• Agenda

Minute of the meeting of the Highland Licensing Board held in the Council Chamber, Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness, on Tuesday 1 October 2013 at 12.05 pm. 

 

Business

 

Present:

 

Dr I Cockburn, Mr A Duffy, Mr R Greene, Mr A Henderson, Mr R Laird, Mrs L Macdonald, Mr W MacKay, Mr D Millar, Ms M Smith and Mr J Stone.

 

In Attendance:

 

Mr A Mackenzie, Clerk
Ms S Blease, Depute Clerk
Mr I Cox, Licensing Standards Officer
Mr D Inglis, Licensing Standards Officer
Mrs L Treasurer, Licensing Standards Officer (by video conference)
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant

 

Also in Attendance:

 

Inspector A Henderson, Police Scotland

 

Item 7.1 Mrs L Murray, Solicitor for the Applicant
Item 8.1 - Mrs L Murray, Solicitor for the Applicant
Item 8.2 – Mr G Watson, Solicitor for the Applicant
Item 8.3 - Mrs L Murray, Solicitor for the Applicant
Item 9.1 - Mrs L Murray, Solicitor for the Applicant
Item 9.2 – Mr B Laird, for the Applicant
Item 10.1– Mrs L Murray, Solicitor for the Premises Licence Holder
Item 12.1 – Mr A Hunter, Solicitor and Mr M Elliot, for the Applicant
Item 12.1 – Mr Burkitt, Merkinch Community Council, for the Objector

 

Ms M Smith in the Chair

 

The Convener confirmed that the meeting would be webcast and gave a short briefing on the Council’s webcasting procedure and protocol.

 

1. Apologies for Absence
Leisgeulan

 

None.

 

2.  Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

3. Confirmation of Minutes       
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

 

There had been circulated for confirmation:

 

i)   Minute of the meeting of the Highland Licensing Board held on 6 August 2013;

ii)  Minute of the meeting of the Highland Licensing Board held on 27 August 2013.

 

The minutes were held as read and APPROVED.

 

4.   Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005
Licences Granted Under Delegated Powers
Achd Ceadachd (Alba) 2005 
Ceadachdan a bhuilicheadh fo Ùghdarras air a Thiomnadh

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-108-13 (16kb pdf) by the Clerk detailing the licences which had been granted under delegated powers during the period 24 July 2013 to 17 September 2013 and inviting the Board to note the Report.

 

The Board NOTED the Report.

 

5. Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005
Occasional Licences and Extended Hours Granted Under Delegated Powers
Achd Ceadachd (Alba) 2005
Ceadachdan Corra-uair agus Uairean Sìnte a bhuilicheadh fo Ùghdarras air a Thiomnadh

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-109-13 (410kb pdf) by the Clerk detailing the Occasional Licences and Extended Hours Applications which had been granted under delegated powers during the period 24 July 2013 to 17 September 2013 and inviting the Board to note the Report.

 

The Board NOTED the report.

 

6. Licensing Policy Statement 2013–16
Aithris Poileasaidh Ceadachd 2013-16

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-110-13 (407kb pdf) by the Clerk inviting the Board to agree to adopt the Final Draft Licensing Policy Statement as its Licensing Policy Statement 2013-16 (subject to the Board’s overprovision statement being added to the Licensing Policy Statement when agreed by the Board).

 

Ms S Blease spoke to the Report and advised that two matters detailed in paragraphs at 2.1 and 2.9 of the Report had been included in amendments to the text for which the Board’s further clarification and approval was sought.

 

The first related to the extension of policy hours for on-sales on Sundays. Members were asked to clarify that it was their intention that the core hours for food-led operations on Sundays be brought into line with the core hours for food-led operations on Mondays to Saturdays.

 

The second related to plastic glasses.  On the advice of the LSOs an additional statement had been inserted advising of the possibility that with regard to applications for an occasional licence for large scale public events a plastic glasses condition may be applied in the interests of public safety.

 

These, together with all amendments agreed by the Board on 27 August 2013, had been incorporated into the Final Draft Policy Statement attached to the Report and the Board was asked to approve the Statement. 

 

The Board AGREED:

 

i)   the terms of the Final Draft Policy Statement attached as Appendix 1 to the Report and to adopt this as the Board’s Licensing Policy Statement 2013-16 with effect from 1 December 2013, and
ii)  that the Board’s overprovision statement be added to the Licensing Policy Statement 2013-16 when the terms of an overprovision statement have been adopted by the Board.  

 

7. Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005
Applications for New Premises Licences
Achd na Ceadachd (Alba) 2005
Larrtas airson Cheadachdan Thogalaichean Ura

 

7.1  Ref: HC/RSL/1678
Applicant: SYHA (Trading) Ltd per Lindsays, 1 Royal Bank Place, Glasgow, G1 3AA
Premises: Glencoe Youth Hostel, Glencoe, PH49 4HX
Type: On and Off-Sale

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-111-13 (19kb pdf) by the Clerk inviting the Board to determine the application.

 

Mrs L Murray confirmed that the applicant would agree a Noise Action Plan with Environmental Health. 

 

The Board AGREED to grant the application subject to the mandatory conditions and the local condition and the special condition detailed respectively at paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of the Report. 

 

7.2  Ref:  HC/RSL/1677
Applicant: Michael MacKenzie
Premises: The Coffee Shop/Celtic Spirits Ltd, Cromartie Buildings, Strathpeffer, IV14 9DG
Type: On and Off-Sales

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-112-13 (13kb pdf) by the Clerk inviting the Board to determine the application.

 

The Board AGREED to grant the application subject to the mandatory conditions. 

 

8. Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005  
Applications for Provisional Premises Licences
Achd Ceadachd (Alba) 2005
Iarrtas airson Ceadachdan Thogalaichean le Cumha

 

8.1  Ref: HC/INBS/554
Applicant: Mr Ali Raza Mohammed per Lorna Murray, Solicitor, 45 Culduthel Road, Inverness IV2 4HQ.
Premises:  Pockets (Formerly Rileys), 55-67 Castle Street, Inverness IV2 3DU.
Type:   On Sales

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-113-13 (13kb pdf) by the Clerk inviting the Board to determine the application.

 

Mrs L Murray advised that this would be a replacement for a licence that had been allowed to lapse following the previous company going into receivership.

 

The Board AGREED to grant the application subject to the mandatory conditions and the local condition detailed at paragraph 5.1 of the Report.

 

8.2  Ref: HC/INBS/555
Applicant: Dobbies Garden Centre PLC, Melville Nurseries, Lasswade, Midlothian, EH18 1AZ
Premises:  Dobbies Garden Centre, Inshes Retail Park, Sir Walter Scott Drive, Inverness IV2 3TW
Type:   On and Off Sales

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-114-13 (13kb pdf) by the Clerk inviting the Board to determine the application.

 

Mr G Watson confirmed that there were no objections and all requirements had been complied with. 

 

The Board AGREED to grant the application subject to the mandatory conditions.

 

8.3  Ref: HC/CSER/1675
Applicant: Abdul M Chowdhury per Lorna Murray, Solicitor, 45 Culduthel Road, Inverness, IV2 4HQ
Premises: Royal Kashmir, The Meadows, Dornoch IV25 3QY
Type: On Sales

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-115-13 (17kb pdf) by the Clerk inviting the Board to determine the application.

 

The Board AGREED to grant the application subject to the mandatory conditions and the special condition detailed at paragraph 6.3 of the Report.

 

9. Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005
Applications for variation (major) to Premises Licences
Achd Ceadachd (Alba) 2005
Iarrtasan airson Caochladh (Mòr) a thaobh Ceadachdan Thogalaichean

 

9.1  Ref: HC/INBS/307
Applicant: Inverness Pub Company Ltd, 27 Huntly Street, Inverness IV3 5PR per Lorna Murray, Solicitor.
Premises:  The White House (formerly the Corner Grill), 50 Union Street, Inverness IV1 1PX
Type:   On Sales

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-116-13 (80kb pdf) by the Clerk inviting the Board to determine the application.

 

Mrs L Murray stated that there were no objections to the proposal and moved that the application be granted. 

 

The Board AGREED to grant the application subject to the mandatory conditions and the local conditions detailed at paragraph 7.2 of the Report and the specific condition detailed at paragraph 7.3 of the Report.

 

9.2  Ref: HC/INBS/458
Applicant: Vue Entertainment Ltd, 10 Chiswick Park, 566 Chiswick High road, London W4 5XS, per Poppleston Allen, 37 Stoney Street, The Lace Market, Nottingham, NG1 1LS
Premises:  Vue Cinema, Inverness Retail and Business Park, 14 Eastfield Way, Inverness IV2 7GD
Type:   On Sales

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-117-13 (13kb pdf) by the Clerk inviting the Board to determine the application.

