Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
Resolved that: The Conditions of the Licence be Modified as proposed by Trading Standards. All parties then re-entered the Meeting and were advised by the Chair of the decision of the Committee.
Resolved that: The Conditions of the Licence be Modified as proposed by Trading Standards. All parties then re-entered the Meeting and were advised by the Chair of the decision of the Committee. Simon Jones also outlined the Appeal procedure.
No apologies for absence were received as all Members were present.
No Declarations of Interest were made.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that: The Conditions of the Licence be Modified as proposed by Trading Standards. All parties then re-entered the Meeting and were advised by the Chair of the decision of the Committee.
Application to Review a Premises Licence – M Brown, 1 Cross Street, Aberfan The Chair welcomed PC Steven Moseley and the Officers to the Meeting. The Committee were circulated with an e-mail from Mr Malcolm Brown the applicant advising that he would not be attending the hearing and submitting further comments on the application. Matthew Herbert then led the Committee through the report and advised that under Paragraph 2.1 there was a further step available to the Committee that no action be taken. Amy Cordingley then led the Committee through the grounds for the review as detailed in the report. Amy Cordingly also advised the Committee that when test purchases were made that the youths involved did look their age group and advice was sought on this from the schools. The aim of a test purchase was not to catch out businesses but to ensure correct procedures were in place. Amy Cordingly also outlined the Conditions that Trading Standards were recommending to be added to the Premise Licence that were felt appropriate. PC Steven Moseley advised that he was present at the Premises on the day of the test purchase and that the volunteer was tall but did not look over the required age. PC Moseley also advised that the Conditions requested by Trading Standards were robust, proportionate and necessary and concurred with what has been requested which promoted the four Licensing Objectives and would help to reduce the likelihood of further underage sales of nicotine occurring. Jo Baber then led the Committee through her report and advised that the Licensing Department would support the Conditions recommended by Trading Standards. Simon Jones then read out in full the correspondence received from Mr Brown the applicant for the information of the Committee. Questions were then raised by the Committee and were responded to by the Officers in relation to: · New Premises application – Challenge 21 or Challenge 25 · In store signage · Size of the fine · Can objection be raised on the application · Purpose of the review · Advice given by Officers to Premises owners · Why Prosecutions are made All parties then left the Meeting. Considerable debate then ensued on the application and after consideration by the Committee it was Resolved that: The Conditions of the Licence be Modified as proposed by Trading Standards. All parties then re-entered the Meeting and were advised by the Chair of the decision of the Committee.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that: The Conditions of the Licence be Modified as proposed by Trading Standards. All parties then re-entered the Meeting and were advised by the Chair of the decision of the Committee. Simon Jones also outlined the Appeal procedure.
Application to Review a Premises Licence – The Fountain Shop, 14-14a Lower High Street, Merthyr Tydfil The Chair welcomed Mr Stephen Jones the applicant to the Meeting. Matthew Herbert then led the Committee through the report and advised that under Paragraph 2.1 there was a further step available to the Committee that no action be taken. Amy Cordingley then led the Committee through the grounds for the review as detailed in the report. Amy Cordingly also advised the Committee that when test purchases were made that the youths involved did look their age group and advice was sought on this from the schools. The aim of a test purchase was not to catch out businesses but to ensure correct procedures were in place. Amy Cordingly also outlined the Conditions that Trading Standards were recommending to be added to the Premise Licence that were felt appropriate. Jo Baber then led the Committee through her report and advised that the Licensing Department would support the Conditions recommended by Trading Standards. PC Moseley also advised that the Conditions requested by Trading Standards were robust, proportionate and necessary and concurred with what has been requested which promoted the four Licensing Objectives and would help to reduce the likelihood of further underage sales of nicotine disposable vapes occurring. Mr Jones then advised that he had put procedures in place with a Refusal Book in his office and that this had always been done just not always recorded. The till did show prompts for staff to stop. This had been one occasion where a mistake had been made. Mr Jones referred to Challenge 21 as if Challenge 25 was introduced then some customers became awkward when asked. Mr Jones gave details of the Cameras at the Premises that covered the till area and that this system was regularly serviced. Even with the best training a mistake could be made. He had a thirty year unblemished record and it was one member of staff who had made a mistake. This member of staff had been removed from the till and a warning had been given and would not go back to till duties until he was satisfied regarding competency. This staff member had been working for twenty four years at the Premises and may have become flustered. Mr Jones stated that he did not promote any deals on Vapes or tobacco and that he had a good relationship with the Police and his CCTV footage was often utilised. In response to a question Amy Cordingly outlined why not all cases were taken to Court as there was investigation to show there was due diligence by the Premises involved. Mr Jones explained why the Refusal Register was not kept downstairs and that a slip came off the till for a refusal which was then filed. He also explained how staff asked for ID prior to a sale and if there was no ID then there was no sale. Jo Baber then outlined the need for a Refusals Register as well as till prompt receipts as otherwise there was no record of all refusals and if there were both then the DPS could monitor how many refusals were made. The applicant advised that staff were stringent and if there was no ID there was no sale. This was a small business and he could not be everywhere and he could not say why the staff member had become flustered. Mr Jones confirmed that he would be happy to have a Refusals Register as well and Jo Baber advised that the Department would supply this. PC Moseley also supported this as it supported a gold standard model. The Chair then referred to the role of the Authority as a Corporate Parent and was the applicant happy with the recommendations of Trading Standards. Mr Jones advised that he was not happy with Challenge 25 and would Trading Standards change this to Challenge 21 and was this the same throughout the County Borough. Jo Baber advised that each Premises was different but that she would agree with Trading Standards as Challenge 25 was stronger and more robust. The applicant advised that it was a small store and that if Challenge 25 was imposed why not the same for every convenience store. Challenge 25 could also mean a loss of custom and the laying off of staff. Jo Baber advised that personally she was not aware that the extra Conditions and Challenge 25 were too difficult to deal with. Simon Jones then enquired of the applicant in relation to staff training. Mr Jones advised that staff training was down to him and that staff on the till were overlooked by senior staff. He also referred to twenty five years unblemished record. All parties then left the Meeting. Considerable debate then ensued on the application and after consideration by the Committee it was Resolved that: The Conditions of the Licence be Modified as proposed by Trading Standards. All parties then re-entered the Meeting and were advised by the Chair of the decision of the Committee. Simon Jones also outlined the Appeal procedure.
The Chair advised that there was no other business deemed urgent.
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.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.