PRESENT: Councillors Kate Crawford, Shital Manro and Ann Chapman ALSO PRESENT: Ealing Borough Council Cameron MacLean Democratic Services Officer

Transcription

1 EALING LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE PREMISES APPLICATION: LADBROKES BETTING AND GAMING LIMITED Tuesday, 26 th March 2013 (Adjourned and Reconvened on Wednesday, 10 th April 2013) PRESENT: Councillors Kate Crawford, Shital Manro and Ann Chapman ALSO PRESENT: Ealing Borough Council Cameron MacLean Democratic Services Officer Sarah Law Licensing Officer Pat Gilmore Licensing Officer - in place of Sarah Law Reconvened meeting on 10 th April 2013 Alison Luff Legal Officer Jimmy Umrigar Legal Officer - in place of Alison Luff Reconvened meeting on 10 th April 2013 Applicant Ms Rhiannon Daniel Solicitor, Trethowans LLP Mr Lewis Dodd Ladbrokes Mr Barry Phillips Security & Safety Risk Manager, Ladbrokes Reconvened meeting on 10 th April 2013 Mr Paul Purewal Regional Development Manager, Ladbrokes - Reconvened meeting on 10 th April 2013 Objectors Mr Jim Kirkpatrick Councillor David Millican (26 th March only) LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE: TUESDAY, 26 TH MARCH AND WEDNESDAY, 10 TH APRIL LADBROKES BETTING AND GAMING LIMITED: LADBROKES, 104 SOUTH EALING ROAD, EALING W5 4QJ The Chair introduced the Sub Committee Members and outlined the procedure to be followed at the hearing. The Licensing Officer then summarised the report before the Panel. The Panel then heard representations from the various parties, as follows: Presentation on Behalf of the Applicant Ms Daniel addressed the following matters in her presentation to the Panel: (i) Crime and Disorder Ladbrokes had adopted a strict policy intended to uphold the licensing objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and referred the Members of the Panel to the statement provided by Mr Dodd which detailed the policy. She also noted that there had been no objections to the application by the Police. (ii) Children and Vulnerable Persons 1

2 Of paramount importance to Ladbrokes was their Operators Licence, which they sought to protect by a variety of measures, including a Think 21 policy for staff members when allowing customers to enter their premises. The policy was supported by Ladbrokes own mystery shopper programme and disciplinary measures for staff who allowed underage persons to enter their premises. It was noted that there had been no objections to the application by child protection bodies and agencies served with notice of the application. Ladbrokes also operated a self -exclusion policy as a means of protecting vulnerable persons. (iii) Objection to the Application Addressing the objections to the application, Ms Daniel made the following points: Opening Hours: the hours the premises would operate would be within the default hours for betting premises i.e. 08:00 or 08:30 hours to 22:00 hours, or earlier. Women Residents : The Licensing Objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder was a specific one and did not extend to loitering and congestion. As such, there was no evidence before the Panel to support the objection. Petition: Some of the signatories to the petition lived too far from the premises for their support to the objections to the application to be relevant. In addition, it was not certain if all the signatories were aware of the specific objections to the application detailed in the covering letter that accompanied the petition. In conclusion, Ms Daniel reminded the Panel Members of the statutory provisions regarding the granting of betting shop premises licences. In the subsequent question and answer part of the proceedings, the following information was provided: Ladbrokes had various policies in place to address the concerns raised in the petition by local residents, and the company worked with the Police in relation to issues of crime and disorder; Evidence of Ladbrokes willingness to work with local communities. Ladbrokes were willing to work with the Police and to address any concerns that might be raised with them; it was not in Ladbrokes interest to have poor community relations; Six to eight members of staff would be employed at the premises and, until such time as appropriate risk assessments had been carried out, it was not possible to say if any members of staff would be required to work on their own in the premises; Risk assessment were carried out for each individual premises and the assessments were under constant review; 2

