Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence be GRANTED, subject to the conditions as set out below: · Supply of Alcohol (Off Sales only) Monday to Sunday 7.00hrs to 23.00hrs subject to the conditions set out within Appendix 13 of the Licensing Report, attached hereto. In reaching this decision the Sub-Committee considered the promotion of the four licensing objectives, being the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The Sub-Committee had regard to the statutory guidance and the council’s licensing policy. The Sub-Committee gave weight to there being no objection made to the application from any Responsible Authority. During the consultation period the Applicant had engaged with the Responsible Authorities and had reached agreement as to the wording of the proposed conditions of licence (which is reflected in Appendix 13 of the Licensing Report. The Prevention of Crime & Disorder / the Prevention of Public Nuisance The Sub-Committee considered the written objection/representation of the local resident. The local resident objector did not attend the hearing to expand or amplify his objection to the application. In summary, the local resident objector objected on the basis that the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objection, or alternatively the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective, would be undermined by granting the licence. The resident objector’s concerns were that a further premise licensed to sell off-sales alcohol in the village “will bring anti-social behaviour and people/strangers hanging around drinking in parks and village”. The representation of the local resident was supported by the local business objector, who similarly objected to the Application based on an increase of anti-social behaviour and or nuisance within the park in the locality of the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the business objector operates the local convenience store that is licensed for off-sales of alcohol until 10.30pm – but his store closes at 8.30pm. The business objector indicated that there was no need for a further licensed premises allowing off-sales of alcohol and will lead to an increased likelihood of crime and attract more undesirables to the premises and area. The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises subject to the Application had not been previously licenced. The Sub-Committee understood that the objectors could not provide evidence of ASB or public nuisance directly linked to the licensable activities of the premises given the premises has not been licenced. Notwithstanding this, neither objector provided evidence that this was a current problem involving the park in the locality of the premises (and in the locality of the business objectors own licenced premises). The objections appeared to be based more upon a fear of what may occur rather than exacerbating a current problem the community is experiencing. The business objector accepted that the above was not an issue for his own off-sales of alcohol but indicated his store closes at 8.30pm –and the later off-sales of alcohol up to 11pm was more likely to create disorder and or nuisance. Regarding the above objections, based on the asserted threat to the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives , the Sub-Committee took into account the representations of Gwent Police regarding existing anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) in the park within Abertysswg. Gwent Police fairly indicated that ASB was a common problem in such areas throughout the borough, but it did not have any evidence that connected any ASB within the park to the licensable activity involving the off-sale of alcohol from local licensed premises. The Sub-Committee gave regard to there being another licensed premises currently able to supply off sales alcohol (Post Office/General Store). The Sub-Committee did not reach the view that ASB fuelled by off sales alcohol from nearby licensed premises was an existing problem within the locality of the park adjacent to the premises to which the application relates. Whilst the Sub-Committee could not rule out that a further licensed premises would not alter the existing situation, in its judgement the Sub-Committee determined that such risk was sufficiently low (particularly when considered against the proposed conditions of licence, and the applicant’s prior experience as a designated premises supervisor) that the promotion of the crime and disorder, and the prevention of public nuisance, licensing objectives would be sufficiently protected. The Sub-Committee gave weight to the Applicant’s submission, which should such unlikely risk eventuate then the Licensing Act’s review mechanism could be triggered by concerned residents at any future point in time. On balance, the Sub-Committee were not persuaded that such future unrealised risk to the promotion of the prevention of crime and order, and the prevention of public nuisance, justifies the refusal of the application. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee disregarded the objections based on the perceived lack of “need” for a further licenced premises for off-sales of alcohol. It gave regard to paragraph 14.19 of the Statutory Guidance which makes clear that “need” is not a matter for a licensing authority in discharging both its licensing functions and policy. Further aspects regarding the Prevention of Public Nuisance In the Sub-Committee’s judgement, not much weight was given to the business objector’s objection based on the threat of noise/light nuisance (undermining the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective). The Environmental Health officer did not oppose the application, and perhaps more significantly, no representations in this regard were received from neighbours in the immediate locality of the premises. The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises had been used as a fish and chip shop for many years, and it was not immediately apparent why a convenience store presents more risk of producing noise and light disturbance as opposed to the premises being used as a fish and chip shop trading into the night. Furthermore, the Sub-Committee had been provided with no evidence as to why the perceived increase light/noise disturbance risks would be on account of the licensable activity (off-sales of alcohol) as opposed to the general use of the premises as a convenience store. The Sub-Committee gave weight to the review mechanism within the Licensing Act, which serves as a protective tool to address issues should they arise. On balance, the Sub-Committee reached the view that the proposed licence conditions would adequately promote the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The Sub-Committee were not persuaded by the business objector that the licensable activity would increase the risk for public nuisance on account of an increase in littering in the local area. The Sub-Committee gave consideration to paragraph 2.26 of the Statutory Guidance, which reflects that a licensee will have a diminishing responsibility for people’s nuisance behaviour, such as littering, beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises. The Sub-Committee were of the view that it is a matter of personal responsibility for a customer of the store purchasing alcohol to appropriately dispose of the waste this creates. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee was not persuaded that such a risk justified the refusal of the application. The Sub-Committee gave little weight to the objections to public nuisance on the basis of the proposed CCTV system to be installed to the immediate curtilage of the premises. Such use of CCTV was not in and of itself unlawful and the Applicant would have to abide by any data processing obligations arising under the law. The promotion of Public Safety & the Protection of Children from Harm The Sub-Committee considered objections to the application of the basis that it would fail to promote the licensing objective of public safety. The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Applicant that the premises is benefitting from a complete modern refit with standard safety features. The Responsible Authority responsible for Health and Safety did not raise any objections to the application (however the Sub-Committee took into account the shop fitout had not been completed). The objections received involved the proximity of the premises to a children’s playground, and children would be able to see alcohol in the premises and see people purchasing alcohol. The Sub-Committee, in its judgement, did not find that this would compromise a threat to public safety. The objection on the basis of public safety further asserted that there was a risk that children would witness people consuming alcohol in the park and possibly people who are intoxicated. The Sub-Committee took into account the Applicant’s personal experience in previously managing stores licensed for off-sales of alcohol in his capacity as a designated premises supervisor under the Licensing Act 2003. It would be an offence under such Act for the Applicant to sell alcohol to an intoxicated person and the Applicant would be acutely aware of the same. There Sub-Committee noted that there was no evidence before it that public drunkenness within the park area was a current issue – notwithstanding the PO/General Store being in close proximity to the park and also being licensed for off-sales of alcohol. On weighing the factors, the Sub-Committee were not persuaded that the risk in this instance would justify refusing the application. The business objector raised objections based on the licensable objective of protection of children from harm. The Sub-Committee gave weight to Children’s Services not opposing the application given the proposed conditions of licence had alleviated any of their concerns. The objections in this regard were a repetition of the risk of children seeing alcohol, seeing people purchase alcohol, people consume alcohol within the park. The Sub-Committee considered paragraph 9.12 of the Statutory Code of Guidance and gave weight to Children’s Services being experts in the field of child safety, who do not oppose the application. For reasons outlined above discussing CCTV and consumption of alcohol within park – the Sub-Committee were not persuaded that the Application should be refused on this basis. Objections outside of the licensing objectives The Sub-Committee were presented with several objections to the Application from the business objector that fell outside the scope of the 4 licensing objectives. The business objector’s objections were from the outset a mixture of the relevant and irrelevant objections. Factors such as the increase of commercial competition between similar businesses in a small community, the investment of capital by any party in their respective businesses, the jeopardy of post office services due to such increased commercial competition, tobacco sales – are all beyond the remit of the Sub-Committee and are simply not relevant to the determination of the Application under the Licensing Act 2003. For this reason, the Sub-Committee gave such arguments/submissions no regard in reaching its decision on the Application. Conditions of Premises Licence As the Sub-Committee had determined that there were not sufficient grounds to refuse the Application, it went on to consider the adequacy of proposed conditions of licence in promoting the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the proposed conditions within Appendix 13 were adequate to safeguard the promotion of the licensing objectives, as they covered the principal areas of risk and were sufficiently clear in terms of the obligations on the Applicant. Any person aggrieved by this decision has 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision to appeal to the local Magistrates Court.
Apologies were received from D. Lewis (Childrens Services), and H. Jones (Local Resident).
There were no declarations of interest made at the beginning or during the course of the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence be GRANTED, subject to the conditions as set out below: · Supply of Alcohol (Off Sales only) Monday to Sunday 7.00hrs to 23.00hrs subject to the conditions set out within Appendix 13 of the Licensing Report, attached hereto. In reaching this decision the Sub-Committee considered the promotion of the four licensing objectives, being the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The Sub-Committee had regard to the statutory guidance and the council’s licensing policy. The Sub-Committee gave weight to there being no objection made to the application from any Responsible Authority. During the consultation period the Applicant had engaged with the Responsible Authorities and had reached agreement as to the wording of the proposed conditions of licence (which is reflected in Appendix 13 of the Licensing Report. The Prevention of Crime & Disorder / the Prevention of Public Nuisance The Sub-Committee considered the written objection/representation of the local resident. The local resident objector did not attend the hearing to expand or amplify his objection to the application. In summary, the local resident objector objected on the basis that the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objection, or alternatively the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective, would be undermined by granting the licence. The resident objector’s concerns were that a further premise licensed to sell off-sales alcohol in the village “will bring anti-social behaviour and people/strangers hanging around drinking in parks and village”. The representation of the local resident was supported by the local business objector, who similarly objected to the Application based on an increase of anti-social behaviour and or nuisance within the park in the locality of the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the business objector operates the local convenience store that is licensed for off-sales of alcohol until 10.30pm – but his store closes at 8.30pm. The business objector indicated that there was no need for a further licensed premises allowing off-sales of alcohol and will lead to an increased likelihood of crime and attract more undesirables to the premises and area. The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises subject to the Application had not been previously licenced. The Sub-Committee understood that the objectors could not provide evidence of ASB or public nuisance directly linked to the licensable activities of the premises given the premises has not been licenced. Notwithstanding this, neither objector provided evidence that this was a current problem involving the park in the locality of the premises (and in the locality of the business objectors own licenced premises). The objections appeared to be based more upon a fear of what may occur rather than exacerbating a current problem the community is experiencing. The business objector accepted that the above was not an issue for his own off-sales of alcohol but indicated his store closes at 8.30pm –and the later off-sales of alcohol up to 11pm was more likely to create disorder and or nuisance. Regarding the above objections, based on the asserted threat to the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives , the Sub-Committee took into account the representations of Gwent Police regarding existing anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) in the park within Abertysswg. Gwent Police fairly indicated that ASB was a common problem in such areas throughout the borough, but it did not have any evidence that connected any ASB within the park to the licensable activity involving the off-sale of alcohol from local licensed premises. The Sub-Committee gave regard to there being another licensed premises currently able to supply off sales alcohol (Post Office/General Store). The Sub-Committee did not reach the view that ASB fuelled by off sales alcohol from nearby licensed premises was an existing problem within the locality of the park adjacent to the premises to which the application relates. Whilst the Sub-Committee could not rule out that a further licensed premises would not alter the existing situation, in its judgement the Sub-Committee determined that such risk was sufficiently low (particularly when considered against the proposed conditions of licence, and the applicant’s prior experience as a designated premises supervisor) that the promotion of the crime and disorder, and the prevention of public nuisance, licensing objectives would be sufficiently protected. The Sub-Committee gave weight to the Applicant’s submission, which should such unlikely risk eventuate then the Licensing Act’s review mechanism could be triggered by concerned residents at any future point in time. On balance, the Sub-Committee were not persuaded that such future unrealised risk to the promotion of the prevention of crime and order, and the prevention of public nuisance, justifies the refusal of the application. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee disregarded the objections based on the perceived lack of “need” for a further licenced premises for off-sales of alcohol. It gave regard to paragraph 14.19 of the Statutory Guidance which makes clear that “need” is not a matter for a licensing authority in discharging both its licensing functions and policy. Further aspects regarding the Prevention of Public Nuisance In the Sub-Committee’s judgement, not much weight was given to the business objector’s objection based on the threat of noise/light nuisance (undermining the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective). The Environmental Health officer did not oppose the application, and perhaps more significantly, no representations in this regard were received from neighbours in the immediate locality of the premises. The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises had been used as a fish and chip shop for many years, and it was not immediately apparent why a convenience store presents more risk of producing noise and light disturbance as opposed to the premises being used as a fish and chip shop trading into the night. Furthermore, the Sub-Committee had been provided with no evidence as to why the perceived increase light/noise disturbance risks would be on account of the licensable activity (off-sales of alcohol) as opposed to the general use of the premises as a convenience store. The Sub-Committee gave weight to the review mechanism within the Licensing Act, which serves as a protective tool to address issues should they arise. On balance, the Sub-Committee reached the view that the proposed licence conditions would adequately promote the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The Sub-Committee were not persuaded by the business objector that the licensable activity would increase the risk for public nuisance on account of an increase in littering in the local area. The Sub-Committee gave consideration to paragraph 2.26 of the Statutory Guidance, which reflects that a licensee will have a diminishing responsibility for people’s nuisance behaviour, such as littering, beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises. The Sub-Committee were of the view that it is a matter of personal responsibility for a customer of the store purchasing alcohol to appropriately dispose of the waste this creates. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee was not persuaded that such a risk justified the refusal of the application. The Sub-Committee gave little weight to the objections to public nuisance on the basis of the proposed CCTV system to be installed to the immediate curtilage of the premises. Such use of CCTV was not in and of itself unlawful and the Applicant would have to abide by any data processing obligations arising under the law. The promotion of Public Safety & the Protection of Children from Harm The Sub-Committee considered objections to the application of the basis that it would fail to promote the licensing objective of public safety. The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Applicant that the premises is benefitting from a complete modern refit with standard safety features. The Responsible Authority responsible for Health and Safety did not raise any objections to the application (however the Sub-Committee took into account the shop fitout had not been completed). The objections received involved the proximity of the premises to a children’s playground, and children would be able to see alcohol in the premises and see people purchasing alcohol. The Sub-Committee, in its judgement, did not find that this would compromise a threat to public safety. The objection on the basis of public safety further asserted that there was a risk that children would witness people consuming alcohol in the park and possibly people who are intoxicated. The Sub-Committee took into account the Applicant’s personal experience in previously managing stores licensed for off-sales of alcohol in his capacity as a designated premises supervisor under the Licensing Act 2003. It would be an offence under such Act for the Applicant to sell alcohol to an intoxicated person and the Applicant would be acutely aware of the same. There Sub-Committee noted that there was no evidence before it that public drunkenness within the park area was a current issue – notwithstanding the PO/General Store being in close proximity to the park and also being licensed for off-sales of alcohol. On weighing the factors, the Sub-Committee were not persuaded that the risk in this instance would justify refusing the application. The business objector raised objections based on the licensable objective of protection of children from harm. The Sub-Committee gave weight to Children’s Services not opposing the application given the proposed conditions of licence had alleviated any of their concerns. The objections in this regard were a repetition of the risk of children seeing alcohol, seeing people purchase alcohol, people consume alcohol within the park. The Sub-Committee considered paragraph 9.12 of the Statutory Code of Guidance and gave weight to Children’s Services being experts in the field of child safety, who do not oppose the application. For reasons outlined above discussing CCTV and consumption of alcohol within park – the Sub-Committee were not persuaded that the Application should be refused on this basis. Objections outside of the licensing objectives The Sub-Committee were presented with several objections to the Application from the business objector that fell outside the scope of the 4 licensing objectives. The business objector’s objections were from the outset a mixture of the relevant and irrelevant objections. Factors such as the increase of commercial competition between similar businesses in a small community, the investment of capital by any party in their respective businesses, the jeopardy of post office services due to such increased commercial competition, tobacco sales – are all beyond the remit of the Sub-Committee and are simply not relevant to the determination of the Application under the Licensing Act 2003. For this reason, the Sub-Committee gave such arguments/submissions no regard in reaching its decision on the Application. Conditions of Premises Licence As the Sub-Committee had determined that there were not sufficient grounds to refuse the Application, it went on to consider the adequacy of proposed conditions of licence in promoting the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the proposed conditions within Appendix 13 were adequate to safeguard the promotion of the licensing objectives, as they covered the principal areas of risk and were sufficiently clear in terms of the obligations on the Applicant. Any person aggrieved by this decision has 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision to appeal to the local Magistrates Court.
