Agenda item

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. It was noted that four Sub-Committee Members were present to hear the application however only three Members were required to make the decision. The Council’s Lawyer outlined the procedure for the hearing.

The Principal Licensing Officer presented the report of the Corporate Director of Neighbourhoods and Climate Change to consider and determine the application for the grant of a Premises Licence for Seaside Lane Minimarket, Gupta House, Seaside Lane, Easington Colliery, Peterlee, SR8 3JZ (for copy of report, see file of minutes).

The Principal Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that the applicant’s agent had submitted the application on 26 November 2024.  During the consultation period there was one representation received from Mr D Sadler and Ms L Dodds opposing the application which was accompanied by a signed petition by other local residents expressing their concerns relating to the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

The Principal Licensing Officer advised Members that the signatures on the petition had not been verified by the Licensing Authority.  Responses had been received from the Durham Safeguarding Children Partnership and Durham Constabulary confirming that they had no comments to make regarding the application.

There were no questions asked of the Principal Licensing Officer by attendees or Members of the sub-committee.

Mr Sadler addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of himself and other local residents objecting to the application based on their concerns that the area was already saturated with 5 other off-licenses and one convenience store.  An additional convenience store would have a negative impact on the viability of businesses in the area and on the safety of residents who were already well served.  He gave statistics from the crime website which showed Easington Colliery as having the most reported crimes which included violence, sexual offences, criminal damage, arson, shop lifting, theft and vehicle crime.  The store would increase access to alcohol making crime in the area worse and would not uphold the licensing objectives as set out in the Licensing Act 2003.  Existing stores had CCTV cameras installed, trained staff, kept refusal lists and had increased security staff. Crime had a significant impact on police resources every time they were called out to the area.  There had been complaints of under aged drinking in the vicinity which would be increased with the opening of this convenience store.  Noise disturbances would have an impact on the care home and Durham Aged Miners bungalows which was located opposite the store.  A petition signed by nearly 200 residents had been submitted objecting to the application which reflected the points he had raised. 

The Principal Licensing Officer advised Mr Sadler not to refer to case law which had not been part of his submission.

Mr Sadler implied that increased alcohol sales would place a burden on the health service due to alcohol related illnesses which had escalated.  The new convenience store would increase the volume of traffic on the main road creating safety issues for the vulnerable, elderly and young people.  He advised that he had been subject of criminal activity as the Manager of the Co-op.  He had referred to case law to reinforce the welfare of residents as the store did not serve their needs and did not address the risks faced by the community therefore the application should be rejected.

There were no questions asked of Mr Sadler by attendees or members of the sub-committee.

Councillor A Watson asked if there was any evidence to show that the applicant was not a responsible or fit person to run the premises.

Mr Baker, the applicant’s agent responded that he would address the applicant’s responsibility in his presentation.

Councillor D Brown sought clarity that there were 6 convenience stores in the area.  He thought that if there was a rise in crime with shop lifting and vandalism in the area the police would have made representation as part of the consultation process.

Mr Sadler explained that there were 5 off-licences and one convenience store which did not sell alcohol in the area.  He advised that he had used data on the crime rates from the website which were specific to Easington Colliery. 

Mr Baker, the applicant’s agent addressed the sub-committee to alleviate the concerns which had been raised regarding the application.  He informed the committee that the applicant had extensive experience of owning and running convenience stores.  The applicant had held a personal licence since 2012 and knew the area having one store in Hartlepool and two in Durham from 2014 until 2017.  He was going to remove himself as a Designated Premises Supervisor from the Hartlepool store in favour of his wife so he could concentrate on the new store.  He had invested £80,000 to transform the building which had been derelict for ten years.  The store would provide a payment point, ATM, lottery tickets, hot drinks and provide a parcel collection service. 

Mr Baker noted that responsible authorities had received information on the application as part of the consultation exercise and had made no representation which showed they had no concerns.  There had been no objections submitted from Environmental Health regarding public nuisance.  He had reviewed the petition submitted and from the 169 signatures he could only identify 14 residents who lived in the streets within 300 metres of the shop.  He reiterated that the signatures had not been verified by the Licensing Authority therefore he thought that no weight should be given to the petition.  With regards to the statistics given by Mr Sadler on crime in the area there had been no comments made by Durham Constabulary.   He confirmed that CCTV would be installed with 11 cameras fitted inside the store and 3 external cameras fitted which was recommended in the layout suggested by the police.  Recordings would be kept for 30 days and would be available on request. 

Mr Sadler responded that he had checked the crime statistics and confirmed that everyone who had signed the petition lived in Easington Colliery. 

Mr Baker noted that it could not be confirmed that the statistic on the crime website had involved investigations by the police or if they had been fuelled by alcohol.  However the police did have their finger on the pulse in the area and were satisfied with the application and the licensed hours which were within the licensing framework. 

Mr Baker responded to Mr Sadlers comment that the store would have a negative impact on safety and create noise that there had been no objections from the care home who were satisfied with the application and the store could be a convenience for the elderly.

Mr Baker replied to Mr Sadler that it was not easily identifiable on the petition to indicate that residents from the care home has signed the petition.    He thought that had there been any concerns they would have been expressed by the owners of the care home.

Councillor I McLean asked the Lawyer how much weight the panel should give to the petition.

The Lawyer advised that all the points had been put forward and it was up to the panel but they needed to be aware that the signatures had not been verified in any way. 

Councillor A Watson asked if Mr Sadler had had any discussion with Durham Constabulary regarding the statistics he had presented and if they had made any comments regarding the application. He queried if the shop was operational.

Mr Sadler confirmed that he had not had any discussions with Durham Constabulary regarding the statistics he had used in his presentation but they were based on the information on the crime website. 

The applicant explained that he was in the process of installing the fixtures and fittings inside the premises but the shop was not operational at present. 

Mr Baker added that once the floor and ceilings were finished the CCTV cameras would be installed as per the conditions of the licence and then staff would be trained accordingly.

Councillor D Brown asked what the average revenue would be in alcohol sales for the store once it was up and running.

Mr Baker responded that it was widely accepted that a convenience store if unlicensed would generate a 10-15% turnover but selling alcohol would general a further 10-15% in other products being sold. He thought that the store would make 20-30% profit with the sale of alcohol.  If the store was unlicenced if would attract less customers.

Councillor J Blakey asked if there would be regular checks carried out on the cameras to ensure they worked constantly and would this be recorded in a log book.

Mr Baker stated that this request was not specific in the conditions of the licence but the applicant would be happy for this additional condition to be added. 

All parties were given the opportunity to provide closing statements and at 10.27 am the Sub-Committee consisting of Councillor D Brown, Councillor J Blakey and Councillor A Watson Resolved to retire to deliberate the application in private.  After re-convening at 10.57am the Chair delivered the Sub-Committee’s decision.

In reaching their decision the Sub-Committee had considered the objections raised by Mr Sadler, verbal representation from Mr Baker on behalf of the applicant and the petition submitted on behalf of local residents.  Members also considered Durham County Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Revised Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended August 2023) and the interim steps available to them.

Resolved:

That the Licence be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.