Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The Senior Technical Officer presented the report and outlined the
application.
In response to Members’ questions the
Senior Technical Officer confirmed that each application should be judged on
its own merits.
Applicant’s Representative
Mr Bark made the following points on behalf of the Applicant:
i.
There was an amendment to the
application, the application currently sought a premises licence to supply
alcohol (off the premises) between 7am until 10pm Monday to Sunday however a
revised application sought a premises licence to supply alcohol (off the
premises) between 11am until 8pm.
ii.
He referred to the Cumulative Impact Policy and the test
which was contained within paragraph 5.10. He explained that this was in fact a
two stage test.
iii.
In any event this application would not add to the cumulative
impact.
iv.
Previous premises licence applications had been submitted but
each application should be determined on its own merits.
v.
There had been no representations from the Police on this
application and no Responsible Authorities had objected.
vi.
The application had been developed over a period of 2 years
and there had been extensive consultation with the Police and Jimmy’s homeless
shelter.
vii.
The Police were the guardians of the Cumulative Impact Policy
(as they had requested the policy). The Police were happy with the hours that
the application covered. The subsequent modification to the hours applied for
at the hearing was to give reassurances to the community.
viii.
Tesco Express stores were a convenience store, typically
customers bought shopping for the next day or day and a half and spent around
£15 and left with 2 bags of shopping.
ix.
The store had a product range of around 5000 and 100 alcohol
products which were mostly red and white wine.
x.
95% of sales of alcohol were linked to the sale of food.
xi.
This store had the best performance of ‘shrinkage’ in the
area.
xii.
Referred to a plan on p33 of the agenda which provided
details of the proposed store layout. The alcohol display would be at the
furthest point away from the entrance.
xiii.
Tesco treated any application for a premises licence
seriously.
xiv.
Did not believe that the application would add to the
cumulative impact.
xv.
Referred to paragraph 4.3 of the policy which stated that
licensing was a small element of dealing with anti-social behaviour.
xvi.
There had been a decline in the incidents in relation to
alcohol related crime.
xvii.
Tesco was a responsible operator and neighbour.
xviii.
Tesco was the first operator to have a ‘think 21 policy’ and
then changed this to a ‘think 25 policy’.
xix.
If an age restricted product was scanned at the till, it
required a member of staff to override this either by confirming that ID was
shown or that the person was clearly over 25. The till would also display the
date of birth for a person who would be 18 on that date, so that it was easy
for staff to carry out an ID check.
xx.
Tesco undertook their own mystery shopping checks, using
18/19 year olds. They cannot use children younger than 18 as only Trading
Standards and the Police have powers to do so.
xxi.
Safe and Legal checks were carried our quarterly, this
included checking premises were complying with their conditions and this would
be signed off by Store Mangers.
xxii.
All staff members received training on age restricted products
this was refreshed yearly and at busy periods during the year.
xxiii.
All Managers had conflict training so they had the right
tools to deal with situations involving conflict.
xxiv.
Tesco operated a ‘you say no, we say no’ policy to support
members of staff who refused to sell age restricted products to customers.
xxv.
There was always CCTV in stores and there would always be a
fixed camera on the entrance, tills and alcohol displays.
xxvi.
Tesco did not sell miniature alcohol products unless they
were part of a gift set.
xxvii.
Referred to a condition agreed with the Police that there
would be no displays of alcohol within a certain distance of the door.
xxviii.
One of the representations requested that the Designated
Premises Supervisor (DPS) was on site during the hours that alcohol was
proposed to be sold. This was not possible as it would breach the working time
directive. It was proposed to have a minimum of 3 DPS’s for the store.
xxix.
The delivery of alcohol would be incorporated with the
delivery of other goods (between 6-7).
xxx.
Following liaison with residents Tesco had reduced the size
of the vehicle used for deliveries.
xxxi.
Commented that their cleaners not only cleaned the store but
also 2 bins outside the store.
xxxii.
Referred to security guard conditions detailed on p41 and 42
of the agenda if the application was granted.
xxxiii.
Tesco expected customers to behave themselves in the store,
if they didn’t they would be asked to leave and if they still persisted with
anti-social behaviour they would be banned from the store and images of the
individual/(s) would be provided to the Police.
xxxiv.
Risk assessments were undertaken every 8 weeks. Tesco would
consider if they could be doing things better or should be doing things better.
xxxv.
