Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Alison Cornelius, seconded by Councillor Jim Tierney nominated Councillor John Hart to preside as Chairman for the meeting.

None.

None.

The Chairman explained the procedure that would be followed for the meeting.

The Sub-committee considered an application for a New Premises Licence for a Betting (other), under section 159 of the Gambling Act 2005 for Paddy Power, Plot 299, 128 Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 4AX together with submissions from the Licensing Officer, the Applicant and the Local Ward Councillors and public speakers who were objecting to the application.

RESOLVED that the parties be excluded from the meeting, together with the press and public, in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings and Regulations) 2005.

All parties were informed that the Committee’s decision would be advised to all interested parties within 5 working days.

The Sub-Committee deliberated in private session, accompanied by officers from HB Public Law and the London Borough of Barnet Governance Service.

The Sub-Committee, having considered the application and all verbal and written representations received, by a majority decision RESOLVED:

Decision Notice

This was an application submitted by Poppleston Allen on behalf of Power Leisure Bookmakers Ltd in respect of Plot 299, 128 Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 4AX.  The application was submitted under section 159 of the Gambling Act 2005 for a premises licence. 

The Sub-Committee considered all the representations made and heard representations from the representative of Paddy Power, and the objectors which included residents and the three Colindale Ward Councillors.  The Sub-Committee had regard to any relevant code of practice under section 24, the Gambling Commission’s guidance, Barnet Council’s statement of licensing policy and the following licensing objectives set out in section 1 of the Gambling Act 2005 in reaching its decision, namely:

·         Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime

·         Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way

·         Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

The Sub-Committee noted that some of the representations referred to the demand and need for a premises of this nature in the area.  However, the Sub-committee noted that section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005 makes it clear that in deciding whether or not to grant a licence, a licensing authority must not have regard to the expected demand for gambling premises that are the subject of the application.  Hence, the expected demand for the premises was not taken into account in the decision-making process.  The Sub-Committee also noted that a number of the representations referred to planning applications and the outcome of these applications.  The Sub-Committee noted the Gambling Commission Guidance and in particular section 210(1) of the Gambling Act 2005 which provides that in making a decision in respect of an application, a licensing authority should not have regard to whether or not a proposal by the applicant is likely to be permitted in accordance with law relating to planning or building.  Whilst the Sub-Committee had a great deal of sympathy for the residents in this regard, the Sub-Committee was bound by the legislation and therefore it did not have regard to planning issues or the expected demand for the premises.

The objectors raised objections concerning criminal activity and anti-social behaviour and believed that an additional betting shop would encourage this type of behaviour.  The Sub-Committee noted that the Police had not raised any concerns.  Whilst the sub-committee noted the objectors’ concerns, no empirical evidence that could be subject to scrutiny was produced.  The Sub-Committee noted that the guidance produced by the Gambling Commission refers to disorder as being activity that is more serious and disruptive than mere nuisance.  The Sub-Committee found no cogent evidence to suggest that the premises would be a source of crime and disorder or would be used to support crime.  In addition, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the conditions put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

None.