To receive apologies for absence.

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

There were no substitutes present at the meeting.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

To consider an application for a grant of a premises licence in respect of: mila, 102-104 Belmont Road, Hereford, HR2 7JS.

Members of the licensing sub committee of the council’s planning and regulatory committee considered the above application, full details of which appeared before the Members in their agenda and the background papers.

The principal licensing officer presented the report.

Trading Standards outlined their objective to the grant of a premises licence to Mr Hersh Mohammad for Mila.    The premises had previously been subjected to Trading Standards investigations in relation to persistent breaches of the Licensing Act 2003 including the selling of illegal tobacco, alcohol and the employment of illegal workers.   Trading Standards believes that the evidence shows that Hersh Mohammad is not a fit and proper person to hold a premises licence as he was on the premises when illegal alcohol was found.   The applicant had previously had a premises licence application refused.  Mr Hersh Mohammad has not been able to provide or offer conditions to show that he can run the premises in order to uphold the four licensing objectives.  

The representative from West Mercia Police confirmed that he had authority to represent the police. 

The police then outlined their objection to the grant of a premises licence and outlined the following:

·         The police and HMRC have visited the premises in December 2018 and found 32 bottles of non-duty paid vodka.

·         A police review of the premises licence had been launched and the premises licence had been revoked by the sub committee in March 2019.   Mr Mohammad had not appealed the sub committee’s decision.

·         The Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme which in place since 2015 was relevant.  This was HMRC legislation which in place to ensure that any alcohol purchased to be sold comes from an approved wholesaler approved by HMRC.

·         There was no indication that Mr Mohammad was aware of this scheme or had ensured that the alcohol stock had been obtained legally.

·         It was the view of the police that Mr Mohammad should have known where the alcohol stock had come from.

·         If the sub committee were minded to grant the premises licence, then modified conditions had been sent to the principal licensing officer. 

The sub committee then heard from the applicant’s solicitor who highlighted the following

·         It was disappointing that he had not been instructed earlier as the matter had been dealt with differently.

·         There was no evidence to tie any wrong doing at the premises to Mr Mohammad.

·         Anything prior to the latter part of last year was unrelated to his client as he was not living in Hereford at the time.  

·         Mr Mohammad had been living in Blackburn and had been told through a contact about the premises and he wanted to see them.

·         The history of the premises was in relation to the bricks and mortar and not Mr Mohammad

·         Mr Mohammad was a personal licence holder and was assessed by Blackburn Council as a being fit and proper person and this allows him to be a designated premises supervisor (DPS ) for the sale of alcohol.  

·         The lease had been signed in November  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

To consider an application for an occasional grant of a premise licence in respect of Sunrise Festival, Rockyfold, Kentchurch, Herefordshire. HR2 0BL.

Members of the licensing sub committee of the council’s planning and regulatory committee considered the above application, full details of which appeared before the Members in their agenda and the background papers.

The principal licensing officer presented the report.

It was noted that the applicant had previously applied for temporary event notices (TENS) but those only authorise events involving up to 499 people but it was likely the numbers this year would exceed 499 so the applicant had applied for an occasional premises licence.   The Safety Advisory Group had been involved and an event management plan had been presented and would be finalised prior to the event. 

The sub committee heard from the member of the public who had submitted a relevant public representation and outlined the following:

·         They had previously lived slightly further away from the festival but had now moved into a cottage which adjourned the festival site.

·         They were closer to the main stage than the campers.  

·         There was awareness that there will be people trying to access the festival without paying.

·         No complaints had been made as it was felt to be a waste of time.

·         Previously there had been festival goers in the toilet, decking etc who refused to move.

·         Telephone calls had been made to the festival security who had done nothing.

·         They wanted to know the name of the security company employed to satisfy themselves that there will be good security in place.

The sub committee then heard from the applicant who outlined: 

·         He had worked on over 300 festival as a contractor.

·         This was a family event and tickets for 406 adults and 276 children had already been sold.   It was expected that there would be over 300 children and 500 adult ticket sales. 

·         It was acknowledged that it would be a noisy event but there will be sound checks and also sound barriers. 

·         There would be 3 times the number of security staff compared to previous events.

·         There would be a 24 hr control telephone number which had been given to all direct locals.  The local shop had also been given the number to pass to interested people and the parish council had also been supplied with the number. 

·         A meeting with local people was also being organised.  

Following questions from members of the sub-committee, it was clarified that:

·         The event would be operating Challenge 25

·         Professional staff would be employed and well trained to prevent sales to under age persons.

·         The security teams would also monitor proxy sales.

DECISION

The sub committee’s decision is to grant the licence with an amendment to the sign off from SAG being reduced from 30 days prior to the event to 10 days prior to the event due to the date of the festival. 

REASONS

The sub committee had carefully considered the representations from the principal licensing officer, member of the public and the applicant. The sub committee were content that all reasonable steps had been taken to promote and uphold the licensing objectives,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

To consider an application for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Mace City Services, Commercial Road, Hereford. HR1 2BG.

Members of the licensing sub committee of the council’s planning and regulatory committee considered the above application, full details of which appeared before the Members in their agenda and the background papers.

The principal licensing officer presented the report.

West Mercia Police outlined their representation to the request for a variation of the premises licence as follows:

·         The premises were a medium sized convenience store attached to a garage within Hereford City Centre.  

·         The premises was within the special cumulative impact zone which forms part of the Herefordshire Council Licensing Policy 2015-2020.  

·         The policy provides for controls on licensed premises within the zone due to the number of premises and a disproportionate level of crime, disorder and nuisance.

·         The policy provides for a rebuttable presumption that applications should be refused if objections are made against new or variations to premises licences.   This is obviously not a blanket ban and would need to be considered on a case by case basis.  It was for the applicant to set out why granting a licence or a variation to a licence would further promote the licensing objectives.   The applicant had not mentioned the cumulative impact zone as part of their application.

·         There was limited history with regard to the premises.  However there were still a significant number of issues raised on the police systems within the cumulative impact zone. 

·         The number of incidents recorded by the police within the cumulative impact zone between 2016 to the current date had been published as a supplement to the papers.    

·         The garage already opened 24 hrs and is single staffed late at night through a window hatch.   This would make it difficult for a member of staff to identify whether customers were fit to purchase alcohol or if they were purchasing it for others who may be drunk or under age.  

·         There is CCTV but no security staff at the premises during late hours, especially when customers were exiting pubs and clubs. 

·         The garage was on a main route in / out of the city.

·         There was a possibility that queues could form and this could lead to flash points of disorder and there are no control measures on the licence to prevent or reduce this possibility. 

·         The police objection to the application was based on the belief that to grant the variation to the licence would undermine the licensing objectives and in particular the prevention of crime and disorder.  

The representative from West Mercia Police confirmed that he did have the authority to speak on behalf of the police.  

The sub-committee then heard from the applicant’s barrister who outlined:

·         The applicant had run premises for 48 years.

·         It was not agreed that the premises were within the cumulative impact zone.

·         It was disappointing that the police’s supplement had only been provided to them the previous day.   It was confirmed that no adjournment was being requested.  

·         The business was a family run business with experience of running garage forecourts.  

·         The business had at least five premises  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.