5000 meals had been donated to Jimmy’s homeless shelter.
xxxvi.
There were no local promotions, all came from the Head Office
and tended to be linked to meal deals. Would be happy with any conditions
relating to this.
xxxvii.
Tesco had other stores in Cambridge that were in the
cumulative impact area.
xxxviii.
Would be happy to discuss a refusal book condition?
Member Questions
Mr Bark made the following statements in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The application may have the
appearance of a standard application but this was not the case. Referred to p32
of the agenda and the conditions agreed with the police. These were not
standard conditions and had been designed to address their concerns.
ii.
Referred to steps proposed to
promote the licensing objectives contained on p29 of the agenda. In particular
the Licensing Objective for crime and disorder objective this stated that ‘a
member of the Management team will ordinarily be on the premises all the time
the store is open…’. The word ordinarily could be
amended to ‘except in the case of an emergency’.
iii.
In relation to the licensing
objective ‘prevention of children from harm’, Tesco had the best system in
terms of age restrictions. Referred to a
community safety partnership in 2007, where Tesco was the only retailer
prepared to participate.
iv.
Commented that there had been no
specific contact with the local school and noted that the school did not object
to the application and he thought that the school had objected to previous
applications.
v.
Commented that there would always be
someone on site to be able to download CCTV. There was an agreement in place
with the Police to keep CCTV films for 31 consecutive days.
vi.
The Police suggested because of
the issue of street drinking and the location of the homeless shelter, that Jimmys were consulted. Discussions had taken place with Jimmys and they did not make any representations against
the application.
vii.
Understood representations from
the Ward Councillors and commented that a careful and responsible application
had been submitted and referred to the further amendments to the licensable
hours that had been put forward at the meeting.
viii.
Referred to pubs in the area that
had longer trading hours than them, which could be open until 2-3am.
ix.
Noted that public spaces had
reduced ability for people to be able to consume alcohol on them.
x.
Confirmed that Tesco would be
happy to put in place liaison groups with Ward Councillors and residents.
Other Persons
Councillor Robertson addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor for
the area:
i.
He had asked the Safer Communities
Manager to provide views to the Committee regarding the cumulative impact
policy as there was a lot of anti-social behaviour in Cambridge. East Road was
a hotspot and also the area outside Petersfield mansion.
ii.
There was a long history of
anti-social behaviour in Norfolk Street and other streets in the area.
iii.
Last summer there were problems
with people drinking in the area and when residents phoned the Police, they did
not turn up.
iv.
There were instances of
intimidation in the area and people relied on the cumulative impact policy to
ameliorate concerns.
v.
A Public Spaces Protection Order
(PSPO) had been put in place for Petersfield Green and areas on Mill Road.
vi.
The Police were overstretched, and
when he had spoken with the police representative at the East Area Committee,
the Police Sergeant had said that he had not been consulted about this
application.
vii.
The application was on the
boundary of 2 wards in the City. He understood that the police officer who
covered the West Central Area of the city had been consulted about the
application.
viii.
Expressed concerns that the
cumulative impact was being undermined and commented that he did not think that
the applicant had demonstrated that there would be no adverse impacts.
Councillor Bick addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor for the
area:
i.
East Road was a dividing line for city ward
boundaries.
ii.
An application for a premises licence had been
submitted twice before and had been rejected. A third application was made but
rejected and the decision was upheld by the Magistrates Court.
iii.
Questioned how the situation had changed since
previous applications.
iv.
The applicant stated that the police had not made
any representations.
v.
Referred to a lack of evidence and data to support
the application.
vi.
In relation to the cumulative impact policy, the
presumption was that further premises would aggravate the policy unless there
was evidence to the contrary.
vii.
Felt the application had a pro-forma approach.
viii.
Questioned how the applicant could expect an
approval with fewer conditions than other licensed premises.
ix.
Referred to the plan included in the agenda pack
and commented that this did not make it clear where alcohol would be sold /
located and commented that specifics needed to be included in the application.
Mike Davey made the
following comments:
i.
Referred to the licensing objective to promote
public safety and commented that he appreciated the steps that Tesco had taken
to ameliorate issues in the shop but the problem was outside the shop.
ii.
St Matthews Primary School was a large school which
had around 600 pupils.
iii.
