03
Prior to the delivery of the report, Mr Dadds requested permission to address the Committee. Mr Dadds expressed concern that some of the Councillors present had also been part of the Licensing Sub-Committee in April 2025 that made the decision to revoke the licence of this premises – it was noted that this decision was under appeal at the time of this meeting. The relevant Councillors confirmed that they were not predetermined and that they would enter this meeting with an open mind.
Mr Dadds also raised that the police licensing team has not objected to this application, noting that they did request a condition that was agreed, however the Committee has been asked to consider an objection from a serving police officer from the same police force. It was suggested that weight not be given to this representation as it was unclear whether Sgt Smith has made his representation with authorisation from the Norfolk Chief Constable to make a representation on behalf of the police force. Mr Dadds also expressed concern that the representation from Sgt Smith was potentially invalid, as it was addressed to the Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer directly, rather than following the proper process of addressing a representation to the Licensing department as the responsible Licensing Authority.
The Solicitor stated that the representation from Sgt Smith was considered to be valid, however depending on the delegations held by Sgt Smith the representation could be considered as an individual representation rather than that made on behalf of a responsible authority.
Members received and considered the reported delivered by the Licensing Officer regarding the application for a new premises licence in relation to Express Store & Post Office, 29 St Peters Road, Great Yarmouth, NR30 3BQ. It was reported that the premises is situated within the area where a Cumulative Impact Policy is in force. The premises was described as a post office and convenience store. It was reported that the licence application was for the following licensable activities and timings:
- Late night refreshment: 23:00 to 05:00 each day
- Supply of alcohol: 24 hours a day
The Licensing Officer advised that upon expiry of the 28-day representation period, 4 valid representations objecting to the application were received. The representations are from the Environmental Protection and Waste Team, the Licensing Authority, Sergeant Dan Smith (Norfolk Constabulary) and the Environmental Commercial Team. The Licensing Officer explained that the two teams from Environmental Servies were unable to attend the meeting, however they wished to have their written representations considered. It was noted that the Police Licensing Team proposed the following condition be added to the operating schedule and this was agreed by the applicant:
‘No single cans or bottles of beer or cider, normally only available in packs, shall be sold from these premises’
Members were asked to decide on one of the following options:
- Grant the application subject to the conditions identified in the operating schedule and modified to such an extent as the authority considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
- To exclude form the scope of the licence any of the licensable activities to which the application relates.
- Reject the applications.
The Chair hereby asked if there were any questions for the Licensing Officer.
The Chair asked whether there is a licence already in existence at this premises. The Licensing Officer explained that the premises licence for this premises was reviewed by Licensing Sub-Committee in April 2025 where the decision was made to revoke the licence and that this decision has been appealed with a court date set for end of May 2026. It was added that Mr Gnanavel, the applicant, was the DPS on the previous licence.
The Chair asked what hours the premises was licensed to sell alcohol on the previous premises licence. The Licensing Officer clarified that the previous premises licence allowed for the sale of alcohol (off the premises) for 24 hours a day.
Mr Dadds asked the Licensing Officer to confirm that the Cumulative Impact Policy would not be relevant to this application as the application was submitted before the policy came in to force. Mr Dadds cited paragraph 1.6 of the s182 statutory guidance as supporting legislation and suggested that the decision of this Committee be made using the policies that existed at the time of the application. It was added that the premises licence that was revoked by Licensing Sub-Committee in April 2025 is still operational as the appeal has not been heard by the Magistrates Court, therefore the decision is suspended until the court case has concluded. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the Cumulative Impact Policy came into force during the representation period for this application, therefore it was agreed that the reference to this policy within the representations would be disregarded as policy cannot be applied retrospectively.
The Chair hereby invited Mr Dadds to address the Committee on behalf of the applicant.
Mr Dadds stated that the burden is on those making representations to give evidence as to why this application for a new premises licence would not adhere to the licensing objectives. It was added that the representation from the Environmental Protection Team be given little weight as it relates to the sale of food and not the sale of alcohol which is the basis of this application. It was also noted that there were no representatives from either of the two team from Environmental Services who could answer any questions at the meeting. Mr Dadds stated that the representation from the Licensing Authority relied partly on the Cumulative Impact Policy which had been disregarded due to the date that it came into force, and that the other comments made in the representation lack any supporting data. In relation to the representation submitted by Sgt Smith, Mr Dadds stated that it is unclear whether this representation should be given any weight as typically the police licensing team make representations under delegation by the Chief Constable, however it is not confirmed whether Sgt Smith had this authorisation to make representations on behalf of the Norfolk Constabulary. Mr Dadds added that representations made at Committee can only amplify what is contained in the written representations and that the applicant’s team did not consent to any additional evidence, data or information.
Mr Dadds explained that this premises had been operating with a licence for 15 years and though a there was a review by the Committee, the appeal of this decision had not been head by the Magistrates Court at the time of this meeting. It was added that there were no objections from the police licensing team, local councillors or local residents and that Members should give weight to the fact that no resident had raised an objection to the application. Mr Dadds concluded by requesting that the Members grant this application due to a lack of evidence from those making representations that the licensing objectives would not be met by the conditions listed in the application.
