Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED that the application for a variation of the premises hours to supply alcohol (off sales only) from Monday to Sunday between 06:00 hours and 01:00 hours be REFUSED. In making their decision, the Sub Committee considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, revised Home Office Guidance and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee gave weight to the representations made by Gwent Police and took account of paragraph 9.12 of the “Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003” (“the Guidance”). It appeared to be common ground that the village of Rhymney does has issues regarding the amount of anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder within its community. The Sub Committee noted the Applicant’s challenge to the Gwent Police data used to underpin its representations by claiming a wider geographical area was used to collate such data rather than Victoria Road Rhymney, however the Sub Committee was satisfied that the data presented related to the 60 recorded incidents within Victoria Road between August 2021 and September 2022. In assessing the weight of the Gwent Police representations, the Sub Committee held into account that there was a lack of detail in how many of the 60 incidents involved alcohol as a factor and what time of day such incidents took place. The Sub Committee acknowledged that the absence of such analysis reduced the veracity of such evidence. However, the Sub Committee took into account the unusual circumstance of Home Office funding being used to support how Gwent Police are addressing the anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder within Rhymney and this was a strong indication of this being a community that does have sustained and continuing issues in this regard. The Sub Committee considered that there were no resident objections to the application to increase the hours for the sale of alcohol. The Sub Committee gave due weight to the evidence present by way of a petition from customers. It did not accept the representation that all of the signatories were customers from the immediate area and the addresses appeared to indicate a mixture of individuals from those residing very close to the premises to others residing outside of Rhymney itself. In turn the Sub Committee did not give a lot of weight to the representation from the local authority’s Environmental Health section. The premises has been operating as a 24-hour petrol station and small convenience store since August 2021 and there have been no service requests made of them in regards to the operation of such business. The Sub Committee was not persuaded by the Applicant that to refuse the variation application it would need to be shown direct evidence that the premises had caused issues in terms of the carrying out of its licensable activities. Given that all off-sale of alcohol in Rhymney after 23:00 hours was currently only possible from premises that also have an on-sale alcohol sale licence, it would not be possible for the Responsible Authorities to provide direct evidence of the impact of off-sales from convenience type stores within Rhymney in the hours between 23:00 and 01:00. In this regard the Sub Committee accepted that the issues being raised by the Responsible Authorities would largely be anticipatory. The Sub Committee took into account the Guidance at paragraph 9.4 where there is no requirement for a responsible authority to produce a recorded history of problems to support their representations. The Sub Committee did not give much weight to the two incidents of burglary at the premises and the alleged lack of co-operation from the employee witness. The Sub Committee largely accepted the Applicant’s view that management had cooperated with the Police and the risk of such burglaries was inherent in the type of business being operated rather than the licensable activity itself. The Sub Committee reached the view that the promotion of the licencing objective, namely the prevention of crime and disorder, would not be adequately promoted should the variation be granted. The Sub Committee reached the view that increasing the availability of off-sale alcohol from a convenience type store setting within the village of Rhymney for a further 3½ hours each day, would undermine such licencing objective. On balance, the Sub Committee were not sufficiently confident in the Applicant’s ability to promote such licencing objective. In reaching this view the Sub Committee took into account the breaches of the existing licence. Whilst the Sub Committee recognised that such breaches were rectified quickly, for breaches to have occurred were a concern. The Applicant’s evidence was that he has held his personal licence for many years without issue and has a significant degree of experience in operating similar licensed premises. The Sub Committee reached the view that the conditions placed upon the premises is August last year were not unusual and of a routine nature. Notwithstanding, there were three breaches of the same when a recent inspection was undertaken (Challenge 25 signage, staff training record, and operation of CCTV equipment). In addition, a need to vary the licence plan had not been identified by the Applicant. The Sub Committee considered that the increased hours for off-sales and the increased risk to the promotion of the licencing objective that would result (given the late and early hours alcohol could continue to be purchased) requires it to have full confidence that all licence conditions would be complied with at all times. The Sub Committee, whilst acknowledging that there was no strict legal obligation on the Applicant to consult relevant parties prior to submitting the variation application, it was a concern that the Applicant had chosen not to do so in this instance. This further eroded the Sub Committee’s confidence that a variation to the licence would promote the licensing objective (prevention of crime and disorder). It was clear that the location of the premises is within an area that has particular challenges and the evidence from Gwent Police indicated that the level of management of anti-social behaviour/crime and disorder within this community was one of the most intensive within the Gwent area. Notwithstanding, the Applicant has not offered any alterations to the operating schedule that would take those prevailing issues into account. The Sub Committee took into account paragraph 5.7 and 19.7 of its policy in this regard. The decision notice advised that any person aggrieved by the decision had the right to appeal to the local Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision.