He thought that Tesco should have had discussions
with the Primary School regarding the application.
iv.
Referred to a green space opposite the primary
school and the fact that people tended to congregate there and drink alcohol.
v.
Questioned if there had been any discussions with
residents of Staffordshire Garden.
vi.
The incidence of disorder around the area had not
changed.
vii.
Commented that the application should be refused on
the basis that the application did not promote the public nuisance and
protection of children from harm licensing objectives.
Mr Bark raised an issue about the Safer Communities Manager being able
to address the Committee and said that any representations could have been made
during the relevant consultation period and there may be evidence that they
would not have had time to prepare for. It was then agreed that the Safer
Communities Manager could read from a pre-prepared statement.
The Safer Communities Manager made the
following comments:
i.
As Safer Communities
Manager it was part of her role to address street based anti-social behaviour
across the city.
ii.
The City Council received
complaints about street based anti-social behaviour, which included begging,
drug dealing and drug and alcohol use. The areas most affected were Burleigh Street, the Grafton area and Fitzroy Street.
iii.
The City Council was
currently seeking injunctions against a number of people who engaged in begging
and street based anti-social behaviour.
iv.
Warning letters had been
issued to people in the area advising that legal action would be taken if they
continued with their anti-social behaviour.
v.
Initiatives had been
introduced like the Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) which prohibited
drinking in Mill Road and Petersfield Green and had allowed these areas to be
returned back to general public use.
vi.
Believed the sale of
alcohol in Tesco East Road store would contribute to the return of previous
problems on the Green with increased begging and anti-social behaviour.
vii.
Conditions agreed with
the Police addressed the sale of alcohol to underage people but it was unclear
what role security staff or staff in checkout areas would play.
Mr Bark made the following statements in response to Members’ questions:
i.
There was little that could be
done with rough sleepers whilst the shop was closed. Security staff or the
store manager would ask rough sleepers to move on during opening hours.
ii.
During the day if staff thought
that customers were trying to buys items for the rough sleepers this would be
discouraged.
iii.
The situation had improved with
the current Store Manager in post. The statistics on incidents had reduced.
iv.
Recognised that parents were
valued customers.
v.
Tesco would have a higher
incidence of calls to the Police as they would always keep them informed of any
incidents that occurred around their stores.
vi.
The function of security guards
was to reduce the incidence of thefts but also to provide a point of contact
for people outside the store.
vii.
In response to a member’s question
whether they would consider having 2 members of security staff during 3-4pm, he said that an extra security guard would be
considered as part of the store’s risk assessment.
viii.
The area around the Tesco store
had changed. He noted that references made in representations were to historic
problems.
ix.
When the Police had concerns they
would make a representation.
x.
The representations only referred
to fears as Tesco was not currently trading during these times.
xi.
The premises’ was unlikely to add
to the cumulative impact. Tesco were happy to have a further liaison with the
community. They had established close links with the homeless shelter nearby.
They sponsored 2 other homeless shelters.
xii.
Noted that there were no problems
in and around the store between 3-4pm and if any issues arose, staff would deal
with them immediately.
xiii.
They did not want a situation
where people outside the store were trying to get people to buy them alcohol
from the store. If this happened the matter would be investigated and if necessary
they would ban people from the store.
xiv.
Would be happy to host monthly or
bi-monthly meetings with the Primary School / Ward Councillors and residents so
that their views could be taken into consideration.
Summing Up
Mr Bark made the following points:
i.
A number of criticisms had been
made about the application but it had been carefully thought through.
ii.
They had liaised with Jimmy’s the
local homeless shelter in the area.
iii.
A number of conditions had been
offered to respond to issues that had been raised.
iv.
Had proposed to reduce the
licensable hours that had been originally applied for.
v.
If the licence was granted this
did not mean that people’s fears would be realised.
vi.
Referred to paragraph 9.12 and
noted that statutory consultees had not made any objections to the application
and hoped the application would be granted.
Members withdrew at 12:00 pm and returned at 12:45 pm. Whilst retired, and having made their decision, Members
received legal advice on the wording of the decision.
Decision
The Sub Committee resolved to reject the application.
Reasons for reaching the decision were as follows:
The application was likely to add to the existing cumulative impact. Relevant representations had been made, the applicant had made very little attempt to demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved would not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.
Supporting documents: