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 to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act. Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance issued under by the DCMS and Home Office identified in the agenda item, and those to which it had been referred by the parties, it was: RESOLVED, having considered all the evidence placed before it, that the application should be granted subject to the licence conditions agreed between the Applicant and the Police. REASONS In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee made the following findings. 1. The premises had not previously had the benefit of a premises licence. 2. The premises was in a predominantly residential area. 3. Many local residents had objected to the application. 4. None of the Responsible Authorities had objected to the application. 5. Representations made by the police had been agreed by the applicant and subsequently withdrawn. 6. The applicant had prior experience of operating similar licensed premises elsewhere. 7. There was no evidence that these premises were poorly run or a cause of crime and disorder or public nuisance. 8. There were issues of anti-social behaviour /crime and disorder and public nuisance in the vicinity of the premises. 9. The premises was in the vicinity of streets identified in the Council’s statement of Licensing Policy as crime and disorder hotspots. In determining the application, the Sub-Committee was required to follow the decision of the High Court in the case of R (on the application of Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court [2008]EWHC 838(Admin). The Sub-Committee had therefore: 1. Attached weight to the views of the Responsible Authorities and the fact that none of them had objected to the application. 2. Recognised that the Police was the main source of advice to the Sub-Committee on crime and disorder. 3. Noted that concerns and fears about what might happen if the licence was granted, where not supported by real evidence, were not matters that the Sub-Committee could take into account. The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence of the local residents regarding issues of anti-social behaviour and parking in the vicinity of the premises and the likely increase in traffic flow arising from the opening of the premises as a convenience store. Balanced against this however, the Sub-Committee noted the police did not object to the application and had agreed with the applicant for additional conditions to be added to the licence instead. The Sub-Committee noted that some of the issues raised by the objectors (such as the need for the premises) were more relevant to the ongoing planning application than the licensing application. The Sub-Committee also noted that most of the proposed activities at the premises did not require a premises licence and that alcohol sales would therefore only form a relatively small part of the overall business. The Sub-Committee further noted that the Planning process was an entirely separate matter and that a decision to grant the licence did not mean that planning consent would be granted. Although the Sub-Committee shared some of the concerns of the local residents, it concluded that they were not sufficient to overcome the weight that the Sub-Committee must attach to the views of the police and the lack of representations from other responsible authorities. The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that to grant the application in its amended form and subject to the licence conditions agreed between the applicant and the police, would not undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was also satisfied that those additional licence conditions were an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns raised by the objectors.
There were no declarations of personal interest.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act. Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance issued under by the DCMS and Home Office identified in the agenda item, and those to which it had been referred by the parties, it was: RESOLVED, having considered all the evidence placed before it, that the application should be granted subject to the licence conditions agreed between the Applicant and the Police. REASONS In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee made the following findings. 1. The premises had not previously had the benefit of a premises licence. 2. The premises was in a predominantly residential area. 3. Many local residents had objected to the application. 4. None of the Responsible Authorities had objected to the application. 5. Representations made by the police had been agreed by the applicant and subsequently withdrawn. 6. The applicant had prior experience of operating similar licensed premises elsewhere. 7. There was no evidence that these premises were poorly run or a cause of crime and disorder or public nuisance. 8. There were issues of anti-social behaviour /crime and disorder and public nuisance in the vicinity of the premises. 9. The premises was in the vicinity of streets identified in the Council’s statement of Licensing Policy as crime and disorder hotspots. In determining the application, the Sub-Committee was required to follow the decision of the High Court in the case of R (on the application of Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court [2008]EWHC 838(Admin). The Sub-Committee had therefore: 1. Attached weight to the views of the Responsible Authorities and the fact that none of them had objected to the application. 2. Recognised that the Police was the main source of advice to the Sub-Committee on crime and disorder. 3. Noted that concerns and fears about what might happen if the licence was granted, where not supported by real evidence, were not matters that the Sub-Committee could take into account. The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence of the local residents regarding issues of anti-social behaviour and parking in the vicinity of the premises and the likely increase in traffic flow arising from the opening of the premises as a convenience store. Balanced against this however, the Sub-Committee noted the police did not object to the application and had agreed with the applicant for additional conditions to be added to the licence instead. The Sub-Committee noted that some of the issues raised by the objectors (such as the need for the premises) were more relevant to the ongoing planning application than the licensing application. The Sub-Committee also noted that most of the proposed activities at the premises did not require a premises licence and that alcohol sales would therefore only form a relatively small part of the overall business. The Sub-Committee further noted that the Planning process was an entirely separate matter and that a decision to grant the licence did not mean that planning consent would be granted. Although the Sub-Committee shared some of the concerns of the local residents, it concluded that they were not sufficient to overcome the weight that the Sub-Committee must attach to the views of the police and the lack of representations from other responsible authorities. The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that to grant the application in its amended form and subject to the licence conditions agreed between the applicant and the police, would not undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was also satisfied that those additional licence conditions were an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns raised by the objectors.
The Legal Services Manager briefed all present on the procedure for the meeting, which had been convened to consider an application received from RRA Retail Limited for a premises licence in respect of 110 Long Row, Llanelli, SA15 3AX. The application had been put before the Sub-Committee, following receipt of numerous representations regarding the proposed operation of the premises. The Sub-Committee noted the following documentation was attached to the report:- Appendix A – The original Application; Appendix B – Licensing Authority Representation; Appendix C – Dyfed Powys Police Representation; Appendix D – Other Persons Representations. It was noted that the remaining Responsible Authorities had not made representations in respect of the application. The Licensing Lead referred to his written representations, detailed in Appendix B to the report, detailing information regarding the application and his response thereto including, having regard to the relevant sections of the Statutory Guidance and the Council’s Local Licensing Policy. It was noted that in response to a request made by the Licensing Authority, the applicant had submitted a risk assessment and operating schedule which detailed the control measures to be implemented to deal with the risks identified. These were detailed within the supplementary information published and circulated to all parties in advance of the meeting. It was further reported that whilst the premises had not yet obtained the necessary planning permission to operate as a convenience store or similar, the decision made by the Sub-Committee was separate to that of the Planning regime. All parties present were afforded the opportunity of questioning the Licensing Lead on his submission. The Sub-Committee was advised that the representations by the Dyfed Powys Police (Appendix C) had been agreed and therefore the Police representative was not in attendance. The Sub-Committee thereupon considered the representations from interested parties objecting to the application for grant of a premises licence premises licence. In this regard the Sub-Committee was advised that 16 objectors had given consent to disclose their written representations on the grounds detailed in Appendix D to the report, and a further 37 representations had been submitted which were identical to the objections noted in Appendix D3. Oral representations were then received from local residents objecting to the application referring to their written representations. In summary, the main areas of concern were in relation to the site being surrounded by residential properties and therefore it was considered that granting the application would not support the following licensing objectives:- Prevention of Public Nuisance – by way of increased traffic movement and congestion caused by parking and deliveries, thereby leading to highway safety concerns and noise pollution. It was also considered that there would be a potential increase in anti-social behaviour. Prevention of Crime and Disorder – potential increase in on-street drinking, littering, disorder and disturbances within the vicinity. Protection of children from harm – by way of a potential increase in alcohol related nuisance and the risk of children being exposed to unsafe or inappropriate situations. All parties present were afforded the opportunity of questioning each party on the representations made. The applicant and his counsel were afforded the opportunity of responding to the points raised and summarised listed within the supplementary information provided to the Sub-Committee as follows:- The opening hours and sale of alcohol would be reduced to 07:00hrs – 21:00hrs. Prevention of Crime and Disorder - A CCTV system would be installed with footage available for a period of 31days upon request from relevant authorities. Appropriate staffing would also be maintained. Public Safety and Protection of Children: Implementation of the “Challenge 25” policy, appropriate staff training and the maintenance of the manual refusal log. Prevention of Public Nuisance – litter control for the store frontage, deliveries to be made with minimal disruption to residents, with collection from the Cash and Carry where possible to minimise traffic congestion, appropriate signage to be erected. Professional Experience – the licence holder had 17 years retail management experience. The store would provide a community hub and offer employment opportunities for local residents. The applicant had agreed to the conditions and recommendations made by the Responsible Authorities. A parking area would be provided upon approval of planning permission. The Sub-Committee thereupon: UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act. Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance issued under by the DCMS and Home Office identified in the agenda item, and those to which it had been referred by the parties, it was: RESOLVED, having considered all the evidence placed before it, that the application should be granted subject to the licence conditions agreed between the Applicant and the Police. REASONS In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee made the following findings. 1. The premises had not previously had the benefit of a premises licence. 2. The premises was in a predominantly residential area. 3. Many local residents had objected to the application. 4. None of the Responsible Authorities had objected to the application. 5. Representations made by the police had been agreed by the applicant and subsequently withdrawn. 6. The applicant had prior experience of operating similar licensed premises elsewhere. 7. There was no evidence that these premises were poorly run or a cause of crime and disorder or public nuisance. 8. There were issues of anti-social behaviour /crime and disorder and public nuisance in the vicinity of the premises. 9. The premises was in the vicinity of streets identified in the Council’s statement of Licensing Policy as crime and disorder hotspots. In determining the application, the Sub-Committee was required to follow the decision of the High Court in the case of R (on the application of Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court [2008]EWHC 838(Admin). The Sub-Committee had therefore: 1. Attached weight to the views of the Responsible Authorities and the fact that none of them had objected to the application. 2. Recognised that the Police was the main source of advice to the Sub-Committee on crime and disorder. 3. Noted that concerns and fears about what might happen if the licence was granted, where not supported by real evidence, were not matters that the Sub-Committee could take into account. The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence of the local residents regarding issues of anti-social behaviour and parking in the vicinity of the premises and the likely increase in traffic flow arising from the opening of the premises as a convenience store. Balanced against this however, the Sub-Committee noted the police did not object to the application and had agreed with the applicant for additional conditions to be added to the licence instead. The Sub-Committee noted that some of the issues raised by the objectors (such as the need for the premises) were more relevant to the ongoing planning application than the licensing application. The Sub-Committee also noted that most of the proposed activities at the premises did not require a premises licence and that alcohol sales would therefore only form a relatively small part of the overall business. The Sub-Committee further noted that the Planning process was an entirely separate matter and that a decision to grant the licence did not mean that planning consent would be granted. Although the Sub-Committee shared some of the concerns of the local residents, it concluded that they were not sufficient to overcome the weight that the Sub-Committee must attach to the views of the police and the lack of representations from other responsible authorities. The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that to grant the application in its amended form and subject to the licence conditions agreed between the applicant and the police, would not undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was also satisfied that those additional licence conditions were an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns raised by the objectors.
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.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.