There were no apologies for absence received.
There were no declarations of interest made at the beginning or during the course of the meeting.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED that the application for a variation of the premises hours to supply alcohol (off sales only) from Monday to Sunday between 06:00 hours and 01:00 hours be REFUSED. In making their decision, the Sub Committee considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, revised Home Office Guidance and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee gave weight to the representations made by Gwent Police and took account of paragraph 9.12 of the “Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003” (“the Guidance”). It appeared to be common ground that the village of Rhymney does has issues regarding the amount of anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder within its community. The Sub Committee noted the Applicant’s challenge to the Gwent Police data used to underpin its representations by claiming a wider geographical area was used to collate such data rather than Victoria Road Rhymney, however the Sub Committee was satisfied that the data presented related to the 60 recorded incidents within Victoria Road between August 2021 and September 2022. In assessing the weight of the Gwent Police representations, the Sub Committee held into account that there was a lack of detail in how many of the 60 incidents involved alcohol as a factor and what time of day such incidents took place. The Sub Committee acknowledged that the absence of such analysis reduced the veracity of such evidence. However, the Sub Committee took into account the unusual circumstance of Home Office funding being used to support how Gwent Police are addressing the anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder within Rhymney and this was a strong indication of this being a community that does have sustained and continuing issues in this regard. The Sub Committee considered that there were no resident objections to the application to increase the hours for the sale of alcohol. The Sub Committee gave due weight to the evidence present by way of a petition from customers. It did not accept the representation that all of the signatories were customers from the immediate area and the addresses appeared to indicate a mixture of individuals from those residing very close to the premises to others residing outside of Rhymney itself. In turn the Sub Committee did not give a lot of weight to the representation from the local authority’s Environmental Health section. The premises has been operating as a 24-hour petrol station and small convenience store since August 2021 and there have been no service requests made of them in regards to the operation of such business. The Sub Committee was not persuaded by the Applicant that to refuse the variation application it would need to be shown direct evidence that the premises had caused issues in terms of the carrying out of its licensable activities. Given that all off-sale of alcohol in Rhymney after 23:00 hours was currently only possible from premises that also have an on-sale alcohol sale licence, it would not be possible for the Responsible Authorities to provide direct evidence of the impact of off-sales from convenience type stores within Rhymney in the hours between 23:00 and 01:00. In this regard the Sub Committee accepted that the issues being raised by the Responsible Authorities would largely be anticipatory. The Sub Committee took into account the Guidance at paragraph 9.4 where there is no requirement for a responsible authority to produce a recorded history of problems to support their representations. The Sub Committee did not give much weight to the two incidents of burglary at the premises and the alleged lack of co-operation from the employee witness. The Sub Committee largely accepted the Applicant’s view that management had cooperated with the Police and the risk of such burglaries was inherent in the type of business being operated rather than the licensable activity itself. The Sub Committee reached the view that the promotion of the licencing objective, namely the prevention of crime and disorder, would not be adequately promoted should the variation be granted. The Sub Committee reached the view that increasing the availability of off-sale alcohol from a convenience type store setting within the village of Rhymney for a further 3½ hours each day, would undermine such licencing objective. On balance, the Sub Committee were not sufficiently confident in the Applicant’s ability to promote such licencing objective. In reaching this view the Sub Committee took into account the breaches of the existing licence. Whilst the Sub Committee recognised that such breaches were rectified quickly, for breaches to have occurred were a concern. The Applicant’s evidence was that he has held his personal licence for many years without issue and has a significant degree of experience in operating similar licensed premises. The Sub Committee reached the view that the conditions placed upon the premises is August last year were not unusual and of a routine nature. Notwithstanding, there were three breaches of the same when a recent inspection was undertaken (Challenge 25 signage, staff training record, and operation of CCTV equipment). In addition, a need to vary the licence plan had not been identified by the Applicant. The Sub Committee considered that the increased hours for off-sales and the increased risk to the promotion of the licencing objective that would result (given the late and early hours alcohol could continue to be purchased) requires it to have full confidence that all licence conditions would be complied with at all times. The Sub Committee, whilst acknowledging that there was no strict legal obligation on the Applicant to consult relevant parties prior to submitting the variation application, it was a concern that the Applicant had chosen not to do so in this instance. This further eroded the Sub Committee’s confidence that a variation to the licence would promote the licensing objective (prevention of crime and disorder). It was clear that the location of the premises is within an area that has particular challenges and the evidence from Gwent Police indicated that the level of management of anti-social behaviour/crime and disorder within this community was one of the most intensive within the Gwent area. Notwithstanding, the Applicant has not offered any alterations to the operating schedule that would take those prevailing issues into account. The Sub Committee took into account paragraph 5.7 and 19.7 of its policy in this regard. The decision notice advised that any person aggrieved by the decision had the right to appeal to the local Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision.
The Legal Advisor to the Sub Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting, including the order of representations and the opportunities for all parties to ask questions. Mrs Kathryn Hopkins (Senior Licensing Officer) presented the report and outlined the application for the variation of a premises licence at Rhymney Garage, Victoria Road, Rhymney. Members were advised that the application sought to increase the existing timings for the Supply of Alcohol (Off Sales only) between Monday to Sunday inclusive, 06:00 – 01:00. It was noted that the existing licensable hours at the premises were Monday to Sunday, inclusive 07:30 – 23:00 and essentially the application sought to increase these timings by an extra 1.5 hours in the morning and an extra 2 hours at night. The Sub Committee were advised that the original premises licence was approved following a Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee meeting on 13th August 2021. The applicant initially applied for a 24-hour licence to sell alcohol, but this was revised by the applicant during the consultation period to reflect 05:00 to 02:00. However, at the hearing, Members determined to approve the sale of alcohol between 07:30 to 23:00. During the 28-day consultation period, objections to the application were received from Gwent Police, the Licensing Authority in their role as Responsible Authority, Environmental Health (Noise Pollution Team) and Trading Standards. Further details and a summary of the representations were set out in Sections 1.8 and 1.9 of the report. It was noted that no representations were received from Environmental Health (Health and Safety Team), Children’s Services or Other Persons (local residents). Members were advised that the Gwent Police objection identified that the licensable hours for premises with off-sales provision in the vicinity of Rhymney Garage typically end between 22:30 to 23:00. The Sub Committee were referred to Appendix 5 of the report which set out the licensable hours of these premises and it was highlighted that further to the information contained in this appendix, three of these premises cease off-sales provision at 22:30 on Sundays. It was noted that the applicant had not responded to the objections from the Responsible Authorities, but the applicant’s agent had submitted a petition consisting of 29 names and addresses of individuals in support of the individuals in support of the application to sell alcohol between 06:00 to 01:00, and a redacted copy of the petition was included at Appendix 12 of the report. Attention was drawn to the local policy considerations as set out in the report and to the way in which the Sub-Committee would deal with the application. The Sub Committee were referred to the recommendation set out in the Licensing Officer’s report, which had regard to the objections received from Gwent Police, Licensing Authority and Environmental Health, supported by the comments of Trading Standards, and recommended that the application to vary the premises licence be refused. All parties present were afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the Licensing Officer, and in response to a Member’s queries about an incident at the premises on 26th January 2022 and the steps being taken by the applicant to promote the objectives, it was confirmed that Gwent Police and the applicant would have the opportunity to respond to these questions when making their representations. Representations were then invited from the applicant, Rhymney Garage. Mr Rajesh (Licensing Consultant) addressed the Sub Committee on behalf of his client, Mr Piratheepan (applicant). Mr Rajesh explained that his client was an experienced personal licence holder with an excellent track record and a number of years of experience in managing 24-hour venues. Mr Rajesh summarised the history of the premises to date, explaining that this is a mini supermarket with a small-scale petrol station and sells a variety of groceries, including alcohol. The Sub Committee were advised that although the garage operates on a 24-hour basis, the licensable hours are restricted to 07:30 to 23:00, and therefore his client receives regular requests from customers for the licensable hours to reflect the garage opening times. Although the garage does not experience a large volume of trade late at night, they do have some regular customers around this time, and so the variation application had been submitted in order to accommodate these requests and retain this customer base. Mr Rajesh explained that the premises had consulted with local residents and that the petition had been signed by customers during the last few days of the consultation, once they had learned of the objections received from Gwent Police and other Responsible Authorities. At this point it was noted that Councillor John Roberts had lost connection to the meeting, and the proceedings and webcast were paused for a few moments to allow the Member the opportunity to reconnect. However, it was established that Councillor Roberts was experiencing technical difficulties outside of his control and would be unable to reconnect or re-join the meeting. The Chair confirmed that the meeting remained quorate and that the remainder of the proceedings would continue with the two Sub Committee Members who were still in attendance. The proceedings and webcast were resumed at 10.40 a.m. and Mr Rajesh was invited to continue with his representation. Mr Rajesh highlighted the frustration and disappointment of his client as a result of some comments made by the Responsible Authorities in their objections, as he felt these did not provide an accurate representation of the premises. Mr Rajesh then referred to the objections from each Responsible Authority and highlighted points requiring clarification or challenge. In terms of the Trading Standards representation which stated a failure in respect of Challenge 25 by not having appropriate signage on display, Mr Rajesh explained that his client had heavily invested in an EPOS terminal which notifies the operator every time an alcohol or tobacco sale is made and asks the operator to verify the customer age before completing the sale. In Mr Rajesh’s view, this was a far more effective process than merely displaying a notice on the wall. However, he acknowledged that that the signage was a licensable condition but had fallen off the wall and been missed during inspection, but was reinstalled once it was brought to their attention. Mr Rajesh re-emphasised that his client was in full compliance with the Challenge 25 requirement and that even though the premises had a much more effective process in place, they would ensure the required signage is displayed in future in order to comply with the condition. Mr Rajesh also raised concerns around the comment made by Trading Standards which stated that a recent test purchase exercise in the Rhymney area revealed that children under the age of 18 are accessing alcohol. Mr Rajesh stated that in the last 14-15 months of trading, no test purchases had taken place at the premises, and no complaints had been received around underage sales by the premises. Hence there was no direct evidence linking underage sales with Rhymney Garage and he strongly challenged the inclusion of this particular point in the Trading Standards representation. Mr Rajesh then turned his attention to the Gwent Police representation, and disputed the accuracy of figures provided by the police in terms of calls to Victoria Road between August 2021 and September 2022. He claimed that this information was at odds with the data available on the www.police.uk website which demonstrates that crime in the Moriah area is falling month-on-month, and held the view that the figures cited by Gwent Police in their representation were not directly linked to the application. Mr Rajesh acknowledged the issues around crime and disorder in the Rhymney area, but explained that his client viewed this as a developing area requiring positive investment and therefore the area was in need of viable businesses such as Rhymney Garage which can bring about employment opportunities and growth. Mr Rajesh also stated that as the premises are open 24 hours a day, the lights and CCTV are left on, which provides a continual monitoring presence and security reassurance along Victoria Road. Mr Rajesh referred to the theft at the premises in January 2022, stating that this could have happened anywhere to any business and was not linked to the premises selling alcohol. He acknowledged that the staff member present during the theft had refused to provide a statement to the police for personal reasons, although the premises did provide CCTV footage of the incident to the police, and the staff member’s employment was terminated soon afterwards for breach of contract in failing to co-operate with the police. Mr Rajesh reiterated that since the premises had commenced 24/7 trading, there had not been a single alcohol-related incident in the premises or in the neighbouring vicinity, and no public complaints had been received relating to alcohol disorder, noise issues or underage sales. He emphasised that his client should be permitted to operate a viable business and that the authorities need to allow this to happen through the variation of hours, and that it was not conducive to apply a blanket ban on extended trading hours to all premises in the area, as these businesses would not be able to thrive and bring about the investment needed to improve the local environment. Mr Rajesh also referred to Appendix 5 of the report which set out the licensed premises in the vicinity and their licensable hours for alcohol off sales and alcohol on/off sales. He highlighted that some of these are public houses which operate until 03:30 and questioned the difference between stopping off-sales at 23:00 at some premises and allowing on/off sales until 03:30 at other premises. He stated that many people go to a pub for the specific purpose of becoming intoxicated but that this is not the case for customers at Rhymney Garage, and also that his client does not serve alcohol or tobacco products to any troublemakers as a standard practice. Mr Rajesh then referred the Sub Committee to the representation from Environmental Health (Noise Pollution), which objected to the application on the basis that the area is primarily residential and that any variation of hours at the premises could lead to residential disturbance and undermine the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective. Mr Rajesh emphasised that no local residents had complained about the garage to Environmental Health, despite it being open 24/7, and pointed out that a number of local residents had signed the petition in support of the variation application. Mr Rajesh stated that there was no direct evidence contained in the representation and that it consisted of mere speculation by this Responsible Authority. In terms of the representation from the Licensing Authority as a Responsible Authority, Mr Rajesh stated that objections to the variation were based on all four Licensing Objectives but that there was no direct evidence to back up these concerns. Additionally, he felt that the content of this representation had been lifted directly from the Trading Standards and Gwent Police objections. Mr Rajesh also stated that although the representation referred to a failure by the applicant to contact the Responsible Authorities to discuss his proposals, he countered that the Licensing Authority had also stated on the representation that they were not prepared to mediate their objections with the applicant, and he therefore questioned the relevance of this particular point within the representation. In summarising his representation, Mr Rajesh stated that under the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, Rhymney is not recognised as a Cumulative Impact Zone or Special Policy Area, and therefore claimed that the Sub Committee could not reject this application without any direct evidence against the premises. He reiterated that there has not been a single complaint made against Rhymney Garage, even though they have been trading 24 hours a day over the last 14-15 months. Mr Rajesh also emphasised that there are a number of conditions in place on the existing licence to promote the Licensing Objectives and reminded the Sub Committee that there is the ability to bring the premises forward for review if desired. Mr Rajesh expressed the wish of his client to run a decent and profitable business with extended licensable hours as per the wishes of local residents, and that this vision was being restricted by local bureaucracy. He also suggested that his client was being treated unfairly by the Responsible Authorities in that they were objecting to the application without these concerns being supported by any direct or factual evidence. All parties present were afforded the opportunity to ask questions. In response to Members’ queries around the lack of staff co-operation following the theft in January 2022, Mr Rajesh explained that the business provided the CCTV recordings and all other necessary information as requested in order to fully co-operate with the police. However, two staff members refused to give a statement, despite the best efforts of Mr Piratheepan, and these individuals were subsequently dismissed for breach of contract. In response to a query on the omittance of Challenge 25 signage, Mr Rajesh confirmed that this had been re-displayed once the missing sign had been brought to their attention by Trading Standards. The premises then informed Trading Standards that this breach had been corrected and this was confirmed on a subsequent visit. A Member referred to two non-compliance issues picked up by the Licensing Authority during a visit to the premises, relating to a lack of staff training records and staff being unable to operate the CCTV system, and asked what was being doing to address these issues. Mr Rajesh explained that in terms of the CCTV, although this was recording normally, several power cuts had occurred before the inspection, which interfered with the downloading and retrieval of the footage. He confirmed that the premises had been in touch with the technicians who had retrieved the footage and fixed the problem. In terms of the training records, these were unavailable on the day of the inspection as Mr Piratheepan had been attending a family emergency and had taken the records with him. However, these records were provided for inspection during a subsequent visit. The Member expressed concern that staff at the premises had been unable to operate the CCTV equipment and that there was no evidence of staff training records. Mr Rajesh explained that the downloading issue was not the fault of staff, but was due to a system error, which had resulted in the faulty DVR hard drive being replaced by technicians. Clarification was sought on how the signatories to the petition had been gathered, and Mr Rajesh explained that this was kept behind the counter at the premises, and presented to those regular customers who had enquired about progress on the application and had expressed an interest in supporting the variation of hours. Mr Rajesh highlighted that the premises receive a small but steady stream of sales income from these regular night-time customers, which equates to a wage for one member of staff, and the variation would mean that the premises would be able to accommodate and retain these valued customers and not have to refuse alcohol sales after licensable hours have ended. A Member sought the views of Mr Rajesh on the lack of incidents around the premises, compared to the wider anti-social behaviour in the Victoria Road area. Mr Rajesh explained that the issues in the wider area are completely out of the control of the premises, but that his client operates a strict policy, including an informal refusals list, where he will not serve alcohol or tobacco to any known troublemakers, which means that such individuals tend to avoid Rhymney Garage as they know they will not be served. Mr Rajesh suggested that if other businesses in the area were to also employ this practice, then perhaps there would be an improvement regarding the anti-social behaviour issues, rather than applying a blanket ban on the licensable hours for all the premises in the area. A Member asked if local residents living in the vicinity of the premises had been consulted on the proposed later licensing times, and whether there was signage in place asking customers to be quiet when they leave the premises. Mr Rajesh explained that although he believed it was not a requirement to display this signage, this was initially in place when the premises started trading as a measure of good practice, but had since been removed as it was no longer needed due to the lack of complaints from nearby residents. Representations were then invited from Responsible Authorities. PC Dan Allen referred Members to the objection from Gwent Police as set out in the agenda pack. He explained that Gwent Police rarely object to applications and are aware of other licensed premises in the county borough that have similar or additional hours to what has been requested by Rhymney Garage. PC Allen also referred to Appendix 5 of the report which set out the number of licensed premises in the vicinity of Rhymney Garage and their licensable hours, with it noted that the off-sales times for these premises end at 23:00 and three of these end at 22:30 on Sundays. PC Allen referred to the hearing for the original premises application that was held in August 2021, where during that meeting, the applicant was advised that Gwent Police are working with partners to assist in the issues that contribute to the high number of calls in Rhymney, and that they had achieved funding through the Home Office Safer Streets initiative to further strengthen their efforts in driving down crime. To date, 236 homes have benefited from initiatives including CCTV doorbells, night security and Smart Water security marking. There are several agencies working to break the cycle of re-occurring anti-social behaviour by providing both education and enforcement to the residents. It was explained that there is a clear link between alcohol and anti-social behaviour and the area is suffering high levels of crime. Gwent Police believed that any additional hours to the licence would have a detrimental effect on the area and an increase in calls to the police. Members were reminded of the “Problem Orientated Policing Plan” (or POP plan) created to combat the high volume of calls made in the immediate vicinity of the garage and its surrounding area. The Sub Committee were reminded that the crime figures provided were for Victoria Road only and not for the whole area or neighbouring streets. It was explained that Gwent Police’s position had not changed since last year and they did not support any additional hours for the licence. In addition, the applicant had shown a lack of regard towards the local area and the ongoing work between the police and partner agencies by not taking into consideration the information that was disclosed to him last year, and had not offered any further conditions or contacted any of the Responsible Authorities before submitting the application. It was the view of Gwent Police that the current licence is adequate, and that additional hours to the supply of alcohol would have a negative impact on the local area and damage ongoing partnership work and undermine the Licensing Objectives. All parties present were afforded the opportunity to ask questions, and a Member sought further information on the crime statistics in the wider vicinity of the premises. PC Allen explained that the figures supplied were just for Victoria Rd, and the neighbouring High Street had the second largest amount of calls in the whole of the Gwent West area. Mr Todd Rawson (Legal Advisor to the Sub Committee) referred to the 60 calls logged to Gwent Police and asked if there was any information on the number that involved alcohol or appeared to involve alcohol consumption. PC Allen explained that he had made this enquiry but was unable to extract this level of detail from the system. However there were two incidents regarding the licensed premises where alcohol was stolen and was therefore involved, namely the theft in January 2022 and the knifepoint robbery in February 2022. It was confirmed that no other calls had been received concerning the premises since that time. A Member asked PC Allen if there had been any improvement in and around the Rhymney area in regard to crime and anti-social behaviour since the beginning of the year. PC Allen explained that he believed the partnership work and the £300k Home Office funding to be having some effect on these issues, and therefore a number of benefits have been realized to date, but however this remains ongoing work across the area. Mr Rajesh referred to those public houses in Rhymney which close later at night and asked PC Allen if there were more problems resulting from intoxicated patrons leaving these establishments late at night, when compared to other licensed premises. PC Allen explained that he did not have any timings to hand to link these incidents to last orders at these premises. Mr Rajesh also referred to lighting at Rhymney Garage which illuminates the local area and asked PC Allen if he felt this to be beneficial from a policing perspective. Mr Rajesh stated that the premises is surviving based on a small customer base, and if they could not retain these customers, then they would probably have to move away from the area, and that the store was supporting local policing by having this presence in the area. PC Allen countered that the premises is already open 24/7 and that the lights being on and off had nothing to do with licensing measures and added that if alcohol could not be sold for extended hours, then this would only impact on a small number of customers. Representations were then invited from Environmental Health (Noise Pollution). Lee Carpenter (District Environmental Health Officer) referred to his representation and confirmed that Environmental Health were aware of the anti-social behaviour issues in the Rhymney area. Whilst Environmental Health had not received complaints directly associated with the premises, they were extremely conscious that the area is primarily residential around the premises and were concerned that if the variation of licensable hours was to be granted, this could lead to disturbance for local residents as a result of people visiting the premises during the extended hours, particularly during the early hours, and increase antisocial behaviour within the area. Therefore, Environmental Health supported the police in offering their own objection in the interest of promoting the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective. In response to a Member’s query around the content of the representation, Mr Carpenter explained that he was experienced in dealing with anti-social behaviour across the local authority and had a great deal of awareness of these issues in and around the local area, and therefore his representation had been based on the Gwent Police objection, to which Environmental Health had added their own concerns. All parties present were afforded the opportunity to ask questions of Environmental Health and none were received. However, Mr Rajesh asked it to be noted that the premises are not extending their opening hours, as they already operate on a 24-hour basis, but rather that they were seeking to extend the licensable hours for the premises. Representations were then invited from the Licensing Authority as a Responsible Authority. Annette Dicks (Assistant Licensing Manager) explained that her expertise related to the licensing process and that she had considered the application in relation to Secretary of State Guidance, Licensing Policy, and the potential or actual concerns in relation to the Licensing Objectives. As a point of clarification for all parties, she also stated that Licensing Authority representations are included under the Licensing Act 2003 or to support those made by other Responsible Authorities. Mrs Dicks explained that the Licensing Authority had objected to the variation of hours after taking into account the Licensing Objectives on a number of issues, including the fact that the applicant had only held a premises licence since August 2021 and Gwent Police were still experiencing a high number of calls in and around the local area in relation to anti-social behaviour. The Licensing Authority held concerns that the applicant had again failed to contact Responsible Authorities to discuss his proposals, despite having been made previously aware of the problems and concerns in the area following representations from Gwent Police and the Licensing Authority during the original licence application process. As the applicant is an experienced licence holder, the expectation would have been for him to contact the Responsible Authorities before submitting the application. In addition, the applicant had not offered or considered any further steps to promote the Licensing Objectives when applying to extend the hours, which would appear to show a lack of regard towards the local area and conflicted with the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. Mrs Dicks explained that the premises has already been subjected to two incidents where alcohol theft was involved, hence the reason for being included in the representation as there was a link between the crime and alcohol being a possible motivating factor. She raised concerns that staff refused to provide a statement following one incident, which does not promote the Prevention of Crime and Disorder Licensing Objective. The Licensing Authority also had concerns following the recent compliance check that some of the current conditions of licence were not being complied with, including the failure to display Challenge 25 signage, staff training records being unavailable for inspection, and the staff being unable to operate the CCTV equipment. However, these issues had since been addressed following a subsequent compliance visit. Mrs Dicks explained that in taking all of these issues into account, the Licensing Authority did not support the application to extend the hours and would support the representations of Gwent Police. The Sub Committee were reminded that in making the representation, reference had been made to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Secretary of State Guidance, in addition to the location of the premises and the nature of the variation. It was emphasised that each application is taken on its own merits and it is not for a Responsible Authority to prove that there is a problem at the premises, but that there is a potential for issues to occur and which may lead to the Licensing Objectives not being met. There were no questions received for the Licensing Authority as a Responsible Authority and representations were then invited from Trading Standards. Tim Keohane (Senior Trading Standards Officer) referred to his representation, which objected to the variation on the basis of the Protection of Children from Harm Licensing Objective. In relation to Mr Rajesh’s comment that other Responsible Authorities had lifted Gwent Police’s representation for their own objections, Mr Keohane stated that he openly supported his fellow Responsible Authorities and Gwent Police in their representations. Mr Keohane explained that he had concerns around the overall management of the business as a result of the failure to display Challenge 25 signage, particularly as the licence was only recently granted, and so he would expect more care to be taken by the premises holder to ensure conditions are met. In addition, he referenced the situation in Rhymney over the past few years in relation to anti-social behaviour problems. Mr Keohane also referred to the recent exercise conducted by Trading Standards in the Rhymney area, which revealed that children under the age of 18 are accessing alcohol, and confirmed that Trading Standards had not received any specific complaints about the premises in relation to underage sales and therefore had not conducted any test purchases at this particular location. All parties present were afforded the opportunity to ask questions. A Member referred to the Protection of Children from Harm Licensing Objective and asked Mr Rajesh if he was aware of any refused sales to underage children at the premises. Mr Rajesh confirmed that there were no such instances recorded by his client. Mr Rajesh asked whether Trading Standards would prefer to see Challenge 25 signage in use at the premises or for them to continue with EPOS prompts before making a sale. Mr Keohane confirmed that in regard to the promotion of the Licensing Objectives and particularly the Protection of Children from Harm, a combination of both measures and staff training would greatly assist in the promotion of these Licensing Objectives. Mrs Kathryn Hopkins (Senior Licensing Officer) asked the Sub Committee to note that the current premises licence already has conditions attached in relation to Challenge 25, particularly Condition No. 4 (requiring all sales of alcohol to be processed through the EPOS terminals which shall give a till prompt) and Condition No. 8 (requiring a Challenge 25 of at least A5 size to be displayed at the entrance to the premises and where practical at each point of sale), and that the applicant had not asked to remove any of these conditions. All parties were then afforded the opportunity to sum up before the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee retired to make its decision. Mrs Kathryn Hopkins (Senior Licensing Officer) asked Members to consider all the information before them and to take into account all relevant licensing guidance when making their decision, and referred Members to the recommendation in the report which recommended that the application to vary the premises licence be refused. PC Daniel Allen (Gwent Police) confirmed that the position of Gwent Police remained unchanged and that they would not support any additional hours to the premises licence for the supply of alcohol, as this would have a negative impact on the local area, damage ongoing partnership work and undermine the Licensing Objectives. He stated that this additional ease of access to alcohol would also have a further detrimental effect on people living in the local area and would be likely to increase calls made to the police, thereby placing an extra strain on resources. Mr Lee Carpenter (Environmental Health Noise Pollution) confirmed that their objection to the application remained, due to the belief that allowing the extension to the hours would be contrary to promoting the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective. Mrs Annette Dicks (Licensing Authority) emphasised that representations submitted by Responsible Authorities need to consider Licensing Objectives and not the viability of a business. Each application is considered individually and the Responsible Authorities will consider a number of factors, which can include location and problems associated with the area, together with any potential for the four Licensing Objectives to be undermined. The main concerns of the Licensing Authority in relation to this particular application were the applicant’s lack of contact with Responsible Authorities and the applicant not offering any further steps within the application to promote the Licensing Objectives. Mr Tim Keohane (Trading Standards) confirmed that he had nothing further to add to his representation. Mr Rajesh (Licensing Consultant) emphasised that his client was fully aware of the issues in the Rhymney area but maintained that the premises was not contributing to these issues and that there was no evidence to link the crime and anti-social behaviour problems with the premises. Mr Rajesh accepted the breach of condition around the Challenge 25 signage but reiterated that this issue had since been rectified. He asked the Sub Committee to note that although the premises had applied for off-sales of alcohol until 01:00, this would not be setting a precedent, as some public houses in the area are open until 03:30. He also stated that Rhymney is not in a Special Policy Area and should not be subject to a blanket ban on licensing times. No complaints had been received regarding the premises, which was subject to numerous conditions of licence, and the applicant was willing to accept further conditions in this regard, and Members were also reminded that there was a mechanism under the Licensing Act 2003 to bring the premises forward for review if needed. Mr Rajesh appealed to the Sub Committee to grant the variation in order to give a good business a chance to provide a service to the local area. 