The Chair opened the meeting and introductions were made. The Senior Licensing Officer advised that they had not heard from a local resident H. Jones since serving papers of the hearing and that they were not present for the hearing. The Legal Advisor outlined the procedure for the meeting and reported that Members had previously familiarised themselves with the report of the Licensing Officer, the application and plan of the premises together with the written submissions from the Police as a Responsible Authority and Local Residents who were objecting to the application. The Senior Licensing Officer presented the Licensing Managers report which outlined the application submitted for grant of a New Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for K J Convenience Store, 20 The Green, Abertysswg, Rhymney NP22 5AA with the proposed operating hours for the supply of alcohol (off sales only). Sale of Alcohol (off sales only) § Monday to Sunday 07.00am – 23.00pm The Senior Licensing Officer then referred to representations received in relation to the application from the Police as a Responsible Authority and Other Persons i.e. Residents that were set out within the report. Copies of which were circulated with the agenda. Attention was then drawn to the local policy considerations as set out within the report and to the way in which the Sub Committee should deal with the application. It was explained that the Sub Committee must have regard to the report, the representations made and to the evidence heard. It must take such steps as is considered necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives and could: - · Grant the application as requested to include, where appropriate, mandatory conditions · Modify the conditions specified in the operating schedule by altering, omitting, or adding to them. · Reject the whole or part of the application. Confirmation was requested from the Chair and Panel that they had received the statement from Mr Bawja, which was submitted to the Council by email on Sunday 24th March 2024. The Chair confirmed that the panel had received the statement. It was confirmed that the applicant and agent had also had sight of the statement. Reference was made to a petition that had been referred to in the report and Members were advised that the petition was not part of the formal bundle because having received the petition, the authority felt that the comments contained within it were not relevant in relation to the licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003, and also the reference, the keeping of 20 The Green as the village Fish and Chip shop, again with no reference to the licensing objectives. The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to make their submissions. Mr Rajesh advised that his client Mr Nagaratnam and his wife had lived and worked in the area for the last two years holding a licence within this Council and had never had any issues. This was their first business owned by them and that they had invested their life savings into this business. The premises is currently under refurbishment, and everything would be new. Members were advised that the business would be relying on the local community and that Mr Nagaratnam, and his wife wanted to stress the importance of ensuring everyone’s safety and reassured the local community that all measures had been taken to promote the licensing objectives. It was confirmed that as part of those objectives in preventing crime and disorder reasonable lighting and CCTV cameras were in the process of being installed and the recordings would be kept for 30 days and could be viewed by any authorities if required and that any incidents would be reported to the police. There would be prominent signs informing customers of all safety procedures and clear signs for any public nuisance, protection of children from harm would be a main priority and there would be a challenge 25 policy which will be strictly implemented, and fully trained staff would carry out the relevant ID checks, and training would be refreshed regularly. The new till system would have a till prompt whenever there is a sale of any item that has an age restricted product, and the staff would ask for Identification before proceeding with the sale of the items. Members were advised that Mr Nagaratnam had fully complied with and worked with all the Responsible Authorities to ensure that all the licensing objectives are met. In relation to the concerns raised by residents on crime and disorder Mr Nagaratnam respects these concerns and pointed out that this was a convenience shop and not to be compared with local pubs. It was also confirmed that the police had no objection to the licence being granted. Mr Rajesh stated in relation to the second objection, which had come from a local business which would be seen as competition and if the licence were to be granted t there would be more restrictions on his client’s premises than there was on the competitors business. Members were advised that Mr Nagaratnam had spoken to some residents, and it was felt that competition would be good for the community. Mr Rajesh stated that he believed that competition was not a ground to make an objection, and it was not a licensing objective. Mr Rajesh commented that under the Licensing Act 2003 if there were any issues in the licensed venues, a review can be called by any parties with the short notice and felt that the application should be granted. The Chair sought clarification on how many people would be employed in the store at anyone time. It was confirmed that there would be two members of staff. The Chair invited the Responsible Authorities to make their representations. PC. Taylor addressed the Sub Committee outlining the representations included within the report and confirmed the applicant had agreed to the suggested additional conditions. Therefore, the Police had no objection to the application as it was felt that the conditions were robust enough to mitigate any antisocial behaviour. The Chair requested clarity on the anti-social behaviour situation in the area. PC Taylor confirmed that there was no evidence that suggests that this application would exasperate anti-social behaviour within the area or that they would add to the demand of police for anti-social behaviour. The Senior Trading Standards Officer outlined their representations and confirmed they had no objections to the application. The Assistant Licensing Manager addressed the Sub Committee outlining the representations included within the report and confirmed the applicant had agreed to the suggested additional conditions. Therefore, the Licensing Authority in its role as a responsible authority had no objection to the application. Mr Bawja stated that the condition to install a till prompt was not an additional condition as all tills have this prompt. The Senior Licensing Officer advised that this condition was there to strengthen the fact and that it must be on there and working. Mr Bawja sought clarification on the number of staff working from 7:00AM until 11:00PM as that would be a long day for staff to be working. It was confirmed that this would not be the same person covering all the time, staff would rotate, there were 6 members of staff some were full time, and some were part time. Refence was made to the premises operating previously as a fish and chip shop and that residents would be losing that. There was a petition signed by 450 residents to keep the fish and chip shop and sought confirmation as to whether that would be considered. The Legal Officer confirmed that it would be up to the Sub Committee to deliberate on when making their decision. The Legal Officer sought clarification from the statement and representations provided by Mr Bawja on where it referred to noise nuisance and light nuisance possibly emanating from the premises and increase of rubbish and waste being left in a public space and asked why he felt it would be a risk compared to when it was a chip shop. Mr Bajwa confirmed that he felt it would be a nuisance as the premises would be open later than the chip shop that closed at 10:00PM and then would affect neighbouring houses who have to get up for work and could have people hanging around after 11:00PM and this could increase rubbish if people went into the park to drink alcohol purchased from the premises, and they leave the rubbish there. When questioned as to whether this happens currently, Mr Bawja confirmed that these are issues that have not been witnessed currently. All parties were then afforded the opportunity to sum up before the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee retired to make its decision. In closing the Senior Licensing Officer asked Members to consider all the representations before them, the evidence heard at the meeting, and all Licensing guidance when making their decision. The Sub Committee were reminded of the need to consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives and whether the applicant would be able to meet the same. Mr Rajesh in summing up stated that there are two pubs in the area that are open serving alcohol on the premises at the same hours, but the alcohol sold at the convenience store would be as part of the grocery shop and there would be restrictions on sales by trained staff. The business would rely on residents and his client would not do anything to harm the residents, undermine the licensing objectives, or jeopardise his livelihood. The Police stated that they had no further comments and confirmed their position that they have no objection to the application. The Senior Trading Standards Officer had no further comments. The Assistant Licensing Manager had no further comments. Mr Bawja summed up by stating that he runs the post office which is a vital service to the Community which would be jeopardised and hoped that this would be considered when making the decision. The Legal Advisor informed all parties present that the Sub Committee would retire to consider the representations made at the meeting and they would be informed in writing of the decision in the next 5 days. The Sub Committee retired at 11.05am to make its decision and all other parties left the meeting. Following consideration of the application for a new premises licence at KJ Convenience Store, 20 The Green, Abertysswg, Rhymney NP22 5AA and having regard to the Licensing Manager’s report and all the representations made, the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee unanimously. RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence be GRANTED, subject to the conditions as set out below: · Supply of Alcohol (Off Sales only) Monday to Sunday 7.00hrs to 23.00hrs subject to the conditions set out within Appendix 13 of the Licensing Report, attached hereto. In reaching this decision the Sub-Committee considered the promotion