 

Mr B Laird stated that due to a clerical error the application in 2007 mis-stated the capacity and the application sought to merely correct this.  There had been no changes to the property itself.

 

The Board AGREED to grant the application subject to the mandatory conditions.

 

10. Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 Section 38 -
Applications for Review Hearing of Premises Licence
Achd Cheadachd (Alba) 2005, Earrann 38 -
Iarrtasan airson Èisteachd Ath-bhreithneachail air Ceadachd Togalaich

 

10.1  Premises: Miami (Formerly Bakoo) Baron Taylors Close, 39 High Street, Inverness IV1 1HT
Licence Holder:  Corrdon Limited, 126 West Regent Street, Glasgow G2 2BH

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-118-13 (222kb pdf) by the Clerk relating to a premises licence review application from Police Scotland.

 

The Board was advised by Inspector Henderson that the review application had been requested in terms of three of the licensing objectives: preventing crime and disorder, securing public safety and protecting children from harm.  The incidents raised issues with underage persons on the premises after the allotted time and with public safety on the premises.  Members were advised that the Procurator Fiscal had not yet determined whether or not to take proceedings.

 

Mrs Lorna Murray, Solicitor for the Premises Licence Holder outlined her clients’ position in relation to the three incidents.

 

In respect of the incident in May this year, Mrs Murray stated that Mr MacLeod and Mr Paton had met with her immediately following notification of the Police investigation to discuss what had happened and to put in place measures to prevent such an incident from recurring.  They had agreed that a line of chairs would be placed at the entrance to the upper area and a door steward would supervise the upstairs area to prevent unauthorised access at all times when the premises were open.  Most of the upper area was dimly lit when the security sweep was done at the close of business.  They currently did the sweep with torches but this would be improved by ensuring that the area was fully lit when the checks were done and that all hidden areas (eg behind sofas and under tables) were fully checked.  A log was signed by two people verifying their inspection of each area of the premises following every sweep of the premises. 

 

In respect of the incident in June this year, Mrs Murray stated that her clients had not been made aware of this alleged incident until receiving a copy of the Police letter seeking review of the licence.  Unfortunately the police had not sought CCTV records following this incident and unfortunately that CCTV coverage was no longer available.  Her clients were therefore now unable to establish whether the girl had been in the premises and, if so, whether she had been asked for ID.  Although the girl alleged that she had not been asked for ID, stewards did ask for ID at the door.  If she had obtained entry by using counterfeit ID or another person’s ID, then she was unlikely to admit this as it was a criminal offence.  Regrettably, however, the Police had failed to alert her client’s in time to allow them to demonstrate the due diligence processes followed on the night in question. 

 

With regard to the third incident in December 2012, again, Mrs Murray’s clients were first made aware of thison receipt of the Police letter seeking review of the licence.  Again this had come in too late to check the CCTV.  The premises log, however, stated that a fight had broken out in Aces bar.  Two male customers involved had been ejected from the premises (each at a different door) and a third had been detained by stewards whilst they called for Police assistance.   In relation to this incident, therefore, it was the staffwho had called the police and detained the man.  Unfortunately the underage girl witness referred to by the Police had not been brought to Mrs Murray’s clients’ attention at the time of the incident and they were therefore prevented from checking their CCTV systems to ascertain whether and how this girl had entered the premises. 

 

Mrs Murray further submitted that this was a popular nightclub and between December 2012 and June 2013 the two premises had had 63,456 customers, of which 2,555 persons (4%) had been refused entry for insufficient ID.  Her clients’ system was very robust and if there was any doubt in the ID, additional checks would be made and if still in any doubt the person would be refused entry.  If someone produced counterfeit ID it was confiscated and given to the police and if someone else’s ID was used the Miami proprietors now also wrote to the owner of the ID.  Expired passports were not accepted and only driving licences and existing passports could be used for identification.  If the validity of the initial ID produced was in doubt, a secondary form of ID was requested and if this was not produced the person would not be admitted.  A signature check was also sometimes used.

 

It was recognised that the premises attracted younger people and that there was therefore a need for additional vigilance.  When in any doubt as to age and validity of ID, stewards therefore simply refused entry.  This led to complaints when customers were turned away, but this was preferable to compromising standards.