3 To prevent underage gambling, Ladbrokes carried out mystery shopping to ensure that their policies on preventing underage gambling were being applied; The number of customers visiting the premises was very much dependent upon the events that were taking place, and when, and that it was for Ladbrokes Regional Managers to make assessments regarding the operation and management of particular premises; Weekends and big events were the times that any premises would be at their busiest with anywhere between 10 and 15 customers at any one time. At quiet times, there may be as few as five customers in any particular premises; All the fixed odd betting terminals (FOBT) would have customers playing them during busy times, such as after work, with only one or two being played at the same time at other times; It was expected that it would be mostly local residents that would visit the premises, but the statement on proposed customers was drafted so as not to exclude visitors to the locality; Most of Ladbrokes business was over the counter betting; Ladbrokes elected to open premises near to its competitors premises in order to give customers more choice. It was noted that demand for licensed betting shop premises was not an issue the Panel could take into consideration when deciding the application; The plans and drawings prepared for the conversion of the premises indicated that the premises were to be converted to a gambling premises and not to facilitate online gaming as its primary purpose; To prevent nuisance that might be caused by customers smoking and drinking outside the premises, there was a policy of prohibiting customers from bringing alcohol onto the premises and it was probable that if people were congregating outside the premises that the premises manager would ask them to move on; That a suitable receptacle could be provided for the use of cigarette smokers outside the premises if this was practicable; Suitable signage could be displayed requesting patrons to be quiet when leaving the premises; It was difficult for staff to move persons on if they were outside the premises and were not patrons. The risk assessment would address these issues for those times when there might only be one member of staff present on the premises; The proposal that amenity space at the rear of the premises be made available for customers who wished to smoke would be referred back to Ladbrokes; It probably would not be acceptable to Ladbrokes to impose a condition that there be at least two members of staff at the premises as other Ladbrokes premises had a one-person operation. Also, the Police had not 3

4 objected to the application and, therefore, it would be disproportionate to impose such a condition, particularly as the premises would be subject to a risk assessment; It was proposed that there be advertising boards in each of the three shop front windows, but that advertising could be removed from one of the windows to allow staff to see out of the premises and for the Police to be able to see in; The applicant would be willing to agree to an electronic door lock (maglock) being fitted to the toilet door; The CCTV only covered the interior of the premises and could not, for technical reasons, be used to provide coverage of the exterior of the premises; Consideration would be given to a requirement that all crime at the premises would be reported to the Police; At this point in the proceedings, the Chair asked if the applicant would have any objections to the local ward councillor addressing the Panel, although he had not submitted any formal representations on the application. It was agreed that Councillor Millican be allowed to make brief representations on the application. Before proceeding to Mr Kirkpatrick s representations and those of Councillor Millican, the Chair invited Mr Kirkpatrick to ask any questions that he might wish to put to the applicant. In response to a number of questions by Mr Kirkpatrick, the applicant provided the following information: In response to the suggestion that it was not in Ladbrokes interest to report crime that took place on their premises, it was said that Ladbrokes were in danger of losing their licence if they did not report particular crimes that had taken place; Any incidents that started within the premises and proceeded to continue outside the premises would be logged in the premises incident book; and For the business to be viable would require anywhere between one and two customers and up to 10 customers over the course of a certain period. Presentation on Behalf of Local Residents Mr Kirkpatrick made various representations opposing the application. In particular, he made the following points: (i) There were already two betting shops in the locality and, for Ladbrokes to be viable, it would be necessary to attract more customers into the area; (ii) For a period of four days, the statutory notice advertising the application had not been on display at the premises and, therefore, the applicant had failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements; (iii) There was a history of street drinking in the area that would be exacerbated if the application were allowed. At this stage, the Chair advised Mr Kirkpatrick that he could not introduce new evidence and that he was restricted to making representations based on the 4

5 written representation that he had made on behalf of himself and local residents. In response to a proposal by the Chair, Mr Kirkpatrick stated he would summarise his presentation after Councillor Millican s presentation and any further questions that the parties may have. Presentation by Councillor Millican, Ward Councillor Councillor Millican stated that he was present as he had received a great many representations from local residents objecting to the application. He stated that he wished to know what proposals Ladbrokes had in relations to dealing with the local community. In particular, he was concerned about the level of street drinking that took place on the corner of Airedale Road, and the effect that another betting shop might have on levels of street drinking in general. In conclusion, he stated that, from the representations that he had received, residents did not want another betting shop in the area. As there were no questions by the applicant or Members, the Chair invited Ms Daniel to summarise her presentation on behalf of the applicant. Summary of Representations by Mr Kirkpatrick Mr Kirkpatrick gave a brief presentation in which he summarised the main point he had made in his presentation. Summary of Application Ms Daniel stated that Ladbrokes was a national company which was committed to its legal obligations and which set high corporate standards. She accepted that there were local concerns, but that these were not relevant within the provisions of the Gambling Act with regard in deciding the application. She went on to say that the responsible authorities had not objected to the application and that the Ladbrokes had met the Licensing Objectives and the requirements of the Gambling Commission s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice. However, the applicant was willing to accept conditions on the licence that were proportionate and in accordance with the statutory requirements for conditions. This included staffing levels where risk assessments had shown that it was proportionate for the premises to have more than one member of staff at certain times. The Panel then retired to consider its decision and what conditions, if any, it might wish to impose should the Panel be minded to grant the application. Decision The Chair stated that it had been the Panel s decision to request further information and to adjourn the hearing to a date to be agreed to allow the information to be provided. In particular, she stated that the Panel were of the view that they could not reach a decision about granting the application without more information regarding: 5

6 1. Staffing levels and the possible imposition of conditions that would be proportionate without first having has the opportunity to review a risk assessment; and 2. The split between Over-the-Counter betting and FOBT betting to demonstrate that Over-the-Counter betting was the premises primary gambling activity. The hearing ended at 5.30pm RECONVENED HEARING WEDNESDAY, 10 TH APRIL 2013 The Chair introduced the Members of the Panel and officers and invited the applicant s representatives to introduce themselves. The Chair then noted that additional information had been submitted by the applicant, as requested by the Sub Committee. She invited the Licensing Officer, Pat Gilmore, to summarise the Licensing Officer s report and the reasons for the adjournment. The Chair then invited Ms Daniel, on behalf of the applicant, to make her representations. Representations on Behalf of the Applicant Ms Daniel identified the various documents that had been circulated to Members of the Panel since the Sub Committee had adjourned. She also tabled a short additional document containing information that was of a commercially sensitive nature and which it was proposed should be discussed in private. She then proposed that Members of the Panel consider the risk assessment documents before them and ask Mr Barry Phillips, Security and Safety Risk Manager, any questions that they might have. Risk Assessment In the subsequent discussion, the following information was provided: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) There were several stages to the risk assessment process and, after the initial Security Department risk assessment, a further risk assessment was carried out on the premises and the staff who would be working at the premises; Whether premises were suitable for single scheduling i.e. having only one member of staff on duty at a particular time, was based on a risk assessment of the area and local premises; Decisions regarding single scheduling were made by the operational managers and no single scheduling took place in premises that had just opened. Single scheduling would only take place after an assessment had been carried out on how the new premises were operating; On days when there were big events, such as the Grand National, there was no staff leave permitted and no single scheduling at any premises; 6

7 (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) There was at least one premises in Ealing where single scheduling had been prohibited by the imposition of a condition on the licence to that effect; There were two security levels in relation to premises, general and enhanced, and all Ladbrokes London premises had enhanced security as a default (as did all Ladbrokes premises in large cities); The crime figures for the area in which it was proposed to open the new premises would normally mean it fell within the general category as being low-to-medium risk but, being in London, it was automatically accorded enhanced security; Recorded incidents of crime and disorder in betting premises were graded on a scale of 1 to 3 with 3 being a serious incident. If this occurred, there would be no single scheduling permitted for those premises for a period of six months and a further risk assessment would then be carried out. If there were 10 or more grade 1 or 2 incidents at a particular premises with a 12 month period, the premises would be subject to a further risk assessment; Single scheduling could remain in place for up to 48 hours without CCTV being operational for whatever reason and the operational team would determine how best to respond to this situation if it arose; CCTV was more relevant to apprehending criminals after a crime had been committed and it was the internal safety measures that afforded staff protection should a crime occur; Ladbrokes were conscious of not wishing to overload the Police by reporting every incident that might happen in any particular premises; All Ladbrokes premises were subject to 24 hour centralised monitoring, and it was accepted that the policy of allowing single scheduling to take place for up to 48 hours without CCTV needed to be reviewed; Regarding single scheduling, staff moved around various premises and, therefore, it was possible for staff to give other staff breaks; Should it be necessary for staff to take a comfort break in a single scheduled premises, the safest time to do this was when there were customers in the premises as the toilet doors were operated by a maglock. Should a member of staff become ill, the premises would be closed; The company structure was such that there were one to three members of staff per premises with a manager responsible for up to three premises. Next, there were district managers with responsibility for up to 20 premises and above that a Regional Manager with responsibility for up to 100 shops. In addition, there was a Market Place Manager who was responsible for support staff who would move staff around different premises as required and a personnel manager; Banking was done by the staff and there was no set pattern on how and when this was done and local managers were responsible for banking arrangements; 7

