Venue: Microsoft Teams
Contact: Nazyer Choudhury, Democratic Services, 020 7926 0028, Email: email@example.com
Election of Chair
MOVED by Councillor Joshua Lindsey, SECONDED by Councillor Irfan Mohammed
RESOLVED: That Councillor Fred Cowell be elected to Chair the meeting.
Declaration of Pecuniary Interests
Under Standing Order 4.4, where any councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct (para. 4)) in any matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council, a committee, sub-committee or joint committee, they must withdraw from the meeting room during the whole of the consideration of that matter and must not participate in any vote on that matter unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Monitoring Officer.
None were declared.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 20 August 2020 as a correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 20 August 2020 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.
Strategic Director, Sustainable Growth and Oportunity
Contact: Bina Patel, Licensing Manager, 020 7926 4103
This application was withdrawn from the agenda.
The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a variation of a premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Chapters 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Chapter 5 (policies 1, 3, 4 and 8) of the Statement of Licensing Policy, as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraphs 6.2 of the report on page 70 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· This was an application to extend the terminal hour for the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshment.
· There was a typographical error in the Licensing Officer’s report which stated that the sale of alcohol was ‘off sales’ when it should have said that the application was for the sale of alcohol for consumption both on and off the premises.
· The applicant was seeking to remove embedded restrictions 1-7 and condition 77 which referred to the operation of the premises on New Year’s Eve by way of non-standard timing.
· The application could be found on pages 71-80 of the agenda papers.
· A total of four representations had been received. Three of which were from Responsible Authorities; Licensing, Public Protection and the Police and one of which was from Councillor Linda Bray.
· Representations could be found from page 81-92 of the agenda papers.
· Councillor Linda Bray had submitted additional papers supporting her original representation and this had been circulated to all relevant parties.
· The applicant had also provided supporting documents, partly to confirm a proposed reduction in operating hours. This could be found on pages 1-7 of the additional agenda papers.
The Chair informed the meeting that if the Sub-Committee was to grant the application, it was important to note that following the terms of Regulation 4 of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020, the applicant was not currently permitted to provide services during the emergency period between the hours of 22:00 and 05:00. Following the lifting of the emergency period, if granted, the applicant may operate under the hours set out in the licence.
In response to questions from the Chair, Mr Thomas O’ Maoileoin informed the Sub-Committee that the applicant was unable to attend this meeting due to work commitments.
The Chair stated that the Sub-Committee felt that given the nature of the application being located in a cumulative impact zone and the requirements needed to address the issue, it was important that the Sub-Committee was able to address questions directly to the applicant and obtain reassurances from the applicant regarding the nature of the application itself. The cumulative impact zone reversed the position of the Sub-Committee being minded to grant the application unless the applicant could demonstrate that there would be no negative impact on any of the licensing objectives and therefore the Sub-Committee would put a strong emphasis on being able to hear directly from the applicant. If the application was to be ... view the full minutes text for item 4b
The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a new gambling premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Paragraphs 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.7, 21.8, 21.9, 21.10 and 21.11 of the Gambling Commission’s Guidance as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraphs 6.1 of the report on page 120 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· This was an application submitted by East Kent Leasing for a new gaming centre to make gaming machines available at the premises 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
· The applicant and his representatives were in attendance at the meeting.
· The application form and plan was attached to annex a on pages 121-139 of the agenda papers.
· There were three representations against the application. These could be found on pages 141-157 of the agenda papers.
· Following mediation, the applicant had submitted further additional information and this could be found on pages 9-120 of the additional agenda papers.
The applicants Mr Jordan Godden, Mr Jeremy Godden, Mr Stephen Lawrence and their representative Mr Andrew Woods informed the Sub-Committee that:
· This was an application for an adult gaming centre and not an application for a betting shop. The two types of premises were different in how they operated in both clientele and style of operation.
· Their clientele was split roughly 50% male and 50% female.
· Games could be played by betting approximately £0.40 to £2.00.
· Unlike betting shops staff did not sit behind counters. They could be found on the shop floor.
· If a patron was to enter the premises, they would find members of staff inside and around the premises.
· The premises did not have seating like betting shops.
· The applicant would be able to address any issues the Sub-Committee had.
· It was important to understand that the business was generally ‘low-key’ in how it operated.
· The premises would generally serve local people and passing customers.
· The company’s directors experienced operators and had previously operated 16 gambling premises. They were currently operating two gambling premises.
· The applicants had operated several gambling premises around various parts of London.
· As the business was a family-oriented business, one of the three applicants would be present at the premises at all times. This was true for all the premises they operated.
· None of the other premises the applicants operated had any of the concerns that had been expressed by residents regarding this application.
· The applicants did not suffer from loitering or antisocial behaviour in any of the other premises that they operated.
· The applicants realised that every area was different and had different community needs.
· The applicant would employ up to seven to eight members of staff at the premises.
· The additional papers outlined what the applicants would provide to help uphold the licensing objectives. This included policies, procedures and training documents. There would also be signs put up at the premises and patrons ... view the full minutes text for item 5a