 

While it had to be accepted that door checks would not catch everyone,  Mrs Murray’s clients were nevertheless proactive in attempting to thwart under 18s passing off fake ID.  For example, the had themselves drawn to the Police’s attention in November 2012 an increase in near perfect fake IDs being obtained, it was understood, from a website.  They had asked for any suggestions the Police had to aid with detecting such IDs.  They understood that their request had been passed to the Community Safety team.

 

With regard to stewarding arrangements, Mrs Murray advised that on a typical Saturday night fifteen stewards were employed with 2 door stewards on each door and the remainder circulating within the premises.  These stewards were employed through Murray Security and were all SIA registered.  Additional supervisors were employed to inspect and supervise toilet areas.  The proprietors had emailed the police in February to inform them that they had employed another SIA registered steward  specifically to carry out ID checks within the premises following increasing numbers of attempted underage entry.

 

Bar staff also received monthly refresher training on spotting underage persons, focusing on Challenge 25.  All tills had prompts to record age-related challenges and bar staff had radio contact with stewards if assistance was required.

 

Mrs Murray drew the Board’s attention to the fact that in an unannounced Police inspection in July 2013 Miami had fared well and no issues had been raised.  The LSO’s report on the premises which was before the Board was also complimentary.

 

A new scheme using a finger print entry system was to be introduced at the premises in the following weeks.  This scheme would enable people to pre-register their ID and finger prints so that they could subsequently enter simply by scanning their finger prints. 

 

In conclusion, Mrs Murray reminded the Board that before they could take any of the steps permitted by the Act following review of a premises licence they had first to be satisfied that a ground of review had been established and then be satisfied that the step they proposed to take was necessary and appropriate for the purpose of a licensing objective.  The case of Lidl –v- Glasgow Licensing Board had made it clear that the process of determining which steps were necessary and appropriate was forward looking and not an exercise in punishment.  If the Board were satisfied that her clients had used and were using due diligence to prevent underage persons entering the premises, it was not appropriate that any penalty be imposed.

 

Members then had the following questions:

• The LSO’s report suggested the club’s marketing strategy, which included price promotions, added to the risk of attracting underage persons.  Had they considered revising this strategy?
• How effective was the CCTV if the area was not lit?
• How many CCTV cameras were in the nightclub?
• How long were the tapes from the CCTV cameras kept?
• Was a written log kept of all refused entries?
• Did the bar staff also do checks?
• Do they have “mystery shoppers” to check their systems are working?
• What proportion of patrons were checked at the door?

In response, Mrs Murray advised that the principal attraction of the club to younger people was not low-cost alcohol.  It was the type of entertainment offered which attracted the 18 to 25 age group.  The sweep checks would now be done with the lighting on.  Chairs would be used to cordon off the area and a steward would stand guard at the top of the stairs.  There were 34 cameras on the premises and the tapes were kept for 30 days.  A written log was kept for all those who had been questioned and refused entry.  The tills all had a prompt for age verification and bar staff challenged anyone they considered underage under the “Challenge 25” policy.  Often bar staff became aware during the night of underage people when other patrons reported them to staff.  The police didn’t do test purchasing on on-sales licences.  With regard to the proportion of patrons who were ID checked at the door, by way of example, Mrs Murray gave the following figures for the night of 8 December 2012:  1200 persons had entered Miami and Aces (this figure included persons entering more than once), with 684 ID checks completed at the door to Miami and 497 checks completed at the door to Aces.

 

The Licensing Standards Officer, Ian Cox, then spoke to his report.  With regard to his comments about drinks promotions, he clarified that the promotions offered by Miami were perfectly legal and similar to others offered in the city.  He had suggested to the club, however, that as well as marketing drinks promotions, they should also publicise the stringency of the age checks which would apply.  He confirmed that it was principally the type of entertainment offered which attracted younger people to the club and did so to a greater extent than any other venue in Inverness.  The club also had a stronger steward presence than any other premises in Inverness, but there would always be potential for a small percentage of underage persons to get beyond the door.   Based on entrance figures the three incidents referred to in the Police letter amounted to only 0.004%.  Nevertheless, the licensees themselves did not think this was good enough, particularly since it threatened their livelihood.  Mr Cox had suggested they undertake further checking of the integrity of their systems, for example by using “mystery shoppers”.  In conclusion, Mr Cox stressed that this was a well-run premises which operated extreme vigilance, but there would always be attempts by underage persons to gain entry.