8 (xvii) Any proposals regarding single scheduling would be discussed with the staff affected. The reference to disciplinary action being taken against staff who refused to single schedule was a management position should that eventuality ever arise and was intended simply to make sure that the company could continue to conduct its business; (xviii) All incidents of low-level crime were recorded and it was part of Mr Phillip s responsibilities to liaise with local authorities on the operation of the business. In response to a number of questions by Mr Kirkpatrick, the following answers were provided: (i) (ii) (iii) The risk assessment on these particular premises had been done using crime statistics for a one mile radius of the premises as well as visiting the site and looking at other commercial premises in the area; Although the other Ladbrokes premises in the area were very different in nature, a risk assessment had been carried out using all the crime statistics for the area and that this was the first stage only of the risk assessment process; In the last quarter, there had been one incident of anti-social behaviour at one of the premises; and (iv) The Panel would take into consideration a requirement about reporting crime at the premises. Revenue Split Between Over-the Counter Betting and FOBT Ms Daniel stated that the Members had been provided with a copy of Ladbrokes business plan for the premises and additional commercial information had been tabled. The Chair proposed that, given the commercial sensitivity of the documents to be considered, members of the press and public should be excluded from this part of the proceedings. Resolved: That that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972: Agenda Item No. Title 5. Opposed Premises Licence Application: Ladbrokes, 104 South Ealing Road, Ealing W5 4QJ SUMMARY OF MATTERS CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE Description of Exempt Information Information under Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person Ms Daniel referred Members of the Panel to the Gambling Commission s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice and the definition of primary activity as set out on pages 9 and 24 of the blue book that had been circulated to Members. She then referred Members to the six indicators 8

9 adopted by the Gambling Commission to be used when assessing the primary activity, noting that these indicators had been adopted in response to amusement arcades opening small premises and applying for premises licences. She then referred Members to the Gambling Commission s August 2012 bulletin and the proper test to be applied when considering the primary indicators and how they should be viewed in relation to particular premises. She stated that the combined elements of the satellite television package, payment of salaries, and overheads established that the primary activity of the premises was as a betting shop as evidenced by the primary indicators. Mr Purewal then answered a number of detailed questions regarding the revenue split between over-the-counter betting and FOBTs, noting that Ladbrokes annual report put this split at 50:50. In response to further questions, Mr Purewal gave examples of expected returns on, say, 100 spent on FOBTs and over-the-counter betting and how many bets would have to be placed and the number of customers required to make the premises commercially viable. Ms Daniel then gave a brief summary of the representations that had been made while the press and public were excluded from the meeting. Resolved: That the press (of which there were none) and members of the public be re-admitted to the meeting Mr Kirkpatrick then re-joined the meeting. The Chair noted that a number of conditions had been offered by the applicant and she proposed that the Sub Committee consider now consider these before reaching a decision. In considering the proposed conditions, the following points were made: (i) (ii) (iii) That there should be no opaque glazing in any window or windows that were to be kept free of advertising; The door to the premises would comprise clear glass; The window next to the door would be in a direct line with the premises counter; (iv) The suggestion that notices advising customers that anti-social behaviour by customers would result in those customers being barred from the premises might be added as an informative to any conditions imposed on the licence; (v) Ladbrokes were engaging with local authorities and the Police to address issues of anti-social behaviour and it was proposed to set up borough panels specifically for this purpose; (vi) The provision of a receptacle for cigarette smokers was a double edged sword as it may attract smokers who were not Ladbrokes customers to congregate outside the premises; (vii) The provision of receptacle for cigarette smokers could be included as an informative; (viii) Any criminal activity recorded by Ladbrokes which related to the premises should also be provided to the Police; and 9

10 (ix) That it would be for Ladbrokes to decide how best to provide recorded crime information that they had to the Police. The Sub Committee then retired to consider its decision. Decision Having carefully considered the papers before it, the representations made by the parties, the Council s Statement of Gambling Policy, and the Gambling Commission s Guidance, the Sub Committee agreed to grant the application for a betting premises licence subject to the following conditions: Mandatory Conditions Betting Premises Licences (other than track premises licences) 1. A notice stating that no person under the age of 18 years is permitted to enter the premises shall be displayed in a prominent place at every entrance to the premises 2. (1) Access to the premises shall be from a street or from other premises with a betting premises licence (2) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (1) there shall be no means of direct access between the premises and other premises used for the retail sale of merchandise or services 3. Subject to anything permitted by virtue of the 2005 Act or done in accordance with paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 below, the premises shall not be used for any purpose other than for providing facilities for betting. 4. Any ATM made available for use on the premises shall be located in place that requires any customer who wishes to use it to leave any gaming machine or betting machine in order to do so. 5. No apparatus for making information or other material available in the form of sounds or visual images may be used on the premises, except for apparatus used for the following purposes: (a) communicating information about, or coverage of, sporting events including (i) information relating to betting on such an event, and (ii) any other matter or information, including an advertisement, which is incidental to such an event (b) communicating information relating betting on any event (including the result of the event) in connection with which betting transactions may be or have been effect on the premises 6. No publications, other than racing periodicals or specialist betting publications, may be sold or offered for sale on the premises 7. No music, dancing or other entertainment shall be provided or permitted on the premises, save for entertainment provided in accordance with Paragraph 5 ` 8. (1) No alcohol shall be permitted to be consumed on the premises at any time during which facilities for gambling are being provided on the premise 10

11 (2) A notice stating the condition in sub-paragraph (1) shall be displayed in a prominent place at every entrance to the premises 9. A notice setting out the terms on which customers are invited to bet on the premises shall be displayed in a prominent place on the premises to which customers have unrestricted access Mandatory Conditions Every Premises Licence 10. A summary of the terms and conditions of the premises licence shall be displayed in a prominent place within the premises 11. The layout of the premises shall be maintained in accordance with the plan. 12. The premises shall not be used for (a) the sale of tickets in a private lottery or customer lottery or (b) the sale of tickets in any other lottery in respect of which the sale of tickets on the premises is otherwise prohibited Default Conditions Betting Premises Licences 13. No facilities for gambling shall be provided on the premises between the hours of 10pm on one day and 7 am on the next day. Conditions Imposed by the Sub-Committee 14. (1) The risk assessment regarding staffing of the betting office shall be available prior to operation of the premises and for immediate inspection by authorised officers of the licensing authority during office hours. (2) Any changes to the risk assessment shall be notified in writing to the licensing authority. 15. A sign will be displayed at all times asking customers to leave quietly and not to congregate outside the premises. 16. The door to the premises and adjacent window will comprise clear glass and shall not be obscured by signage or advertising. 17. An electromagnetic lock (maglock) will be fitted to the premises front door and toilet door. 18. In the event of the CCTV becoming inoperative for any reason, to notify the Police. 19. All recorded criminal activities shall be reported to the Police as soon as possible. Informative If possible, a receptacle for use by cigarette smokers should be provided outside the premises. Reasons for the Decision As the application was for a new betting shop licence, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was reasonable and proportionate to add a number of conditions, as offered by the applicant, to help prevent crime and disorder. 11

12 COUNCILLOR KATE CRAWFORD, CHAIR 12