Councillor Newcombe asked whether the applicant has bought the premises and whether they have had any involvement previously. Mr Dadds confirmed that the applicant was first employed at the premises in summer 2025 as the DPS and manager. It was added that he is a person of good character, and the police have not objected to Mr Gnanavel having a licence or being the DPS.
Councillor Newcombe asked when the applicant is typically present at the premises. Mr Dadds stated that the management of the premises is not a matter that could be considered in this decision, however it was confirmed that the applicant works at the premises multiple days a week, typically on the night shift. It was added that the day-to-day management is a matter for the premises and not the Licensing Authority. The Solicitor stated that Members would take account of statutory guidance, local policy and the evidence in from of them.
Councillor Newcombe requested clarification as to the percentage of sales overnight relate to the sale of alcohol and what strength of alcohol is most commonly purchased in the late hours. Mr Dadds clarified that the sale of alcohol makes up roughly 10% of sales overnight and that the strength of the alcohol purchased at this time varies.
Councillor Newcombe referenced working people who may visit the shop at early hours in the morning after work and asked how many people roughly enter the shop at one time following a drop off by the coaches transporting factory workers. Mr Dadds stated that the number varies depending on the season due to many of the workers coming from farms as well as factories. It was added that patrons are encouraged to disperse once they have made their purchases and that the premises has been focusing on promoting dispersal to reduce anti-social behaviour.
Councillor Newcombe asked regarding the incident book and whether it is kept up to date with reasons for refusal recorded. Mr Dadds explained that the incident book is kept up to date and that the nature of incidents are recorded to identify patterns.
Councillor Newcombe asked whether the premises adheres to food hygiene regulations. Mr Dadds stated that this question was out of the scope of licensing authority guidance and that public safety relates to the physical safety or wellbeing of the public on the premises, not food hygiene standards. It was added that there is no food safety issue as there would have been a prohibition notice served if Environmental Health felt it necessary. The Solicitor commented that due to limited resource, there is no guarantee that a prohibition notice would be served, however this question and the answer do not pertain to this application concerning the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshment.
Councillor Newcombe asked how the premises would seek to mitigate the impact on residents in the area such as monitoring times of deliveries. Mr Dadds stated that the applicant would be open to adding a condition stating no overnight deliveries, however Members were asked to not that there had been no representations made by residents or local councillors. It was added that, at the time of the meeting, the earliest delivery was at 6:30am.
Councillor Newcombe noted that there are communities of various ethnicities residing in this area and requested clarification as to whether the premises would seek out signage in multiple languages. Mr Dadds stated that generally pictures are used to communicate on signs as a universally recognisable symbol for quiet, however the applicant would agree to sourcing signs in multiple languages.
Councillor Newcombe asked whether the premises has procedures in place to disperse people who congregate outside after purchasing alcohol. Mr Dadds explained that staff at the premises would attempt to move people on and that they would refuse service if the people refused to leave.
The Solicitor referenced Mr Dadds’ objection to the Cumulative Impact Policy being referenced in this decision and stated that statutory guidance suggests that this policy cannot be considered as Members must decide based off of the local policy and guidance in place at the time of the application being submitted. The Solicitor commented regarding the representation from Sgt Smith and stated that the police have more than one department, therefore if a serving officer wishes to object on the grounds of their experience and local knowledge as a police officer, then it would be considered a police objection. Mr Dadds stated that officers can only make representations on behalf of the Chief Constable if given the delegation to do so and that Sgt Smith should be clear as to whether he is making his representation on behalf of the Norfolk Constabulary with authorisation from the Chief Constable or as an individual. It was added that it is unusual for a police officer to make an objection separately from the police licensing team.
The Chair hereby invited Sgt Smith to address the Committee.
Sgt Smith explained that he sits within local community policing and that he chairs local neighbourhood meetings in this area. It was noted that this was not the first time that he has sat in front of the Committee due to making a representation in this role. It was added that St Peters Road is a busy residential area with a thriving community, where the police are working closely with numerous partners to tackle harm and anti-social behaviour relating to alcohol. Sgt Smith explained that a new joint presence of the police and local Council Enforcement Officers are working to tackle street drinking across the Borough, with this area being identified as a hotspot. It was added that this licence would encourage people to congregate with alcohol and create issues for the local community. Sgt Smith further explained that pressure would be place on police and Council resources, whilst having a negative impact on residents and tourists in the area. Sgt Smith asked Members to refuse this licence in order to prevent the risk of anti-social behaviour in this area.
Mr Dadds asked whether Sgt Smith was authorised by the Chief Constable to make representations on behalf of Norfolk Constabulary. Sgt Smith stated that he did not have direct authorisation from the Chief Constable. Mr Dadds asked whether Sgt Smith had had the opportunity to look at any data or analytical reports that would support this representation. Sgt Smith stated that when the Cumulative Impact Assessment was being considered, there was a full analytical police product behind the proposal to suggest that this area is a hotspot for alcohol related anti-social behaviour. Mr Dadds asked whether Sgt Smith accepted that his colleagues in the police licensing team had not raised an objection. Sgt Smith stated that he understood that the police licensing team had made no representation following the acceptance by the applicant of the proposed condition.
