None.

Members are requested to indicate at this stage in the proceedings any items on the agenda in which they intend to declare an interest. Members are reminded that if the interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct) they must leave the room for the whole of that item. If the interest is not a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, but is such that a member of the public could reasonably regard it as being so significant that it is likely that it would prejudice their judgment of the public interest (as explained in the Code of Conduct) then they may make representations, but then must leave the meeting for the remainder of the item.

None.

Report of the Shared Services Lead (Legal) and Deputy Monitoring Officer attached.

+The Panel met to consider a new application for a Premises Licence in respect of (Tesco Stores Ltd, Liverpool Road, Penwortham, Preston, PR1 9XE) pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Representatives on behalf of Tesco Stores Ltd were present at the hearing, the applicants Legal Representative, Christopher Rees-Gay was also in attendance and made representations on their behalf.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and outlined the procedure to be followed. Before the full hearing could commence the Panel were advised that a preliminary issue had been raised and would need to be considered.

A – Preliminary Issue

The Panel were advised that an objection had been received which alleged the applicant had not complied with Regulation 25 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises Licence and Club Premises Certificate) Regulations 2005. This was specifically in respect of the notice not being advertised for 28 days consecutively and not being displayed prominently on the external perimeter of the premises.

Ordinarily, this would be an issue which a Licensing Officer would have dealt with prior to a hearing, however as the Objector amplified her concerns it was decided that this required consideration. The objection was read out to the Panel by the Council’s Licensing Officer.

The Council’s Licensing Officer explained that the premises were currently a construction site and was in the process of being built. Officers had visited the site on three occasions and the notice was displayed on all three occasions. Regulation 25 requires that a notice, in the case of a premises covering an area more than 50 square meters, should be placed every fifty metres alongside the external perimeter. However, as the remainder of the external perimeter of the premises was surrounded by hedges, it was not practicable to place any notices elsewhere, except on Cop Lane, which is where the site access was.

 The Applicant’s Solicitor provided that the notices had been advertised correctly as required by Regulation 25 and evidence had been submitted to confirm this. The Council’s Legal Advisor explained that in respect of the timeframe of displaying the notices, the Applicant had provided evidence to rebut the allegation in this regard and had complied with the notices being displayed for the 28-day period. The issue was whether the site notices could practicably be placed around the external perimeter of the site, which consisted of hedges, therefore it was impracticable to place a notice on hedges.

The Council’s Legal Advisor advised the panel in respect of case law which deals with non-compliance of statutory requirements, in particular the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises Licenses and Club Premises certificate) Regulations 2005. Reference was made to the High Court Case of R (D & D Bar Services Ltd) v Romford Magistrates Court & London Borough of Redbridge (2014).

The Council’s Legal Advisor further explained, in respect of the timeframe of displaying the notice it would appear that the applicant had provided evidence to rebut the allegation in this regard and had complied  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.