No declarations of interest were made.

Opening the meeting the Chair outlined the procedure to be followed and clarified that all relevant documentation had been circulated.

Stephen Beedell explained that the police representation had been withdrawn as the applicant had accepted all of the proposed conditions and had offered further conditions.  The other representation objecting to the application had not been withdrawn.

Graham Hopkins gave apologies for the absence of Mrs Patel and advised that she was in the process of applying for a personal licence.  The application had been made with the intention of improving the service to current customers and attracting new customers.  The intended customer base was people wishing to buy a beers or bottle of wine for consumption at home.

Mr Hopkins contended that the licence would not add to cumulative impact within the CIZ as the shop would not be open late into the evening and because the area designated for alcohol sales was a relatively small part of the shop, with spirits being kept behind the counter. He also referred to the case of Leeds City Council v Brewdog Bars Ltd where the magistrate ruled that policies should not be imposed simply because they exist.

Referring to the representation Mr Hopkins said that he had attempted to contact the objector but had received no response. He argued that the representation fell short of the evidential standards set by the Thwaites case and pointed out that no specific concerns had been raised by the police about street drinking. He asked that the Sub-Committee attach little weight to the representation.

In response to questions from members of the Sub-Committee Mr Hopkins clarified the location of the alcohol sales area, confirmed the days of opening as Monday to Saturday and explained that the sale of alcohol in sealed containers was to prevent it being opened in the shop.

Guy Bishop queried the reference to Costcutter in part M(a) of the application and it was explained that this was a separate business, being used here as an example.

Stephen Beedell reiterated that there was a single representation to be considered, the police representation having been withdrawn.

The Sub-Committee then retired to consider its decision.

On resuming Guy Bishop said that he had advised the Sub-Committee on the Thwaites case ruling.

The Chairman then read out the decision of the Sub-Committee and it was –

RESOLVED: That the application is granted with the following conditions –

1.      The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of a Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Officer. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.