The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that the Sub-Committee would comprise Councillors Dychton, Grimston and Saffery.

The Sub-Committee was asked to elect a chair for the hearing.

RESOLVED –

that Councillor Saffery be elected chair for this hearing.

There were no disclosures of interest.

Report of the Head of Community Protection

This report asks the Sub-Committee to consider an application for a new premises licence following the receipt of representations.

The Chair welcomed all parties to the hearing and explained the procedure to be followed.                  

The Senior Licensing Officer advised that there were preliminary matters for members to be aware of. Additional information had been received from two of the objectors as well as further details about the operation of the business from the applicant. Members of the Sub-Committee and the applicant confirmed that they had all received all these documents.

The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that one of the representations included with the agenda papers, 4D, had been withdrawn and no consideration should be given to its contents by the Sub-Committee.

Of the five remaining interested parties, four had confirmed that they were not intending to attend the hearing but wanted their representations to stand. No response had been received from the fifth interested party. Although the presence of all parties was not required, it did limit the opportunities for members to question them. Members of the Sub-Committee confirmed that they were happy to proceed in their absence.

Introduction to the application

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Head of Community Protection outlining an application for a new premises licence for an outbuilding at 132 Ridge Lane. The application was for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises. Five valid representations had been received from interested parties. Further to comments made in the representations, it was noted that planning and licensing were separate regimes underpinned by different legislation. Conditions had been agreed with the police and there were no representations from responsible authorities. One interested party had questioned the wording of these conditions but had not responded to requests for suggested amendments. Mediation had been offered but not all parties had wished to participate, preferring that the matter be decided by members.

There were no questions from members, the Senior Solicitor or the applicant.

Address by the applicant

The applicant, Miss Soral Chavda, presented the application to the Sub-Committee. Miss Chavda advised that the nature of her application had developed since she submitted the application form. She set out how she would address the four licensing objectives and the measures agreed with the police, these included:

·      Orders could only be made from a bona fide address.

·      Collections could only take place at a pre-arranged single time slot.

·      Any customers collecting orders would park on the driveway of the property.

·      No promotional discounts would be available.

·      Sales would be made by the applicant as the designated premises supervisor.

Prevention of crime and disorder:

·      There would be no events or consumption of alcohol on the premises.

·      A Challenge 25 age verification policy would be in place.

·      CCTV was being installed at the property.

·      No large quantities of alcohol would be sold; the kits bought would be deconstructed cocktails for home mixing.

Public safety

·      Sales would only take place remotely.

·      Every kit sold would be pre-ordered and bespoke.

·      Customers who collected orders would be asked to arrive and leave quietly and would only be at the premises for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.