Agenda and minutes
Venue: The Council Chamber, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Margaret Sampson, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4850, E-mail: margaret.sampson@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: None. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 25 KB To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Chief Executive.
Minutes: None. |
|
To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information. Minutes: Noted. |
|
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 57 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee meeting held on 16th March 2009. Minutes: The minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee meeting held on 16th March 2009 were agreed and approved as a correct record. |
|
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Mr Cruse introduced the report which outlined the application to vary the existing licence by way of an extension of hours for the sale of alcohol. He understood that the application had since been modified and advised that the applicant’s representative would detail this point. Representations had been received from EH and the Police.
Mr Charalambides, on behalf of the applicant, reported that the premise was a general convenience store that also sold alcohol. With the agreement of Members, a plan of the premises was tabled that showed the main front entrance and the side entrance to the premises.
The Premises Licence holder and designated DPS and the premises manager, had a number of years experience in the retail trade. There were three full-time and several part-time members of staff and the premise was located in a mainly commercial area.
Whilst the representation from EH referred to the prevention of public nuisance, no detail had been provided in the representation except that patron access and egress may cause nuisance to the residents above. There was a terrace above the shops with the residential properties set back from the frontage. The premises was one of a number of units in a local parade located on a busy street, it was therefore difficult to see how public nuisance would arise and difficult for the applicant to provide a response.
The applicant was happy to operate a ‘Challenge 25’ age policy and provide internal staff training. With the agreement of those present, Mr Charalambides tabled a draft training template. It was also proposed that there would always be two staff on late at night, one of whom would always be a Personal Licence holder and the side entrance would be closed after 11pm. The external of the premises was well lit and CCTV was already in place both internally and externally.
The applicant wished to amend the hours sought to open from 7am on all days and close at midnight Sunday to Thursday and 2am on Friday and Saturday.
In conclusion, Mr Charalambides stated that EH comments needed to be specific to an individual premise and not general in nature. It should also be noted that they had extensive powers under other legislation. Mr Charalambides reiterated that the applicant had never had occasion to contact the police and there had been no representations or complaints from any of the Responsible Authorities.
Mr Johnston, EH officer, reported that there were residential properties above the premises with habitable rooms at the front. Whilst the applicant had addressed the concerns he had raised, he remained concerned about those matters which were outside the Applicant’s control; noise caused by patrons on entering and leaving the premises and from vehicles including horn misuse.
There were very few premises licensed to 2am and this could lead to an increase in those coming to this shop. The framework hours approved in the Council’s statement of Licensing Policy were acceptable for the sale of alcohol though he had no issue with ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Mr Ali presented the report for a new Premises Licence under the auspices of the Gambling Act 2005. Representations from local residents and those representing local residents had been received and were as detailed in the report.
The reasons as to why some representations had not been accepted were clarified for Councillor Khan (Ward Member), who was present on behalf of one of those who had made a representation.
Mr Woods, legal representative for the applicant, reported that the application was for consideration within the remit of the licensing objectives and reminded the Sub Committee that moral objections, irrespective of their content, could not be taken into account. None of the Statutory Authorities had any concern that the application failed to meet the licensing objectives.
Mr Woods drew attention to the additional material that had been submitted by the applicant which he believed assisted in addressing the concerns that had been raised. He also advised of the legal view that Members should aim to permit the application if it was within the Licensing Policy and objectives.
Coral had operated many betting offices on a national basis for a number of years; all these licences had been renewed without question. An Operators Licence had been granted by the Gambling Commission following extensive checks and clearances and Coral had extensive well tested policies and procedures in all their premises. This was supported by extensive staff training. The tabled information also clearly showed the kind of frontage and internal layout of the general premise and the signage that was displayed. Coral was also part of Gamcare and had company policies in place to ensure staff looked out for patrons who looked vulnerable.
All experienced operators were aware of the sensitivity required in operating premises located next to schools and places of worship. It should also be remembered that there was previously a betting office in St Paul’s Way and within the vicinity of the proposed premises that closed in 2007.
Mr Woods concluded by assuring the Sub Committee that neither children nor the vulnerable would be allowed entry and that the company had never found this to be an issue. Mr Woods reiterated that none of the Responsible Authorities had objected to the application.
Mr Sheldon stated that he was the Manager of the Children’s Centre that was almost opposite the proposed site. The centre was funded by Surestart with services delivered by LBTH for approximately 100 children aged under five.
His concern was not that children would be admitted to the premises but that he dealt directly with and had knowledge of, families within the area where parents, particularly fathers, were vulnerable and whose betting had a direct detrimental impact on family life.
There was a betting shop already within the locality and the Gambling Commission referred to those who gambled beyond their means and those whose capacity was mentally or medically affected. He had personally been called to the assistance of a family where the father had threatened violence to ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |