Agenda and minutes

Licensing Sub-Committee
Wednesday, 19th August, 2015 9.30 am

Venue: Civic Offices, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, SM1 1EA

Contact: Victoria Lower, Senior Business Support Officer  Tel: 020 8770 4640 | Email:  victoria.lower@sutton.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

13.

LICENCE APPLICATION - 15/00649/LAPREM - FOOD SHOP, 306 HIGH STREET, SUTTON SM1 1PQ pdf icon PDF 149 KB

Report of the Executive Head of Safer and Stronger Communities on an application for a premises licence, and the representations relating thereto.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The applicant and/or his representative were expected to attend to make their application to adjourn, but did not attend. An extension to the time period for considering licensing application 15/00649/LAPREM had been approved outside this meeting, and so the item was deferred to a later meeting.

14.

ELECTION OF CHAIR

Minutes:

            Resolved: That Councillor Richard Marston be elected Chair of the Sub-Committee for the duration of the meeting.

 

15.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 67 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2015.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2015 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

 

16.

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE - HEARINGS PROCEDURE pdf icon PDF 62 KB

Minutes:

The Chair drew attention to the Council’s procedure to be followed at the meeting.

17.

LICENCE APPLICATION - 15/00641/LAPREM - SITA RAM, 13 THE MARKET, WRYTHE LANE SM5 1AG pdf icon PDF 149 KB

Report of the Executive Head of Safer and Stronger Communities on an application for a premises licence, and the representations relating thereto.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a license in respect of the above premises. The applicant’s representative, Trading Standards, Public Health and the Police were present. The Sub-Committee heard the application, and Trading Standards, Public Health, the Police and the applicant’s representative addressed the meeting.

 

The Responsible Authorities that had objected to the application had done so on a number of grounds. Trading Standards stated that it was for the applicant to prove that their premises would not further impact upon the Cumulative Impact Zone. The area was deemed to have a saturation of “on” and “off” licensed premises and already had a high concentration of off-sales premises. Underage sale of alcohol and sales to those that were drunk was also an issue within the vicinity of the premises during the day or evening. Trading Standards had concerns with regards to the applicant’s approach to management of the premises, how proxy sales would be dealt with and whether the applicant had an understanding of the Cumulative Impact Policy and its implications. The applicant’s agent had provided Trading Standards with proposed conditions. However it was felt that the application still lacked an understanding of the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy, underage and proxy sales and did not present the reasons or justification of how the application or applicant overcame the rebuttable presumption.

 

Public Health had objected to the application based on the Cumulative Impact Policy as the premises being situated in the Rosehill cumulative impact zone and sought to discourage further density of licensed premises that would result in cumulative impact. Concerns were raised that the application did not contain any mention of staff training and conflict management. Public Health raised concerns that there were cases of binge drinking in the area and higher than average underage alcohol consumption. In addition, the health risks associated with alcohol consumption were raised by Public Health. The Public Health representative clarified that they were against any additional premises within the area being granted an alcohol licence.

 

The Police had objected to the licence application due to the Rosehill area having high levels of public nuisance and licensed premises. Residents had previously raised concerns regarding the number of licensed premises in the area. The Police Licensing Officer noted that the Cumulative Impact Policy required the applicant to evidence how the premises would not impact on the area and he considered that the applicant could not and had not been able to demonstrate that he will not cause increased cumulative impact. The Police also raised concerns that the applicant had not evidenced how they would promote the four licensing objectives. A visit to the premises by Police had found that there was CCTV on site. However the staff member was unable to use it and the applicant was not on site. The Police raised concerns that no details of alcohol strength had been provided and that the proposed conditions did not address the concerns raised within the representation.

 

In response to Member questions, the Police Licensing Officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.