To receive apologies for absence.

There were no 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 any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider an application for a new premises licence in respect of Supersam, 141-143 Eign Street, Hereford, HR4 0AJ.

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

Prior to making their decision the members heard from Fred Spriggs, licensing officer, Tim Thorne, principal trading standards officer and Sergeant Duncan Reynolds, West Mercia Police.    Members also heard from the applicant and the applicant’s agent, Patrick Burke.   

The committee heard from the trading standards officer that the premises had a history of selling non-duty paid and/or counterfeit tobacco and the premises licence had been revoked twice in the previous seven years, the most recent revocation being in December 2016.   The shop had a long association with the sale of non-duty paid and counterfeit tobacco.   The customer base was the same.   The premises were sold on 21 February 2017 and thereafter three separate successful test purchases were undertaken on 8 March, 22 March and 12 April of non-duty paid cigarettes.   The cigarettes sold were Polish non-duty paid and these were produced to the committee.   The applicant had been provided with photographs of the cigarettes Trading Standards were producing.   A fourth test purchase had failed and trading standards asserted that this was because the staff had realised that the individual was a test purchaser.   Trading standards said the sale of non-duty paid tobacco was a serious offence under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and capable of a punishment of seven years imprisonment on conviction.

The police then stated they were aware of the history of the premises and two revocations and believed because of the activity described by trading standards to grant a licence would undermine the crime and disorder objective.

The applicant’s agent said the history of the premises was not relevant as this was a new owner.   They refuted that the tobacco had come from these premises, the applicant when questioned by members confirmed this to be the case.   They asserted that no one of the description put forward by trading standards was at the premises and questioned if these test purchases had occurred why the applicant had not been interviewed under the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) regulations.   The evidence of trading standards was flawed.   

The applicant stated that they were committed to there being no contraventions of the licensing conditions going forward as demonstrated by the proposed operating schedule in the application.   They were prepared to accept additional conditions and opening hours of 0800 hours to 2000 hrs.  

There were some questions asked of both the applicant, the applicant’s agent and the trading standards officer about who worked at the premises and when.   The replies from the applicant were inconsistent first saying two people and then stating one.  The committee soought clarity from the applicant and her agent as to whether she understood the proceedings or would like the matter adjourned to another day to have an interpreter present. She said that she understood everything being said and did not need an interpreter. Her  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.