 

Members were concerned that anyone, irrespective of age, could remain in the premises overnight.  They were reminded, however, of the additional measures which Mrs Murray confirmed had been put in place to ensure this could not happen again.

 

Inspector Henderson advised that the premises were well run and that their statistics bore this out.  They had a good relationship with Police Scotland and regularly sought advice.  Their stewarding was robust.  The CCTV system had been inspected and it was thought to be one of the best in the city.  Good records were kept and the premises tried hard to eradicate any issues.  The very nature of these premises meant that more young people were trying to gain entry.

 

Following debate, the Board then AGREED that no grounds of review had been established and therefore no action would be taken.

 

11. Surrender of Premises Licence

 

11.1  Premises: Kinloch Castle, Isle of Rum, PH43 4RR
Licence Holder :  Scottish Natural Heritage

 

The above Premises Licence has been surrendered in terms of Section 28(5)(f).

 

The Board AGREED to note that the Licence had been surrendered in terms of Section 28(5)(f).

 

11.2  Premises: Raymond Chef, 134 High Street, Wick, KW1 4LR
Licence Holder :  Raymond Lai

 

The above Premises Licence has been surrendered in terms of Section 28(5)(f).

 

The Board AGREED to note that the Licence had been surrendered in terms of Section 28(5)(f).

 

11. 3 Premises: Glen Rowan Restaurant, North Road, Invermoriston.
Licence Holder: The Partnership of Alan Matthews and Rachael Cullis, Invermoriston IV63 7AY.

 

The above Premises Licence has been surrendered in terms of Section 28(5)(f).

 

The Board AGREED to note that the Licence had been surrendered in terms of Section 28(5)(f).

 

11.4 Premises: Lisi’s Country Restaurant, Kinveachy, Boat of Garten PH24
Licence Holder: Eileen Sinclair, Kinveachy, Boat of Garten PH24 3BJ

 

The above Premises Licence has been surrendered in terms of Section 28(5)(f).

 

The Board AGREED to note that the Licence had been surrendered in terms of Section 28(5)(f).

 

11.5 Premises: Laggan Stores, Laggan Bridge, Newtonmore.
Licence Holder: Ruth Downton, Laggan, Newtonmore PH20 1AH

 

The above Premises Licence has been surrendered in terms of Section 28(5)(f).

 

The Board NOTED that these Premises Licences had been surrendered and had therefore ceased to have effect.

 

12. The Gambling Act 2005
Achd na Cearrachd 2005

 

12.1  Application for a Betting Office Licence
Premises: 1A Pumpgate Street, Inverness IV3 8HX
Applicant: William Hill, PO Box 170 Leeds, LS2 8JF

 

There had been circulated Report No HLB-119-13 (60kb pdf) by the Clerk.

 

Mr A Hunter, Solicitor and Mr M Elliot were present on behalf of the applicant.

 

The Clerk noted that one late objection had been received but in terms of the Gambling Act 2005 there was no mechanism by which the Board could admit late objections.  Mr Hunter agreed and the late objection was not accepted. 

 

Mr Hunter stated that the premises were on the ground floor and had previously been the Lochiel Bar which had been closed for five years.  William Hill had previously applied for a licence in August 2009 and it had been granted by the Board’s predecessor.   The landlord had then gone into administration before William Hill’s lease of the premises could be concluded and as William Hill had had no control of the premises the licence could not be used.  There was now a new landlord, however, hence the re-application, seeking to reinstate a licence that had previously been granted by the Board’s predecessor.

 

While the issue of demand for betting office facilities could not form part of the Board’s consideration of the application, Mr Hunter advised that at the time of the previous grant there had been two other betting premises in the area these being Ladbrokes and Nessbet.  Following closure of Nessbet, there were now two Ladbrokes premises close by.  William Hill had nonetheless taken a commercial view that they wished to invest in the area..  William Hill was to invest £238,000 to renovate the premises and they would create six jobs, 2 full time and 4 part time.  This would be a mid-sized betting office with 667 square feet of customer area and it would be fitted out to the standard of other William Hill units.  There were presently three William Hill premises in the Board’s area.  The expectation of William Hill was that this unit would operate as a more traditional style of betting office premises with the majority of business driven by over the counter betting.  They were looking to offer competition and choice to the betting public in this particular area.  They did not share the objector’s view that the application was driven solely by the desire to put gaming machines into the premises and indeed the slip checking which had informed the commercial decision to invest in this locality suggested that the majority of business would be over the counter. They looked to provide facilities to bet in compliance with their obligations under the Gambling Act 2005 in a locality where there was demand worth the commercial risk that they were prepared to take in investing in this particular unit.  In the last year they had made applications in different areas across Scotland which could be regarded as grey areas, ordinary areas and maybe not as good areas.  But they did not target poor areas of Scotland and they rejected any assertion that that was the business approach of William Hill.

