For members to consider an application by Samy Limited to vary a Premises Licence in respect of 227 Barton Street, Gloucester.
Licensing Officer’s Report
The Licensing Officer presented the report inviting Members to consider an application made by Samy Limited to vary a Premises Licence in respect of 227 Barton Street, Gloucester.
Statement of the Applicant
Counsel representing the applicant stated that the original application was to vary the opening hours so that the shop could sell alcohol for 24 hours, but that after consultation with Gloucestershire Constabulary, the application had now been amended.
He stated that the amended application was only for an additional hour to serve alcohol, that they would stop serving alcohol at 1am and that they would not sell single cans of beer, cider, or lager.
Counsel representing the applicant explained that Samy Limited bought the site from Sainsburys, that Samy Limited employed over 200 staff and had 25 stores across the country. He added that none of these stores had ever faced a licensing review.
He stated that the representations objecting to the application were based on when the application was to serve alcohol for 24 hours a day, as opposed to the amended application, which only stipulated the sale of alcohol for an additional hour.
He stated that he would encourage the Sub-Committee to attach very little weight to the petition in appendix 4 of the Council’s report. This was because the petition was not dated, had a prejudicial message at the top of it and no signatories of it had attended the meeting.
Counsel representing the applicant stated that any potential for anti-social behaviour in the area would have been identified by Gloucestershire Constabulary and noted that they did not object to the application.
He said that the shop was not located in a Cumulative Impact Area so there was no presumption of refusal.
He stated that paragraph 9.3 of the Council’s policy stipulated that shops should be allowed to serve alcohol whilst they were open. He stated that this was broadly consistent with governmental policy also.
He said that Samy Limited used the company CPL to provide training and confirmed that all staff were sufficiently trained, and they received refresher training every three months. He stated that they kept the area clean by providing litter bins. He further added that they provided parking spaces so that vehicles did not have to park on the road.
He stated that The Licensing Act was generally permissive but that there was a ‘sting in the tail’ which was the right to review. He said that if the application led to an increase in anti-social behaviour then any party would have a right to request a review.
He concluded by stating that the application before the committee proposed a small modification to the licence and that there was no evidence at this time to refuse the application and that the onus was on the objectors to prove to the contrary.
Members’ Questions to the Applicant
The Chair asked whether the amended application was financially viable.
In response, Counsel representing the applicant said that if the additional hour ... view the full minutes text for item 3