Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Gethin Glyn Williams (Local Member), Mrs W Lawrence, Susan Wattis, Helen Charlton, Jenny Wilson, Salmon Williams, Cllr Judith Humphreys, Veronica Roberts, Wendy Cleaver, Carol Jones, Jan Clark, Norma Stockford, June Davies, Victor Perham, Tom Dobson and Marilyn Whitehouse (respondents)

To receive any declaration of personal interest.

None to note

To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration.

Point of order:

The applicant outlined his concerns about the arrangements for the hearing, and that the Sub-committee should consider the following before proceeding with the hearing.

Perverting the course of justice

Legality of the process

Errors in the agenda

Interpretation of the law

He highlighted:

·         that some of the responses suggested that the applicants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by contacting those who had objected to the application. The applicant strongly refuted this allegation and felt that these respondents were perverting the course of justice by making false allegations.

·         the Council had included / published these libellous allegations, and in doing so, were condoning and supporting the statements.  A request had been made for the Council to submit evidence to show how they had been persuaded that these statements were factually correct before publishing them

·         Any response that was not in response to the recent letter from the Council checking that the respondent who was submitting the response still wished for that response to be considered, should be rejected. It was argued that these responses fell outside the law, although they continued to be part of the Sub-committee's agenda.

·      Some respondents included some fake facts and comments about the company, and they challenged the Council as to why they had not researched into these fake observations before publishing the agenda. It was considered that the observations were misleading, and were likely to mislead the sub-committee's members when reaching a decision

Following legal advice from the Council's Head of Legal Services, it was noted that the application in question had been submitted prior to the Legislation being adopted by the Council. It was added that the powers were now in place, and that it was possible to proceed with the hearing, and for the sub-committee to consider the observations in reaching a decision.

To consider an application by Eva Amour, 6^th St Anne Square, High Street, Barmouth, LL42 1DL

DECISION

TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE RELEVANT LOCALITY AND THAT THE LOCATION OF THE PREMISES IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO PREMISES FREQUENTED BY CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE ADULTS.

Applicant:      Mr David Powley and Mr Daniel Millar (on behalf of DD Trading (NW) Ltd)

Respondents: Mr and Mrs D Hooper, Mr Trevor Parry, Reverend Dawn Robinson, Cllr    Rob Triggs (Barmouth Town Council), Cllr Katie Price (Barmouth Town Council) and Katie Pattison

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Chair highlighted that each party had the right of up to five minutes to present their observations.

a)            The Licensing Department's Report

Submitted – the report of the Licensing Manager detailing the application for a sex shop licence for Eva Amour, 6, St. Anne's Square, High Street, Barmouth.

It was explained that any individual who wished to run a Sex Establishment in accordance with the definition of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 required a sex establishment licence unless the appropriate authority had waived the requirement for a licence. As the Act's provisions had been fully adopted on 7 October 2021, no such business could operate within Gwynedd without a valid licence. However, as this business had applied for a licence in February 2021, prior to the licensing system being adopted throughout Gwynedd, the Council had no powers to prevent the business from opening at that time, and it was noted that the business had been trading since December 2021.

Reference was made to the process of regulating sex establishments and the licensing process, and highlighted that there were five mandatory reasons for refusing an application - if the applicant

•         is under 18 years of age

•         is for the time being disqualified from holding a sex establishment licence

•         is not a corporate body and has not been resident in the UK for the previous six months preceding the date of the application

•         is a company, which is not incorporated in the UK

•         has had an application for the premises or renewal of a licence for the premises refused in the previous twelve months preceding the date of the application in respect of which the application was made, unless the refusal has been reversed on appeal

 

It was added, that none of the mandatory grounds for refusal applied in this case, but reference was made to the following discretionary grounds -  

•           If the applicant is unsuitable to hold the licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence

•           If the business would be managed by or carried on for the benefit of a third party who would be refused a licence in their own right

•           That the number of sex establishments in the relevant locality or this specific type is equal to or exceeds the number considered appropriate for the locality 

•           Inappropriate having regard to:

i.          The character of the relevant locality - a matter for the members, based on the facts of the case. It was noted that the relevant locality did not have to be clearly defined, and the members could decide that the locality in this case referred to the area surrounding the property on/or near  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.