Mr Dadds raised that Sgt Smith’s representation was made directly to the Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer and that representations are required to be made to the Licensing Authority as the responsible authority, not addressed to a singular officer. The Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that the representation was forwarded to the general licensing email as soon as it was received as submission of representation.
Councillor Newcombe asked whether Sgt Smith was aware of how many alcohol related complaints had been made to the police in recent years in regard to this area. Mr Dadds stated that this question and answer would be considered to be highly prejudicial as Sgt Smith had the opportunity to provide this information prior to the meeting and failed to do so. The Solicitor added that Members must decide based on evidence present in the representation and that additional papers or evidence could only be introduced with consent from all parties. Mr Dadds stated that the statutory framework for determination should be followed and that the applicant would not consent to additional information being presented. Sgt Smith stated that as he could not give number of complaints, he would refer to his representation and emphasise that there is a drinking problem within the Borough and that historically there have been chronic anti-social behaviour issues within the vicinity of St Peters Road.
The Chair hereby invited the Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer to address the Committee.
The Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer explained that there were significant concerns regarding crime and anti-social behaviour in the area in relation to street drinking. It was added that though the Cumulative Impact Policy was not in force at the time that the application was submitted, it was in public consultation stage and was widely publicised. It was added that the Licensing Authority and Norfolk Constabulary have raised significant concern regarding crime and disorder relating to street drinking in this area, which formed the basis to consider undertaking a Cumulative Impact Assessment.
Mr Dadds referenced the representation made on behalf of the Licensing Authority and asked whether the Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer would acknowledge that there were no data or statistics included to support the claims in the representation. The Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer confirmed that there was no data included in the representation.
The Solicitor referenced a statement in the operating schedule on page 10 and questioned how the applicant could promise that the licence holder at the time of the meeting would surrender their licence if this licence was granted. Mr Dadds explained that the licence in place at the time of the meeting would be surrendered if this licence was granted and that a condition could be included to state that this licence would not come into effect until after the existing licence is surrendered.
The Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer requested clarification on the purpose of this application considering the premises had been operating under a licence that had not had its appeal heard by the Magistrates Court at the time of submission. Mr Dadds explained that there had been a significant passage of time since the decision to revoke the licence in April 2025 and that this licence application, if granted, would avoid the need for the appeal to go to the Magistrates Court.
The Chair asked whether the applicant would be open to rewording some of the proposed conditions to change the word ‘must’ to ‘will’ in order to allow for flexibility for the premises as well as enforcement action. Mr Dadds stated that it is for the Licensing Authority to redraft the proposed conditions in such a way that they could be enforced, therefore the applicant would not object to this change.
The Solicitor enquired whether the applicant would be open to amending the condition regarding CCTV in the prevention of crime and disorder section to mention providing recordings upon request to the Local Authority. Mr Dadds stated that the applicant would be happy to make this amendment.
The Solicitor referenced box e, the protection of children from harm, in section M of the application and stated that it is not clear whether a ‘challenge 25’ scheme will be in place, as point 5 only explains what the scheme is. Mr Dadds stated that the applicant would be happy for this condition to be rewritten in an enforceable way, as the intent is to have a ‘challenge 25’ scheme in operation.
The Solicitor referenced page 25 of the application and highlighted that Chesterfield Council is referenced. Mr Dadds confirmed that this was a typo.
The Chair hereby invited those who had addressed the Committee to give closing statements.
There were no closing statements from those who made representations in objection to the application.
Mr Dadds asked that Members grant the application as the burden is on those who have made the representations to prove that this application would not be suitable and this had not been evidenced through the written representations or representations given at the meeting. It was added that the representations contained no data or crime mapping and that, as previously noted, the Cumulative Impact Policy would not be relevant to this decision due to the date that it came into force. Mr Dadds stated that the representation provided by Sgt Smith should not be given weight as a representation made by a responsible authority as he had confirmed that there was no authorisation to make a representation on behalf of the Chief Constable, therefore this should be considered as a individual representation. It was added that the police licensing officers did not object as their proposed condition was agreed prior to the closure of the consultation period. Mr Dadds stated that the weight given to the representations provided by Environmental Health and the Environmental Protection & Waste Team should be applied accordingly as officers from neither team attended to answer questions. Mr Dadds requested that Members grant the application with agreed amendments as there were appropriate measures in place and there were no objections from police, local councillors or residents.
The Committee entered into a confidential debating session at 11:15am.
At 11:48am the Committee returned to the Council Chamber to hear the determination of the application in public.
The Chair hereby invited the Solicitor to deliver the Committee’s decision.
The Solicitor confirmed that the application was granted, by a majority decision. It was agreed that the licence would include the following requested condition from the police:
‘That no single cans or bottles of beer or cider, normally only available in packs, shall be sold from these premises’
The Solicitor explained that the applicant had proposed a condition that the licence granted at this meeting would not come into effect until the current licence is surrendered. The rights of appeal were explained to those in attendance.
Mr Dadds stated that once the 21 days time frame for appeal had expired, the current licence would be surrendered and the licence granted at this meeting will become operational.