notification of chairman and outline of procedure

The Chairman opened the meeting by introducing the Sub-Committee and the Officers present. He explained that the Sub-Committee would consider two applications and outlined the procedure that would be followed.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

provisional statement for a betting shop premises licence under the gambling act 2005

Mr Walsh presented his case for the Applicant. He considered that Betfred were offering first class facilities and that the application would provide an element of competition to gamblers on the Broadway, Sheerness. He explained that objections had been received and points had included no demand or need for this type of business on the Broadway. He reminded the Sub-Committee of Section 153 which disallowed comments relating to demand, as this was not a concern under the Gambling Act 2005. He advised that there was no history of any crime and disorder in this location caused by gambling.

Mr Walsh outlined the objectives under the Gambling Act. He considered that the application would not have an adverse effect on children as the premises would not be open to children anyway. He suggested that there was no evidence that an additional betting shop could have an adverse effect on the locality or on vulnerable people.

Mr Taylor (William Hill) considered that the increased availability of a betting shop would increase adverse affects to the vulnerable in Sheerness and questioned whether the application was in the public interest. He outlined sections of a report that had been submitted by William Hill. He explained that gambling was a minority pastime with four per cent of the population using betting offices and that Betfred would need to offer incentives to attract people to their betting shop and this could, in turn, increase the amount of people who bet.

In response to a question as to why he considered that an additional betting shop would have an adverse affect and increase the amount of people who gambled, he explained that William Hill would not consider closing one of their shops and that historically the courts had considered that two betting shops were the correct amount for this location. He considered the general public only had a certain amount of money to spend and that the new gambling premises would increase the betting population.

The Licensing Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision at 10:42 am. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Solicitor and the Democratic Services Officer left the meeting and returned at 10:57 am, when the Sub-Committee reconvened.

application for a licensed premises gaming machine permit under the gambling act 2005

The Applicant presented his case and stated that he had only found out this morning that the application was to be considered today. He outlined the background of the application and emphasised that the proposed gaming machine would not encroach on the seating area within the pub. In response to a question regarding the phrase 'that precedence needs to be set for other premises', the Senior Solicitor advised that this was the first application of its type, the decision was delegated to Officers to agree to up to four gaming machines and that criteria needed to be set with this application as a base on which the Sub-Committee made its decision in the future.

The Applicant advised that other premises already had three machines and that he had requested a further machine to enhance his livelihood. He considered there was a demand for this in his pub.

In response to the Applicant's lack of knowledge that his application was to be considered today, the Licensing Assistant explained that confirmation had been sent to his agent.

The Licensing Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision at 11:13 am. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Solicitor and the Democratic Services Officer left the meeting and returned at 11:18 am, when the Sub-Committee reconvened.