The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that the sub-committee would comprise Councillors L Nembhard, G Saffery and R Wenham.

The sub-committee was asked to elect a Chair for the hearing.

RESOLVED –

that Councillor Wenham be elected Chair for this hearing.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The Chair, Councillor Wenham, welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked all present to introduce themselves.

The Chair invited the Senior Licensing Officer to introduce the report.

The Senior Licensing Officer advised that the preliminary matters for members' attention would be addressed in the report.

The sub-committee received a report from the Senior Licensing Officer, which outlined an application that had been made by Expo Cash & Carry Ltd for a new Premises Licence for Expo Cash & Carry, 35 Market Street, Watford.

The Senior Licensing Officer presented his report to the sub-committee, which detailed the application for a new licence for Expo Cash & Carry and included remote alcohol sales and delivery.  The suggested opening hours were outlined in a table in paragraph 4.12 of the application for a new premises licence.  The original application was attached in Appendix 1.  The premises were situated on Market Street.  Under policy LP1, the premises were classified as an off-licence.  According to policy LP2, the premises fell within a residential area characterised by a mix of commercial and residential properties.

Two representations were made - one from the Police emphasising concerns over all licensing objectives (Appendix 3) and another from a resident expressing concern about public nuisance (Appendix 4).  No other representations were received.  However, one representation was received after the consultation period which had been rejected.

Additionally, the premises fell within the Market Street sensitive licensing area as per policy LP4.  In paragraph 5.6 of the report, it was highlighted that a different licence holder held an existing premises licence for this location.  The application form stated that this application was for a new licence, asserting the current licence's ineffectiveness.  The application sought different operating hours compared to the existing licence, and it was filed under a different licence holder's name. 

Evidence was submitted before the hearing, consisting of three videos from Amanda Conlon and an email correspondence from Liam Fitzgerald that had been sent to all parties.  It was confirmed by all parties that they had viewed this material before the hearing.

A video was submitted by the applicant on the morning of the hearing.  During the discussion, the committee considered whether it could be viewed as all parties must agree to its submission.  Amanda Conlon asked if she could also submit a video.  The Chair agreed that both videos would be viewed, and the meeting was adjourned.

The sub-committee adjourned to view the videos.

The meeting reconvened.

The Senior Licensing Officer discussed the representations submitted by the Police, acting as a responsible authority, which could be found in Appendix 3.  No other responsible authority submitted representations.  Officers had identified several conditions at paragraph 9.14 of the report which were consistent with the operating schedule and potential conditions at paragraphs 9.17 and 9.18.  These were similar to conditions suggested by the Police.  However, an agreement could not be reached during consultations between the Police and the applicant regarding these points.  

There were no questions from Members.

There were no questions from the Applicant’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.