To elect a Chairman for the hearing.

Councillor P Jones CBE was elected as Chairman for the Regulatory Sub-Committee hearing.

To receive apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence were received.

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

There were no substitutes present at the hearing.

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 variation of a premises licence in respect of Black Horse Coach House, 74 South Street, Leominster, HR6 8JF.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee was convened in order to determine an application for a variation to a premise licence in respect of Black Horse Coach House. The application was submitted in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers and asked any interested parties to introduce themselves. The following attendees were noted:

• Mr Schmid (Newport Pub Company)
• Mr Kovacs (Designated Premises Supervisor)
• Ms De Oliveira (Designated Premises Supervisor)
• Mr Jackson (Representing the local residents)
• Mrs Davies (Representing the local residents)

The Chairman advised all parties of the hearing procedures and asked if any person required an extension to the time allocated for making representations. None of the attendees felt that an increase to the 10 minute time allocated for making representations would be required.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report and advised members that the application was for a variation to the existing licence. He confirmed that the applicant had agreed conditions and hours of licensable activity with the Environmental Health Officer.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mr Jackson, an interested party objecting to the application, addressed the sub-committee. He advised the Sub-Committee that he was representing 14 of the local residents who resided on South Street. He confirmed that he had lived 6 doors away from the Black Lion and that he had resided at his current address for 60 years. He noted the concerns of the local residents in respect of noise and vandalism and felt that the application should be rejected.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mrs Davies, another interested party objecting to the application, addressed the sub-committee. She advised the committee that the local residents had formed a residents association in an attempt to address issues of night time disorder in the area. She felt that the Black Horse had always been a ‘traditional’ public house and should remain so.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mr Schmid, representing the applicants, addressed the sub-committee in respect of the application. He advised the sub committee that the Newport Pub Company were a small company who operated 8 public houses. He felt that the Black Horse was a community pub which had recently had £100,000 spent on a refurbishment. He was concerned that a number of noise issues mentioned by the local residents were unsubstantiated and felt that the responsibility lay with the local nightclub. He added that the variation to the licence was only a minor increase in operational hours and asked the committee to grant the application.

The Sub-Committee retired to make their decision and requested that the Senior Litigator and the Democratic Services Officer retire with them to offer legal and procedural advice.

RESOLVED

That the application for a variation to the premises licence in respect of the Black Horse Coach House be approved in part subject to the conditions detailed in the attached decision notice.

To consider revocation of 10 Premise Licences issued under the Gambling Act 2005.

The Licensing Officer noted that 8 of the premises had now paid the licence fee. He advised the committee that the Ritz did not intend to renew their licence as the premises had closed and that the only outstanding licence was in respect of Symonds Yat Leisure Park.

The committee agreed to revoke the licence for Symonds Yat Leisure Park in accordance with sections 184 and 193 of the Gambling Act 2005.

RESOLVED:

THAT the licences issued under the Gambling Act 2005 in respect of Symonds Yat Leisure Park be revoked.

To consider an application for a review of a premises licence in respect of Stokes Stores, 4 Hoarwithy Road, Putson, Hereford, HR2 6HA.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee was convened in order to determine an application for a review of a premise 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 Stokes Stores had failed in three test purchase operations since the introduction of the Licensing Act in November 2005. The sales were made on 6 September 2006, 15 December 2006 and 12 August 2008.

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers and asked any interested parties to introduce themselves. He advised them of the hearing procedures and then asked the Licensing Officer to present his report.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, PC Steve Thomas, representing West Mercia Police Authority addressed the sub-committee. He advised them that the test purchase operations had initially been introduced as a Home Office sponsored initiative but due to a high failure rate in Herefordshire the Police Authority and the Trading Standards department had taken the decision to undertake a further series of test purchase operations throughout the end of 2007 and 2008. He confirmed that Stokes Stores had sold alcohol to a 16 year old female in September 2006, a 15 year old female in December 2006, and a 16 year old female in August 2008. He noted that the store had refused to sell alcohol in the most recent operation which took place in October 2008. In order to promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm and in accordance with Section 53 C (3)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003, he requested that two further conditions be added to the licence:

·         That the use of “challenge 21” is made a condition of all sales made on the premise.

·         That that the premise employs proven training method 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, Mr Tim Thorne, the Principal Trading Standards Officer addressed the sub-committee. He felt that a challenge 25 policy would be more beneficial than the challenge 21 policy that had already been in place when the test purchase sales were made. He drew members attention to his representation contained within the background papers which listed a number of conditions that he felt that the sub-committee may wish to attach to the licence.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mr Michael Walker, the premise licence holder’s legal advisor addressed the sub-committee. He advised the sub-committee that Stokes Stores employed 10 part time staff and that they were all over the age of 28 with one being a personal licence holder. He felt that it was impractical to ask for a premise licence holder to supervise all sales. He also felt that the introduction of a ‘Challenge 25’ policy could cause the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

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 premise 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 two test purchase operations since December 2007. The sales were made on 28 December 2007 and 20 August 2008.

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers and asked any interested parties to introduce themselves. He advised them of the hearing procedures and then asked the Licensing Officer to present his report.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, PC Steve Thomas, representing West Mercia Police Authority addressed the sub-committee. He advised them that the test purchase operations had initially been introduced as a Home Office sponsored initiative but due to a high failure rate in Herefordshire the Police Authority and the Trading Standards department had taken the decision to undertake a further series of test purchase operations throughout the end of 2007 and 2008. He confirmed that Somerfield had sold alcohol to a 16 year old female in December 2007 and a 16 year old female in August 2008. He noted that the store had refused to sell alcohol in two other test purchase operations in 2008. In order to promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm and in accordance with Section 53 C (3)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003, he requested that two further conditions be added to the licence:

·         That the use of “challenge 25” is made a condition of all sales made on the premise.

·         That that the premise employs proven training method 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, Mr Tim Thorne, the Principal Trading Standards Officer addressed the sub-committee. He noted that other Somerfield stores in Herefordshire had also failed in recent test purchase operations. He also noted that training had been overdue in one of the other stores and that training records in the Leominster store had not been checked.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mr John Walsgrove, the premise licence holder’s legal advisor addressed the sub-committee. He noted that it was the committees’ responsibility to promote the licensing objectives and felt that this would be best achieved through the addition of conditions on the licence. He voiced concern that other Somerfield stores in Herefordshire had been referred to during the Principal Trading Standards Officer’s presentation as he felt that the application should be considered on its own merits. He also noted that the ministerial letter referred to by the PC Thomas and the Principal Trading Standards Officer was for guidance and related to violent crime and alcohol related violent crime and was therefore not relevant in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

To consider an application for a review of a premises licence in respect of McCOLL’s,

7 The Oval, Hereford, HR2 7HG.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee was convened in order to determine an application for a review of a premise 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 McColl’s had failed in three test purchase operations since the introduction of the Licensing Act in November 2005. The sales were made on 4 May 2007 and 12 August 2008 (2 sales made).

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers and asked any interested parties to introduce themselves. He advised them of the hearing procedures and then asked the Licensing Officer to present his report.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, PC Steve Thomas, representing West Mercia Police Authority addressed the sub-committee. He advised them that the test purchase operations had initially been introduced as a Home Office sponsored initiative but due to a high failure rate in Herefordshire the Police Authority and the Trading Standards department had taken the decision to undertake a further series of test purchase operations throughout the end of 2007 and 2008. He confirmed that McColl’s had sold alcohol to a 16 year old female in May 2007 and two 16 year old females in one day on 12 August 2008. He also added that a sale of alcohol had also been made to a minor in August 2005. In order to promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm and in accordance with Section 53 C (3)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003, he requested that two further conditions be added to the licence:

·         That the use of “challenge 25” is made a condition of all sales made on the premise.

·         That that the premise employs proven training method 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, Mr Tim Thorne, the Principal Trading Standards Officer addressed the sub-committee.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mr David Crank, the premise licence holder’s legal advisor addressed the sub-committee. He noted 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 agreed to the suggested conditions as well as proposing a further condition regarding appropriate signage. He presented the committee with a booklet given to all employees called ‘Your Guide to Selling Alcohol’ and a fully documented training log which had been signed by all staff. He also stated that the store had decided to voluntarily introduce a challenge 30 scheme in store in an effort to promote the licensing objectives. He confirmed that the store had CCTV and also had a till prompt system.

In response to a question regarding the recent test sale failure Mr Crank advised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.