of the four licensing objectives, being the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The Sub-Committee had regard to the statutory guidance and the council’s licensing policy. The Sub-Committee gave weight to there being no objection made to the application from any Responsible Authority. During the consultation period the Applicant had engaged with the Responsible Authorities and had reached agreement as to the wording of the proposed conditions of licence (which is reflected in Appendix 13 of the Licensing Report. The Prevention of Crime & Disorder / the Prevention of Public Nuisance The Sub-Committee considered the written objection/representation of the local resident. The local resident objector did not attend the hearing to expand or amplify his objection to the application. In summary, the local resident objector objected on the basis that the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objection, or alternatively the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective, would be undermined by granting the licence. The resident objector’s concerns were that a further premise licensed to sell off-sales alcohol in the village “will bring anti-social behaviour and people/strangers hanging around drinking in parks and village”. The representation of the local resident was supported by the local business objector, who similarly objected to the Application based on an increase of anti-social behaviour and or nuisance within the park in the locality of the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the business objector operates the local convenience store that is licensed for off-sales of alcohol until 10.30pm – but his store closes at 8.30pm. The business objector indicated that there was no need for a further licensed premises allowing off-sales of alcohol and will lead to an increased likelihood of crime and attract more undesirables to the premises and area. The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises subject to the Application had not been previously licenced. The Sub-Committee understood that the objectors could not provide evidence of ASB or public nuisance directly linked to the licensable activities of the premises given the premises has not been licenced. Notwithstanding this, neither objector provided evidence that this was a current problem involving the park in the locality of the premises (and in the locality of the business objectors own licenced premises). The objections appeared to be based more upon a fear of what may occur rather than exacerbating a current problem the community is experiencing. The business objector accepted that the above was not an issue for his own off-sales of alcohol but indicated his store closes at 8.30pm –and the later off-sales of alcohol up to 11pm was more likely to create disorder and or nuisance. Regarding the above objections, based on the asserted threat to the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives , the Sub-Committee took into account the representations of Gwent Police regarding existing anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) in the park within Abertysswg. Gwent Police fairly indicated that ASB was a common problem in such areas throughout the borough, but it did not have any evidence that connected any ASB within the park to the licensable activity involving the off-sale of alcohol from local licensed premises. The Sub-Committee gave regard to there being another licensed premises currently able to supply off sales alcohol (Post Office/General Store). The Sub-Committee did not reach the view that ASB fuelled by off sales alcohol from nearby licensed premises was an existing problem within the locality of the park adjacent to the premises to which the application relates. Whilst the Sub-Committee could not rule out that a further licensed premises would not alter the existing situation, in its judgement the Sub-Committee determined that such risk was sufficiently low (particularly when considered against the proposed conditions of licence, and the applicant’s prior experience as a designated premises supervisor) that the promotion of the crime and disorder, and the prevention of public nuisance, licensing objectives would be sufficiently protected. The Sub-Committee gave weight to the Applicant’s submission, which should such unlikely risk eventuate then the Licensing Act’s review mechanism could be triggered by concerned residents at any future point in time. On balance, the Sub-Committee were not persuaded that such future unrealised risk to the promotion of the prevention of crime and order, and the prevention of public nuisance, justifies the refusal of the application. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee disregarded the objections based on the perceived lack of “need” for a further licenced premises for off-sales of alcohol. It gave regard to paragraph 14.19 of the Statutory Guidance which makes clear that “need” is not a matter for a licensing authority in discharging both its licensing functions and policy. Further aspects regarding the Prevention of Public Nuisance In the Sub-Committee’s judgement, not much weight was given to the business objector’s objection based on the threat of noise/light nuisance (undermining the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective). The Environmental Health officer did not oppose the application, and perhaps more significantly, no representations in this regard were received from neighbours in the immediate locality of the premises. The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises had been used as a fish and chip shop for many years, and it was not immediately apparent why a convenience store presents more risk of producing noise and light disturbance as opposed to the premises being used as a fish and chip shop trading into the night. Furthermore, the Sub-Committee had been provided with no evidence as to why the perceived increase light/noise disturbance risks would be on account of the licensable activity (off-sales of alcohol) as opposed to the general use of the premises as a convenience store. The Sub-Committee gave weight to the review mechanism within the Licensing Act, which serves as a protective tool to address issues should they arise. On balance, the Sub-Committee reached the view that the proposed licence conditions would adequately promote the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The Sub-Committee were not persuaded by the business objector that the licensable activity would increase the risk for public nuisance on account of an increase in littering in the local area. The Sub-Committee gave consideration to paragraph 2.26 of the Statutory Guidance, which reflects that a licensee will have a diminishing responsibility for people’s nuisance behaviour, such as littering, beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises. The Sub-Committee were of the view that it is a matter of personal responsibility for a customer of the store purchasing alcohol to appropriately dispose of the waste this creates. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee was not persuaded that such a risk justified the refusal of the application. The Sub-Committee gave little weight to the objections to public nuisance on the basis of the proposed CCTV system to be installed to the immediate curtilage of the premises. Such use of CCTV was not in and of itself unlawful and the Applicant would have to abide by any data processing obligations arising under the law. The promotion of Public Safety & the Protection of Children from Harm The Sub-Committee considered objections to the application of the basis that it would fail to promote the licensing objective of public safety. The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Applicant that the premises is benefitting from a complete modern refit with standard safety features. The Responsible Authority responsible for Health and Safety did not raise any objections to the application (however the Sub-Committee took into account the shop fitout had not been completed). The objections received involved the proximity of the premises to a children’s playground, and children would be able to see alcohol in the premises and see people purchasing alcohol. The Sub-Committee, in its judgement, did not find that this would compromise a threat to public safety. The objection on the basis of public safety further asserted that there was a risk that children would witness people consuming alcohol in the park and possibly people who are intoxicated. The Sub-Committee took into account the Applicant’s personal experience in previously managing stores licensed for off-sales of alcohol in his capacity as a designated premises supervisor under the Licensing Act 2003. It would be an offence under such Act for the Applicant to sell alcohol to an intoxicated person and the Applicant would be acutely aware of the same. There Sub-Committee noted that there was no evidence before it that public drunkenness within the park area was a current issue – notwithstanding the PO/General Store being in close proximity to the park and also being licensed for off-sales of alcohol. On weighing the factors, the Sub-Committee were not persuaded that the risk in this instance would justify refusing the application. The business objector raised objections based on the licensable objective of protection of children from harm. The Sub-Committee gave weight to Children’s Services not opposing the application given the proposed conditions of licence had alleviated any of their concerns. The objections in this regard were a repetition of the risk of children seeing alcohol, seeing people purchase alcohol, people consume alcohol within the park. The Sub-Committee considered paragraph 9.12 of the Statutory Code of Guidance and gave weight to Children’s Services being experts in the field of child safety, who do not oppose the application. For reasons outlined above discussing CCTV and consumption of alcohol within park – the Sub-Committee were not persuaded that the Application should be refused on this basis. Objections outside of the licensing objectives The Sub-Committee were presented with several objections to the Application from the business objector that fell outside the scope of the 4 licensing objectives. The business objector’s objections were from the outset a mixture of the relevant and irrelevant objections. Factors such as the increase of commercial competition between similar businesses in a small community, the investment of capital by any party in their respective businesses, the jeopardy of post office services due to such increased commercial competition, tobacco sales – are all beyond the remit of the Sub-Committee and are simply not relevant to the determination of the Application under the Licensing Act 2003. For this reason, the Sub-Committee gave such arguments/submissions no regard in reaching its decision on the Application. Conditions of Premises Licence As the Sub-Committee had determined that there were not sufficient grounds to refuse the Application, it went on to consider the adequacy of proposed conditions of licence in promoting the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the proposed conditions within Appendix 13 were adequate to safeguard the promotion of the licensing objectives, as they covered the principal areas of risk and were sufficiently clear in terms of the obligations on the Applicant. Any person aggrieved by this decision has 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision to appeal to the local Magistrates Court.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.