Minutes:
The Chair welcomed all attendees to the meeting and requested that the Principal Lawyer outline the procedure to be adopted by the Sub Committee in considering the application.
The Principal Lawyer provided an overview of the procedure to be adopted by the Sub Committee when considering the application.
The Team Leader, Licensing reported on the application for a permit for an uFEC at 48 The Kingsway, Swansea.
She referred to application form and supplementary information supplied by the applicant at appendix a, the explanation of category d gaming machines at appendix b, the location plan at appendix c and the proposed premises layout at appendix d.
Representations had been received from South Wales’ Police and two other interested parties – Andy Edwards, Targeted & Specialist Services Manager, Swansea Young People Services and Damien Rees, Principal Officer for Safeguarding & Performance Quality. A copy of these representations were attached at appendix e.
The guidance issued by the Gambling Commission relating to uFECs was shown at appendix f and in accordance with the relevant legislation a copy of the officers intention and reasons to refuse the application was outlined at appendix g.
Jon Hancock, South Wales Police and Andy Edwards, who manages the
Info-Nation premises which would be situated next door to the proposed uFEC, further amplified their written representations objecting to the application and both highlighted their concerns in relation to the undermining of the policy considerations in relation to the protection of both children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
In the absence of the applicant Mr McGhan, the Licensing Officer read out the written representations he had submitted, copies of images relating to the different types of potential machines that would be on offer at the premises were also displayed to Committee.
Members referred to numerous questions and issues that they wished to seek clarity from the applicant on, as he was absent, those questions were unable to be answered.
Resolved that the
press and public be excluded from the hearing in
accordance with paragraph 14 of the Licensing Act (Hearings) Regulations 2005,
to enable the Sub-Committee to take legal advice.
(Closed Session)
Members discussed the issues relating to the application.
(Open Session)
The Lawyer advising the Sub-Committee gave a comprehensive overview of the legal advice tendered.
The Sub-Committee Resolved to Refuse the application for the reasons outlined below:
The committee had regard to the notice served pursuant to Schedule 10 of
the Gambling Act 2005 at pages 32 and 33 of the report. The committee were
mindful of their remit to either grant or refuse the application and they had
no power to attach conditions to any permit granted.
The Applicant’s/his partners failure to attend committee meant certain
issues of concern to the committee could not be debated and clarification
given.
The committee having heard PC Hancock from South Wales Police and Mr
Edwards and after reading the written representation from the Applicant and
viewing the photographs and directing themselves to paragraph 10.5 of the
report decided it would not be appropriate to have a uFEC in such close proximity to Info-Nation having regard
to the vulnerability of its service users. There was also a Church (Mount
Pleasant) opposite the premises which also provided
services to the vulnerable a fact which the Applicant had not addressed.
The following was taken into account in
reaching that decision.
The committee were satisfied by Mr Edwards that the children and young
person’s attending Info–Nation would be vulnerable and the proposed close
proximity of the premises to Info-Nation would present a risk of the service
users using the premises and undermining the licensing objective at paragraph
5.1(c) of the report . An example was given of service
users usually being disengaged from their families and using their money for
the machines with the hope of making more money rather than for food due to
their addictive natures being the reason they need support from Info-Nation.
This left them with no money for maintaining any sort of lifestyle.
Mr Edwards also referred to the Budd Report commissioned in 2001/2002 in
relation to the proposed change to the gambling regime which highlighted the types of vulnerable
adults being protected by the licensing
objective which were are the same types as would be attending Info-Nation for
support. Persons who are on low incomes but time rich are the most at risk of
addictive behaviours. The aim of the premises is to attract children and young
persons with the opportunity to gain reward by using their limited monetary
resources.
The committee found the proximity of Info-Nation and the church meant
this was the wrong place to have a uFEC
having regard to 15.1 of the Authority’s policy.
The absence of the Applicant and/or his business colleague at committee
meant they could not address the concerns of the members about the
effectiveness or suitability of the proposed measures to and/or training in gambling
awareness referred to ,to protect children and vulnerable persons. The
Applicant had not provided copies of proposed policies and procedures to be issued in line with paragraph 32.2 of the Authority’s
policy at paragraph 7.1 of the report.
Also the details of
the proposed CCTV were not made available to the committee.
A leaflet made available to the committee at pages 8 to 9 of the report was found by the committee to be written in language more
appropriate to adults than children and young persons. There was no information
as to how the applicant intended to offer self-exclusion that would be relevant
to children/young persons or how it would be implemented.
There was also no information as to how children under the age of 16 would be refused entry to the premises during school hours
or how refusals of admittance would be recorded.
The committee also felt a policy for dealing with complaints made about
the premises and how they would be dealt was an
unfortunate omission by the Applicant.
The Committee noted the Applicant had referred to other premises in the
area of the same type as the application being made. However, the committee applied little weight to that suggestion
being satisfied by PC Hancock and Mr Edwards that those premises were not as
close to Info-Nation as the premises the subject of the application and/or were
not like for like consisting of licenced premises under the Licensing Act 2003
and Gambling Act 2005 and/or primarily
for adults rather than children and young persons. The committee
accepted Mr Edwards and PC Hancock’s evidence that the other premises were
sufficiently far away from Info-Nation so as not to present the same level of
risk as the premises.
The committee were therefore satisfied
appropriate safeguards were in place to promote the licencing objectives
under both these regimes through premises licences rather than a permit to which conditions could not be
added as for a uFEC.
The committee also accepted Mr Edwards
information that the Bays Project previously located in High Street had to move
due to issues with the characteristics of that environment demonstrating
location was very important when dealing with the vulnerable.
The committee were concerned that
according to the Applicant’s representation the category D machines would be
the first machines anyone visiting the premises would come
into contact with and would be more prominent/accessible than the other
amusement machines which were located further away in the basement.
Little weight was given to the Applicant’s representation about the
grant of planning due to the very different criteria and considerations
which apply to planning applications. Similarly, little weight, in the
absence of any information in support, was given to
the Applicant’s suggestion that a grant of the permit would have a positive
effect of the sustainability of the local shopping centre.
As to the merits of the changed hours put forward by the Applicant the legal advice was that the change to the Friday
hours amounted to an increase in hours from 20.00 to 22.00 which could not be
done without a new application as longer hours were being sought.
The committee accepted Mr Edwards comment that the proposed later
opening of half an hour to 12.30 for Monday to Friday would have little or no
effect due to service users coming and going while Info–Nation was open.
The close proximity of the premises to Info-Nation presents an
insurmountable problem.
A number of other matters were raised by the
Applicant and the committee found as follows.
The committee having heard from the officers and being unable to obtain more
information from the Applicant, found the Applicant and/or the application had not been unfairly
influenced as suggested by the Applicant or at all. Proper and due process had been followed and part of the delay referred to include
a deferral requested by the applicant.
The process set out in the 2005 Act had been followed and the
Authority’s own policy, an extract of paragraph 39.4.5 is in the report, says
certain officers within the Authority will be consulted.
The Authority was required to serve the notice of its intention to
refuse under schedule 10 paragraph 10 of the Act.
The police are a statutory consultee required by paragraph 9 of schedule
10.
Supporting documents: