The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Hearing Panel considered a report the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing.  The Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties submitted and the oral representations of the parties who attended as well as the relevant legislation.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Hearing Panel, noting the application had requested operating hours of 7am to 11pm Monday to Sunday, with the option of a 6am open and 12am close for flexibility. They noted that the applicant was an experienced operator with many stores across the country, none of which had ever been subject to review proceedings. The applicant had provided a comprehensive set of conditions, as set out in the report. Conditions specifically relating to the prevention of public nuisance, such as street drinking, had been added to the application due to being a convenience store. There had been no objections from any responsible authorities, the panel’s experts. The only objection received was from a local business owner who was a competitor. That objector had accepted in their representation that there were no issues with alcohol in the area.

The panel queried why the applicant felt it necessary for hours of 6am to 12am and queried how staff would be able to stop people congregating outside the store as per condition 14. The hours of 6am to 12am would only be utilised in December, if deemed necessary, otherwise the store would operate as 7am to 11pm. Condition 14 was made in agreement with the Licensing Out of Hours team. Staff would have sufficient conflict management training to deal with any situation as required.

In summing up, the applicant’s agent noted that guidance stated that shops, stores, and supermarkets should be able to always sell alcohol for consumption off the premises when they are open, unless there is good reason to restrict those hours. The agent did not believe there was a reason to restrict those hours for this premises. The agent noted the vast experience of the applicant and their work with the responsible authorities. They stated that no objections had been received from those responsible authorities and there was no evidence of any issues the premises could create.

In reaching its decision, the Panel has also considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act as well as the licensing objectives. The panel considered the representation made against the application. However, the panel were satisfied that the applicant had evidenced their ability to promote and uphold the Licensing Objectives.

Decision

To grant the application as applied for.

Now contains additional information as submitted by the applicant.

The Hearing Panel considered a report the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing.  The Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties submitted and the oral representations of the parties who attended as well as the relevant legislation.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Hearing Panel, acknowledging that the applicant had previously breached their conditions and that they had now accepted their mistakes. They believed that this was not done in a way to deceive. GMP had attended the premises on one occasion to witness breaches and all issues had been subsequently addressed. The premises had not received any noise complaints. The applicant was in the process of selling the business and wanted the extension in owners to pass onto the new prospective owners.

The applicant apologised for their mistakes.

In questioning from GMP, the applicant accepted they had breached their conditions and apologised for that. They accepted that they had lied to GMP when first asked about this as they had not wanted to be exposed as having made such a mistake. The applicant stated that the business was not viable without the extra hours so they knew they could not afford to make any more mistakes. The applicant understood GMP’s concerns that the new owners were unknown to them, and they could not complete due diligence on them.

In questioning from LOOH, the applicant confirmed that they had opened outside their permitted hours for 18 months. They stated that noise in the external area of the premises could be managed as any music played at the premises was on a low volume, all doors are kept closed and deliveries only makeup around 15% of their sales. They had not received any complaints from residents. The premises employs 1 SIA trained staff member as they felt they were not busy enough for more.

In questioning from the panel, the applicant stated that they had not read their licence properly and that’s what led to the mistakes. They stated that they had a lot going on at the time and that was the reason for this being overlooked. The extended hours would make the business viable, without them the income is not enough.

GMP addressed the Hearing Panel, accepting that the applicant had admitted to breaches of their licence. However, GMP raised concerns that when first asked about the breaches, the applicant had lied and informed GMP that they had not opened outside their permitted hours. GMP did not have confidence in the applicant. GMP noted that the applicant was in the process of selling the business and raised concerns that the buyer was unknown, therefore they could not have faith that the new owners could uphold the Licensing Objectives. GMP stated that the new owners could apply for a variation themselves. GMP did have CCTV that highlighted the Licence breaches, however given the acceptance of the applicant, felt it unnecessary to show this. GMP noted that the applicant had been meeting their licence conditions for two months,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.