcohol with takeaways in the early hours could have already been drinking and there was the potential for flash points on the doorstep.

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

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.

After giving consideration to all of the evidence and representations made both in writing and orally the Committee were of the view that the applicant had not provided sufficient information to satisfy the Committee that the licensing objectives would not be undermined. On the contrary the information provided by the applicant fell far short of what the Committee would have expected. Although on the face of Mr Marufu's business plan, he had given thought to the application process however it was lacking in sufficient detail. Mr Marufu had not entered into any meaningful discussions with the Responsible Authorities prior to the hearing and it had therefore not been possible for any agreement to be reached on the application. The Committee agreed with the concerns and views expressed by the responsible authorities in relation to the application and were therefore of the view that if granted the licensing objectives would be undermined. The application for variation to the premises licence was refused.

The Committee advised Mr Marufu that if he was minded to reapply then he should liaise with the Police and other Responsible Authorities in order to discuss with them what steps he could take in order to address their concerns over the application.
LSC
5/15
Members were required to determine an application for the variation of a premise licence under the Licensing Act 2003 to which there had been representations from Responsible Authorities.

An application for variation had been received from Mr Shwana Waisie Hassan, in relation to Mardin, 2 Prince Regent Street, Stockton on Tees. The proposed variation was for the following:

To extend the terminal hour for the provision of Late Night Refreshment from 02:00 hours Monday to Sunday to 04:00 hours Monday to Sunday.

A copy of the application and the existing licence were detailed within the appendices.

Representation had been received from Responsible Authorities, Environmental Health and Cleveland Police. The representations related to the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm objectives.

A copy of the report and supporting documents had been provided to all persons present and to members of the Committee prior to the meeting.

Mr Langley(Force Solicitor) called evidence from PC Iceton.

PC Iceton stated that Mr Hassan had previously opened for sale outside his permitted hours and he had been given a warning letter following interview. PC Iceton stated that Cleveland Police were of the view that Mr Hassan should be able to prove that he could operate within the law by operating over a number of months within his current permitted hours.

The Applicants wife Mrs Hassan stated that her husband had operated the premise for over 6 years. She apologised to the Committee that they had opened outside their permitted hour but noted that since receiving the warning they had only opened in accordance with their permitted hours. Mrs Hassan stated that the application would bring the premise in line with other hot food takeaways in the vicinity.

The Environmental Health Officer, Mrs Landles confirmed that since being issued with the warning letter, checks had been carried out at the Applicant, Mr Hassan's premise and he had been operating within his permitted hours. There was no evidence that Mr Hassan had opened outside his permitted hours after being issued with the warning.

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 gave consideration to the report, the application and the representations which had been received from the Applicant and Responsible Authorities.

The Committee noted that in the past Mr Hassan had opened outside his permitted hours and had received written warning. It was noted that since the warning Mr Hassan had operated a number of months in accordance with his licence.

After giving consideration to all of the evidence and representations made both in writing and orally the Committee granted the application for an additional hour till 03:00 hours.
LSC
6/15
This item was the confidential information in relation to item 'Licensing Act 2003 Application for Variation of a Licence, Mardin, 2 Prince Regent Street, Stockton on Tees - Exempt Appendix 4
Please refer to the above for the Committee's decision.

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