Minutes:
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube
The Applicant’s Representative presented the case on behalf of the applicant explaining that, due to the concerns raised by residents, he and the Applicant had visited the premises and vicinity including the Morrisons shop and the nearby Schools before the Hearing. He stated that the Primary School was similarly located to the applicant’s premises and the existing Morrisons and the Secondary School were a four-minute walk away.
The Applicant’s Representative provided detail of the premises, explaining that it was previously a GP Surgery built around the sixties or seventies. He acknowledged that residents were concerned by the closure of the Surgery but understood that the premises were now deemed unfit for purpose so were unlikely to reopen as a surgery. He stated that the Applicant would bring the empty unit back into use to serve the local community.
The Applicant’s Representative provided background on the Applicant stating that he had been in the trade all his life and had been involved in conversions before. He stated that the Applicant intended to move here and run the business for a period before it was established and he would then appoint a Designated Premises Supervisor to run the store, however he would still oversee operations.
The Sub-Committee were informed that the premises would be a One Stop and as part of this the store would be required to comply with their regime and would be regularly visited by Area Managers to ensure statutory compliance.
The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to the conditions within the report and the Applicant’s Representative stated that conditions should be appropriate and enforceable and he felt that the conditions to be imposed were just that.
The Applicant’s Representative explained that he had spoken to Councillor Everett in advance of the Hearing and the Applicant would offer additional conditions that could be attached to the Licence.
The first condition was that the Challenge 25 Policy would be extended to deliveries and age verification would be required at point of order and point of delivery.
The second condition offered by the Applicant was that no more than 25% of display space would be used for alcohol. The Applicant’s representative stated that the premises would be a convenience store not an off licence.
The Applicant’s Representative reminded the Sub-Committee that no Responsible Authorities had raised concern regarding the application and directed the Sub-Committee to the Section 182 Guidance relating to Responsible Authority Representations.
The Applicant’s Representative also stated that cumulative impact and the location of the schools was not a consideration for this application. He stated that the application was well structured and would serve the local community.
The Chair invited questions from the Licensing Services Manager who asked for confirmation of the two additional conditions that could be attached to the licence which were imposing the Challenge 25 Policy on deliveries and that no more than 25% of display space to be used for alcohol.
In response to a question from Councillor Everett, the Applicant’s Representative confirmed that ID would be required at the point of delivery.
Councillor Colwell queried the four-minute walk to the Secondary School as stated by the Applicant’s Representative and it was his understanding that the School was a lot closer as there was a short cut through the Community Centre grounds. The Applicant’s Representative stated that he had not realised that there was a short cut.
In response to a question from Councillor Sandell, the Applicant’s Representative stated that there would be CCTV covering the outside of the premises. He informed the Sub-Committee that Councillor Everett had raised concerns regarding the hedge outside the premises, and stated that, even though this was something that may not be able to be conditioned, the Applicant would undertake to reduce the size of the hedge.
Councillor Ayres asked how staff would be trained on the Challenge 25 policy and the Applicant stated that One Stop provided information and online training and would check on processes during their regular visits.
Councillor Moriarty asked for clarification on the location of the CCTV outside the premises and the Applicant highlighted the locations on the plan within the Agenda. He stated that there would be four external cameras and confirmed that he would reduce the height of the hedge to approximately two feet.
In response to a question from Councillor Moriarty, the Applicant’s Representative stated that the One Stop Area Manager would conduct weekly visits to check that standards were being met and sort out any issues.
Councillor Moriarty asked about the Challenge 25 Policy for deliveries and asked if this needed to be explored further by the Applicant. The Applicant stated that deliveries were ordered through the One Stop Website and deliveries were made by Uber Eats or Deliveroo, a procedure would be put in place for the delivery driver and clear instructions would be provided to the buyer.