Agenda and minutes

To elect a Chairman for the Sub-Committee B meeting.

Cllr Patricia Ellis was appointed Chairman for this meeting of Licensing Sub-Committee B.

To agree the Minutes of the Meeting held on 28 September 2015 which had been laid on the table half an hour before the start of the meeting.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 28 September 2015 were confirmed and signed.

There were no matters falling within this category.

Background Papers

The background papers relating to the following report items in part II are as specified in the agenda for the Committee.

The purpose of the report is to enable the Sub-Committee to consider an application from Marks & Spencer Foods Limited for a new premises licence for Marks & Spencer (M&S), Lion Lane, Haslemere, Surrey GU27 1LD, where two representations have been received from ‘other persons’.

Recommendation

The Sub-Committee is requested to consider the application for the grant of a premises licence on its merits.

Having regard to the representations made, the Sub-Committee must take such of the steps outlined below (if any) as it considers appropriate for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives. Those steps are:

·        To grant the licence subject to such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule modified to such extent as the Sub-Committee considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives, and any mandatory conditions;

·        To exclude from the scope of the licence any of the licensable activities to which the application relates;

·        To refuse to specify a person as the premises supervisor;

·        To reject the application.

The applicant’s legal representative attended the meeting.  The objectors to the application were not present at the meeting and their representations were taken into account in their absence.

The Licensing Manager introduced the report and advised that there had been no representations from relevant authorities and there had been one late representation received which had not introduced any new or different issues.  The applicant’s legal representative and the Sub-Committee were content that it be included in the consideration of the application.

The Licensing Manager advised the Sub-Committee that following sight of the objections to the application the applicant had amended the application by amending the hours for sale of alcohol and opening.  That had resulted in one objector being content with the amended application.

The applicant’s legal advisor then summarised the application and explained that upon acquiring a number of similar Co-Op stores, Mark & Spencer had submitted a number of new applications during the year all with the same hours for the sale of alcohol and opening, ie. 0600-0000 hours.  This was to allow seasonal flexibility and reduce the need to serve Temporary Event Notices.   However, on receipt of the objections the applicant had decided to amend the application to 0600-2300 hours.

The applicant’s legal adviser advised that the new application had been submitted because the new operator had difference policies and procedures and the premises layout was being changed to add a café.  Alcohol would be served in the café but only as part of the offers available on dining meals and staff serving in the café would have had relevant training in serving and selling alcohol.  The latest digital CCTV would be installed and when appointed the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) would also be the shop manager.  In his/her absence the Duty Manager would also have had training in the sale of alcohol.  The applicant’s legal representative also said that a number of concerns raised by the objectors were regarding planning and this was not within the remit of the Licensing Committee.

The Chairman then said that although no objectors were present their concerns would be taken into account.

The Sub-Committee then asked questions of the applicant’s legal representative and asked whether the applicant would be displaying notices that requested customers to leave the premises quietly.  The applicant would not normally display such notices but would do so if the Sub-Committee, with knowledge of the local area, requested it. 

The Licensing Manager then clarified that the Police, as a responsible authority, had not responded to the notice of the application and would usually only do so if they had a representation to make.

The Council’s Solicitor reminded the applicant’s legal representative that should the Sub-Committee be minded to grant licence then the premises would require a (DPS).  The applicant’s legal representative said that the present DPS would be changed when a manager, who would also be the DPS, was appointed.

The Sub-Committee then WITHDREW at 10.37.

Following the Sub-Committee’s deliberation the meeting RESUMED at 12.04.  The Council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.