To elect a Chairman for the hearing.

Councillor JW Hope MBE was elected as Chairman for the Regulatory Sub-Committee hearing.

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor P Jones CBE.

To receive details any details of Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

Councillor JW Hope MBE was noted as a substitute for Councillor P Jones CBE.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

There were no declarations of interest made.

To consider an application for a review of a premises licence in respect of Somerfield, Dishley Street, Leominster, HR6 8PX.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee was convened in order to determine an application for a review of a premises licence in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. The Review had been applied for by the Chief Constable of the West Mercia Constabulary after Somerfield had failed in three test purchase operations since December 2007. The sales were made on 28 December 2007, 20 August 2008, and 20 December 2008.

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers and asked any interested parties to introduce themselves. He advised them of the hearing procedures and asked if any party required an extension to the 10 minute time limit for public speaking, Mr Wallsgrove requested an additional 10 minutes. The Chairman then asked the Licensing Officer to present his report.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Tony Mantle, representing West Mercia Police Authority addressed the sub-committee. He advised the Sub-Committee that he was authorised by the Chief Officer to make representations. He noted that PC Thomas had requested a condition regarding the removal of the DPS but felt that this condition could now be disregarded as the relevant action had already been taken by Somerfield. In accordance with Section 53 C (3)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003, he requested that as a minimum measure two further conditions should be added to the licence:

• That a personal licence holder is on the premises at all times it operates for the sale of alcohol
• That the premises licence is suspended until all staff are retrained in age restricted sales

He added that the Sub-Committee should seriously consider revoking the Premises Licence due to the poor record of underage sales at the store.

In response to a question from Councillor PGH Cutter, Mr Mantle confirmed that his grounds for proposing revocation of the licence were the 3 test purchase failures over a 12 month period. He added that there was no evidence to the contrary that the store’s record would improve and felt that the premises were likely to continue to sell to minors. He asked Members to look at the history of the store when making their decision. Following a question from Mr Wallsgrove, Mr Mantle confirmed that he had not visited the store but was aware of Somerfield’s training procedures. In response to an additional question he added that in his opinion there was insufficient staff training taking place in the store.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mr John Wallsgrove, the premise licence holder’s legal advisor addressed the sub-committee. He advised Members that it was the committee’s responsibility to promote the licensing objectives and felt that this would be best achieved through the addition of conditions on the licence. He added that although a thorough investigation had not deemed the Designated Premises Supervisor to be at fault, the store had decided to replace the DPS in order to address any possible training issues. He added that staff had been retrained with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

To consider an application for a review of a premises licence in respect of The Co-operative Store, 90 Grandstand Road, Hereford, HR4 9NR.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee was convened in order to determine an application for a review of a premises licence in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. The Review had been applied for by the Chief Constable of the West Mercia Constabulary after the Co-operative store had failed in three test purchase operations since December 2007. The sales were made on 28 December 2007, 19 August 2008, and 15 December 2008.

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers and asked any interested parties to introduce themselves. He advised them of the hearing procedures and asked if any party required an extension to the 10 minute time limit for public speaking, no extensions were requested.

The Licensing Officer presented his report and advised Members that the applicant had agreed to all of the recommended conditions. He also advised that the Designated Premises Supervisor had been changed on 13 February 2009.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Tony Mantle, representing West Mercia Police Authority addressed the sub-committee. He advised the Sub-Committee that he was authorised by the Chief Officer to make representations. He noted that PC Thomas had requested 2 conditions which had both been agreed with the applicant. In accordance with Section 53 C (3)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003, he requested that the following conditions be added to the licence:

• That the use of ‘Challenge 25’ is made a condition of all sales on the premises.
• That the premises employs proven training methods for all staff in age restricted sales and that written records of the training are kept and made available for inspection by the Licensing Authority and Police.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Phillip Samerakis, representing the premises licence holders addressed the sub-committee. He advised Members of the training procedures, practices, and in house test purchase operations that had been put in place in the store in relation to age restricted sales. He went on to explain the circumstances behind the most recent sale and advised Members that the member of staff who authorised the sale had been notified of the death of his father the day before the sale took place. He added that the premises licence holders were sorry that the sale had taken place but hoped the Sub-Committee could take the circumstances behind the sale into account when making their decision.

The Chairman invited all of the partied present to sum up their comments in a brief closing statement. The Sub-Committee then retired to make their decision, the Legal Practice Manager and the Democratic Services Officer also retired to assist them with procedural matters.

The Sub-Committee decided the following, which was read out by the Legal Practice Manager:

“We have heard representations from the Police and from Mr Samerakis, on behalf of the Co-operative store, and have considered all of the material placed before us.

The trigger even for this review was the sale of alcohol to a 16 year old  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.