Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Ascot Room - Guildhall. View directions

Contact: Shilpa Manek  01628 796310

Audio-recording: To listen, click here or to download and listen later, right click and save as an mp3

Items
No. Item

1.

APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN

To appoint a Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

Minutes:

Councillor Haseler proposed Councillor Cannon to be Chairman for the Panel. This was seconded by Councillor Davies.

 

2.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence received.

 

3.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST pdf icon PDF 217 KB

To receive any declarations of interest.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

 

4.

PROCEDURES FOR SUB COMMITTEE pdf icon PDF 22 KB

To note the procedural details for the meeting.

Minutes:

The Panel noted the procedures.

5.

CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003 pdf icon PDF 4 MB

To consider an application for a new premises licence under The Licensing Act 2003 for McColls, 4 Brockenhurst Road, South Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 9DL.

Minutes:

Licensing Officer

 

The Trading Standards and Licensing Lead, Greg Nelson, introduced the application for Members to consider. Mr Nelson explained that the application related to a new premises license. Mr Nelson informed the Panel that this was a new application for a premises licence with the standard opening hours of the premises from 6am to 11pm, Monday to Sunday and to permit the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption off the premises from 6am to 11 pm, Monday to Sunday. The application was outside of the current framework hours set out in the RBWM Licensing Policy Statement 2016-21. Mr Nelson informed the Panel that Mr David Davenport was the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). The premises was situated at 4 Brockenhurst Road, South Ascot.

 

The Licensing team had received no relevant representations from any of the responsible authorities. One submission had been made by the Planning Officer who objected to the licence application, although this was deemed not relevant as it did not relate to the four licencing objectives. There had been 24 representations from local residents and a petition that had been signed by 275 local residents. All the representations were available in the Agenda pack.

 

Mr Nelson reminded the Panel that they should have consideration for the four licensing objectives set out in the Licencing Act 2003, which were;

  • Prevention of crime and disorder
  • Public Safety
  • Prevention of public nuisance
  • Protection of children

 

All four objectives should be considered when making their decision, and their options were to;

  • Grant the application as submitted
  • Modify the conditions of the licence, by altering, omitting or adding to them
  • Reject the whole or part of the application

 

 

 

Questions to the Licensing Officer

 

Councillor Haseler commented on there being no objections from the police, but wanted to know if there were any anti-social hotspots in the surrounding area, Greg Nelson was not aware of any. Councillor Haseler further queried whether there was a rough sleeper problem, again to which Greg Nelson said there was nothing that he was aware of. The Applicant’s representative asked about the previous licence which was connected to the property and whether alcohol was allowed to be consumed off the premises, Greg Nelson confirmed that there was a previous licence for the sale of alcohol by retail for consumption on the premises as it was previously a restaurant. The Applicant’s representative then asked for confirmation on who had created the petition. Greg Nelson confirmed that it was the rival business Swinley Stores. The final question was to clarify that the site was a convenience store and therefore the Applicant argued the framework hours from the RBWM licencing policy did not apply. Greg Nelson said that the application was for a licence to sell alcohol by retail for consumption off the premises.

 

 

 

Applicant’s Case

 

The Applicant’s representative, Leo Charalambides, informed the Panel that not all of the representations made against the applicant were relevant. In particular, the representative pointed to the petition which had been set up by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.