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 within five working days. The Sub Committee retired at 11.56 a.m. to make its decision and all other parties left the meeting. Following consideration of the application for a variation of a premises licence at Rhymney Garage, Victoria Road, Rhymney, 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 variation of the premises hours to supply alcohol (off sales only) from Monday to Sunday between 06:00 hours and 01:00 hours be REFUSED. In making their decision, the Sub Committee considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, revised Home Office Guidance and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee gave weight to the representations made by Gwent Police and took account of paragraph 9.12 of the “Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003” (“the Guidance”). It appeared to be common ground that the village of Rhymney does has issues regarding the amount of anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder within its community. The Sub Committee noted the Applicant’s challenge to the Gwent Police data used to underpin its representations by claiming a wider geographical area was used to collate such data rather than Victoria Road Rhymney, however the Sub Committee was satisfied that the data presented related to the 60 recorded incidents within Victoria Road between August 2021 and September 2022. In assessing the weight of the Gwent Police representations, the Sub Committee held into account that there was a lack of detail in how many of the 60 incidents involved alcohol as a factor and what time of day such incidents took place. The Sub Committee acknowledged that the absence of such analysis reduced the veracity of such evidence. However, the Sub Committee took into account the unusual circumstance of Home Office funding being used to support how Gwent Police are addressing the anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder within Rhymney and this was a strong indication of this being a community that does have sustained and continuing issues in this regard. The Sub Committee considered that there were no resident objections to the application to increase the hours for the sale of alcohol. The Sub Committee gave due weight to the evidence present by way of a petition from customers. It did not accept the representation that all of the signatories were customers from the immediate area and the addresses appeared to indicate a mixture of individuals from those residing very close to the premises to others residing outside of Rhymney itself. In turn the Sub Committee did not give a lot of weight to the representation from the local authority’s Environmental Health section. The premises has been operating as a 24-hour petrol station and small convenience store since August 2021 and there have been no service requests made of them in regards to the operation of such business. The Sub Committee was not persuaded by the Applicant that to refuse the variation application it would need to be shown direct evidence that the premises had caused issues in terms of the carrying out of its licensable activities. Given that all off-sale of alcohol in Rhymney after 23:00 hours was currently only possible from premises that also have an on-sale alcohol sale licence, it would not be possible for the Responsible Authorities to provide direct evidence of the impact of off-sales from convenience type stores within Rhymney in the hours between 23:00 and 01:00. In this regard the Sub Committee accepted that the issues being raised by the Responsible Authorities would largely be anticipatory. The Sub Committee took into account the Guidance at paragraph 9.4 where there is no requirement for a responsible authority to produce a recorded history of problems to support their representations. The Sub Committee did not give much weight to the two incidents of burglary at the premises and the alleged lack of co-operation from the employee witness. The Sub Committee largely accepted the Applicant’s view that management had cooperated with the Police and the risk of such burglaries was inherent in the type of business being operated rather than the licensable activity itself. The Sub Committee reached the view that the promotion of the licencing objective, namely the prevention of crime and disorder, would not be adequately promoted should the variation be granted. The Sub Committee reached the view that increasing the availability of off-sale alcohol from a convenience type store setting within the village of Rhymney for a further 3½ hours each day, would undermine such licencing objective. On balance, the Sub Committee were not sufficiently confident in the Applicant’s ability to promote such licencing objective. In reaching this view the Sub Committee took into account the breaches of the existing licence. Whilst the Sub Committee recognised that such breaches were rectified quickly, for breaches to have occurred were a concern. The Applicant’s evidence was that he has held his personal licence for many years without issue and has a significant degree of experience in operating similar licensed premises. The Sub Committee reached the view that the conditions placed upon the premises is August last year were not unusual and of a routine nature. Notwithstanding, there were three breaches of the same when a recent inspection was undertaken (Challenge 25 signage, staff training record, and operation of CCTV equipment). In addition, a need to vary the licence plan had not been identified by the Applicant. The Sub Committee considered that the increased hours for off-sales and the increased risk to the promotion of the licencing objective that would result (given the late and early hours alcohol could continue to be purchased) requires it to have full confidence that all licence conditions would be complied with at all times. The Sub Committee, whilst acknowledging that there was no strict legal obligation on the Applicant to consult relevant parties prior to submitting the variation application, it was a concern that the Applicant had chosen not to do so in this instance. This further eroded the Sub Committee’s confidence that a variation to the licence would promote the licensing objective (prevention of crime and disorder). It was clear that the location of the premises is within an area that has particular challenges and the evidence from Gwent Police indicated that the level of management of anti-social behaviour/crime and disorder within this community was one of the most intensive within the Gwent area. Notwithstanding, the Applicant has not offered any alterations to the operating schedule that would take those prevailing issues into account. The Sub Committee took into account paragraph 5.7 and 19.7 of its policy in this regard. The decision notice advised that any person aggrieved by the decision had the right to appeal to the local Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Dyw'r cyngor ddim wedi cofnodi presenoldeb ar gyfer y cyfarfod hwn.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.