Agenda and draft minutes

Daily Field, Licensing Sub-Committee - Tuesday, 29th November 2016 6.15 pm

Venue: Civic Suite, North Warehouse, The Docks, Gloucester, GL1 2EP. View directions

Contact: Tony Wisdom  Democratic Services Officer

No. Item


Election of Chair

To appoint a Chair of the meeting.


Councillor Pullen was appointed Chair for the meeting.


Introductions and Procedures

The Chair to arrange introductions and explain the procedure to be followed during the meeting.


Those present introduced themselves and the Chair outlined the procedure to be followed for the meeting.


Declarations of Interest

To receive from Members, declarations of the existence of any disclosable pecuniary, or non-pecuniary, interests and the nature of those interests in relation to any agenda item. Please see Agenda Notes.


No declarations were made on this occasion.


Application under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of The Daily Field, 192, Barton Street, Gloucester. GL1 4HE pdf icon PDF 170 KB

To receive the report of the Head of Public Protection which invites the Sub-Committee to consider an application by Rasamanikkam Kandeepan in respect of The Daily Field store, 192, Barton Street, Gloucester.

Additional documents:


Licensing Officer’s Report


The Senior Licensing and Markets Officer presented the report which invited the Sub-Committee to consider an application by Rasamanikkan Kandeepan for a new premises licence in respect of The Daily Field Store, 192, Barton Street, Gloucester.


He outlined the background to the application which was detailed in Section 3 of the report and stated that the applicant had applied for the retail sale of alcohol between the hours of 06.00 and 23.00, Monday to Sunday inclusive.


He drew Members’ attention to Section 18 of the application (page 19 of the report) which detailed the measures which the applicant proposed to promote all four of the Licensing Objectives.


He noted that six objections had been received which were attached to the report as Appendix 4. Five of the objectors were prepared to withdraw their objections if the applicant would amend the starting time for the sale of alcohol to 09.00 or 10.00hrs. The agent for the applicant had declined the proposal.


There were no questions of the Officer from either Members of the Applicant.


The Applicant’s Case


The applicant was represented by Mr Nira Suresh.


The Agent stated that the applicant, who was experienced in licensable activities, had considered the local area and the history of the premises. He had believed that a licence had existed when he took over the premises.


He noted that concerns expressed by the objectors were not based on any evidence that granting the licence as applied for would cause public nuisance.

He stated that the applicant and his family would live in the area and would not want any public nuisance. The main business was not alcohol but was based on newspapers, vegetables and other goods.


He reiterated that the concerns of the objectors were not evidence based and the applicant was willing to accept a condition setting a maximum strength of 6.5 per cent ABV for beers, lager and cider to be sold from the premises.


The Chair asked why the applicant had not accepted the variation suggested by five of the objectors and was advised that the applicant wanted the hours for the sale of alcohol to be the same as the store opening hours.


Councillor Norman asked if the applicant had any experience of working in licensed premises including turning away customers who had had too much to drink. She was advised that the applicant had five or six years such experience.


The Senior Licensing and Markets Officer confirmed that there were other premises in the City with a 6.5 per cent ABV limit condition attached to their licences.


Summing Up by the Licensing Officer


The Senior Markets and Licensing Officer outlined the options available to the Sub-Committee detailed at paragraph 2.1 of the report.


Summing Up on behalf of the Applicant


In conclusion, the agent noted that the majority of customers in the morning were elderly and the previous owner had sold alcohol in the mornings. He stated that there had been no evidence of public nuisance linked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.