 

As far as the Board was required to approach this application, the Gambling Act 2005 required that they aim to permit the use of premises provided that that use was in accordance with the relevant Codes of Practice of the Gambling Commission, in accordance with the Gambling Commission’s guidance, reasonably consistent with the Licensing Objectives and in accordance with the Board’s Licensing Policy Statement.

 

William Hill were the largest operator of betting premises in the UK with around 2,400 shops.  They were a FTSE 100 company with high levels of corporate compliance and an infrastructure designed to ensure regulatory compliance in all areas of their business.  Indeed, it took six months from initial induction for a member of staff to complete their initial training which involved a written assessment at the end.  They were at the forefront of regulation and betting compliance.  They had a central compliance team which was accountable to the main PLC board and which monitored daily compliance of every shop within the UK and dealt with any management specific issues that arose.  Mr Hunter asked that the Board note that notwithstanding that William Hill had this large number of shops, they had never had a premises licence revoked for any issue of non-compliance with the Licensing Objectives or any issue with the Gambling Commission in that regard.

 

With regard to the representation which was before the Board, Mr Hunter submitted that this was predicated on really two basis:  firstly, that William Hill were looking to fulfil demands for machines and, secondly, that William Hill were targeting the poor.  As already stated, however, William Hill were not looking to fulfil demand for machines as they believed this would be an over the counter betting led premises.  They did not target the poor but targetted areas where they believed there was a demand for the facilities to bet which they offered.  Although the letter from Merkinch Community Council made certain assertions Mr Hunter  did not understand there to be any evidence in the letter which he could respond to in a meaningful way.  He could, however, advise the Board of what William Hill did to meet the licensing objective of protecting children and vulnerable persons.

 

They operated a 21 policy, which they were not required to do.  They operated independent third party testing of age verification and procedure within stores.  This involved individuals aged over 18 but appearing under 21 going in to William Hill premises across the UK and testing whether members of staff followed the correct procedure to challenge the individual.  As this was run by a third party, William Hill themselves did not know when any particular premises were to be tested.   Results of these tests were recorded centrally and any issues that arose with any particular store were addressed.

 

In relation to vulnerable persons William Hill operated a system of self-exclusion which allowed individuals who felt that they were at risk of “problem gambling” to self-exclude themselves.  This was a system operated by William Hill through the social responsibility guidelines issued by Gamcare.  Advice from Gamcare was promoted throughout William Hill premises.  Staff undertook training in dealing with persons who appeared to have gambling problems and with those who were self-excluded.  Self-exclusion lasted for a period of twelve months.  The guidance to local authorities sets out that whilst the Gambling Commission directly refer to children being excluded from premises, vulnerable persons are not defined and the regulation did not look to prohibit people other than children from using premises.  Instead the legislation was focused on regulating the way that gambling works in an open and fair way and having things such as Gamcare advice available within premises and having procedures in place.  A point that was often made in liquor licensing in support of on-sale premises rather than off-sale premises was that it was better to have people in a controlled environment undertaking a licensed activity rather than doing it at home.  In the same way, William Hill looked to offer premises where people could bet if they wished to, and did so  in an open and clear way in public and where it wa controlled and regulated.

 

In conclusion, Mr Hunter commended the application to the Board and invited them to grant the application.

 

Ms M Smith asked the members if they had any questions for the applicant.

 

Mr R Laird, asked whether, if it was not the intention of the company to use this premises mainly for gambling machines, there would be any gambling machines on these premises at all and if so how many?  Mr Hunter replied that in terms of the Gambling Commission guidance, premises were permitted to have up to four machines, so the premises would have four machines.  Mr Laird then asked the LSO how many gambling machines would be present along Grant Street in total if this application was granted.   Mr Cox responded that there would be 12, there were three betting shops and in terms of the Betting Office Licence they were each allowed up to four category B machines.

 

There being no further questions by members, the Chairman invited Mr Richard Burkitt to address the Board on behalf of the Merkinch Community Council.

 

Mr Burkitt Advised that  Merkinch Community Council objected to this application for a Betting Office Licence from William Hill for the former Lochiel Bar, 1A Pumpgate Street on the grounds of part 4.3 of the Highland Licensing Board Policy Statement of 19 October 2010, namely protecting children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.  They believed that the proliferation of betting shops was driven by what are called B2 gaming machines otherwise known as fixed odds betting terminals.  These had brought high speed, high stake, high risk, casino style gaming to the High Street and in this case to the inner city.  The machines allowed players to stake up to £100 every 20 seconds in an area where more than 20%of residents were on benefits.  Customers could use cash or, what was worse,could use debit and credit cards.  Mr Burkitt advised that he lived in Merkinch and had been presented that same morning with someone in tears as they had spent everything in their bank on gambling the night before.  Bookmakers will argue that they want to cater for demand but it was the accessibility, marketing and addictive nature of these gaming machines which created the demand.  If the applicant had wished to set up an old-fashioned betting shop, Mr Burkitt advised that neither he nor the Community Council would have had any objection.  Extended opening hours meant minimal staff, providing minimal oversight of increased gaming machine gambling, and as a consequence increased addiction, harm and crime.  There were already two Ladbrokes bookmaker shops in the vicinity, which meant eight gaming machines already in Merkinch.  The Board would be failing in its duty if it allowed any more betting offices.  There were many vulnerable people in Merkinch who had many addiction problems and gambling was high amongst them.  These bookmakers only placed in the area for the sake of their gaming machines and, at a time of severe austerity as far as benefits were concerned, vulnerable people were now tempted by the number of gaming machines in the area.  They believed they have a chance of solving their debt problems and were enticed by the glitzy offers of games in these gaming shops.  Within 15 minutes of Merkinch there are betting shops which added up to 24 gaming machines.  It was time to put a stop to the proliferation of these machines.  This was a national problem  and Mr Burkitt encouraged the Board to get involved in putting a stop to it.  He also submitted that at a time when we are covering up cigarettes and trying to deal with the dangers of alcohol, it makes a very bad example to children to have so many gambling shops in a small space.  The children of vulnerable gambling addicts were also severely affected by their parents’ gambling.  There was huge disgust in the areaat the prospect of four more gaming machines in Merkinch and Mr Burkitt urged the Board to refuse the application.

 

The Chairman then asked the Board if they had any questions of the objector.

 

Mr R Laird stated that the Board and Mr Burkitt would be aware that one of the objectives in the Gambling Act was to prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder.  He asked whether the Community Council was aware of any problems in the Grant Street area, regarding anti-social behaviour, aggressive begging or other forms of crime and disorder.  Mr Burkitt replied that it was a daily and huge problem for them.  There were so many people who were currently receiving no money at all it would be an infinitely better idea to turn the Lochiel Bar into a soup kitchen.  There was a huge problem with aggressive begging and with poverty.  There was a food bank in this area and every day four or five people came for food vouchers and this number would grow. 

 

The Chairman stated tha she had not heard of any police representations on any begging issues, and asked Mr Burkitt if he knew of any police representations.

 

Mr Burkitt responded that the police were constantly monitoring this and that they came to the Community Council meetings where it was regularly discussed as a problem and as an issue.  Although begging was lawful, aggressive begging was not, but it was happening every single day.  The Chairman asked if the issues from the police would be minuted in the Community Council minutes and Mr Burkitt agreed that they would be.

 

Mr W MacKay asked Mr Burkitt if there was not also a problem with a gambling trend towards lottery tickets and scratch cards in the Merkinch area.  Mr Burkitt agreed that there was such a problem and admitted that he himself bought far too many scratch cards.  However, with scratch cards there was no ability to spend a stake of £100 and lose £100 in 20 seconds as there was with gaming machines.

 

Mr J Stone asked officers if there were any statistics on the level of saturation for an area the size of Merkinch, and how this compared with bigger communities in the Highlands.

 

The Clerk advised that overprovision was not something that could be taken into account.  Members were prohibited in terms of the legislation and the guidance issued by the Gambling Commission to refuse anything on the grounds of overprovision.  Any argument in the Merkinch Community Council letter based on overprovision should accordingly be ignored.

 

The Chairman noted that although the application would have been intimated to the Director of Social Work, no submissions had been received from Social Work suggesting evidence of harm to vulnerable persons or children.

 

There being no further questions, the Chairman asked Mr Hunter to sum up.

 

Mr Hunter advised that he had two observations to make in relation to the objector’s comments.  First, they included a critical factual inaccuracy in that credit cards could not be used to place bets in a betting shop either over the counter or in machines.  This was critically important because it meant that individuals could not bet that which they did not have.  Secondly, William Hill applied and were granted a licence for these premises in August 2009.  This was long before public comment about gaming machines began  and we were convinced, as we remain convinced, that over the counter betting was going to be the mainstay of this business.  That was long before fixed odds betting terminals were headline grabbers.

 

In summing up, Mr Hunter advised that William Hill was the biggest and in his respectful submission the best operator in the UK of betting shops.  The machines that had been referred to were regulated at Gambling Commission and at government level and therefore the category allowances for them and how they could be used could be changed at any time by central government should they deem that to be the appropriate policy.  Mr Hunter believed that a decision  had recently been made  to leave them as they were for the  time being.  The machines were regulated machines and everything that William Hill did in all of their premises was regulated by The Gambling Commission.  The Gambling Act was set out in such a way that the Board was required to aim to permit the use of premises for gambling providing there was reasonable consistency with the licensing objectives.  In Mr Hunter’s respectful submission, consistency existed when an operator was operating in compliance with the conditions and the objectives of the Act as set forth by the Gambling Commission.  Mr Hunter was grateful that the Chairman had pointed out that there had been no response from the relevant authority instructed to deal with matters of protection of children and vulnerable persons.  William Hill was not looking to operate a machine premises.  They did not target the poor.  Their applications were not led by that kind of approach and indeed it would be counterproductive if they were.  What would the point be of investing heavily in a locality where those around did not have the capability to bet?  William Hill were looking to invest and create jobs in this particular location in premises which has been closed for a number of years and Mr Hunter moved the grant of the application.

 

Mr Burkitt was then invited to sum up.

 

Mr Burkitt responded that more time was needed to get figures and to talk to the Social Services to see whether gambling was the problem he had stated.  He lived and worked every day in Merkinch and considered gambling was a huge problem and often it was combined with debt and people giving pay day loans.  The two things went together and it was a horrible combination.  The next thing being asked for in Merkinch would be a money shop.  Mr Burkitt submitted that if the Board were to refuse the application, they would not just be making a stand for Inverness, they would be making a stand and making a political statement that enough was enough.  These gambling machines were ruining the world as much as heroine did when it came in.  The idea that overprovision was not a reason for not having a shop was quite right.  Why would William Hill want to come in to the area if there was overprovision?  They wanted to come in because they could create the demand by having these gaming machines.  Bookmakers would argue that they wanted to cater for demand, but it was the accessibility, marketing and addictive nature of these machines which created the demand.  This was why William Hill were attacking the vulnerable and the poor.  Merkinch was known to be an area of deprivation, so, whether they liked it or not, William Hill were targeting the poor.  The poor spend the most money on gambling because it   was a regressive tax and it was their only hope.  Mr Burkitt accordingly urged the Board should vote against these stupid machines.

 

The Chairman advised that while she had some sympathy with Mr Burkitt’s impassioned plea and did not disbelieve what he had said, the Board had to work on evidence and evidence alone, otherwise every decision they made would be overturned at appeal.  Ms Smith then opened the debate. 

 

Mr Laird stated that while the applicant said that there was no desire on behalf of the bookmakers to increase the number of gaming machines, they were nonetheless proposing to take full advantage of the Gambling Commission’s limit and intended to have as many machines put on the premises as possible.  As the local councillor for the area, Mr Lairdreceived reports from the local beat police officers regularly and could regale the Board at length with the problems they had in Grant Street and the Merkinch area regarding aggressive begging and anti-social behaviour.  People stood behind people at cash machines to beg money off them to spend in licensed gaming premises on Grant Street.

 

Mr Laird advised that his greatest concern was that this application would breach the third licensing objective regarding protecting vulnerable people.  The applicant had pointed out, quite rightly, that the Act did not specify what was meant by vulnerable people.  However, the Board’s own policy did, where it said, “in seeking to protect vulnerable people the council include people who gamble more than they would want to, people who gamble beyond their means and people who may not be able to make informed or balanced decisions about gambling perhaps due to a mental impairment, alcohol or drugs”.  Directly across the road from 1A Pumpgate Street was a social enterprise called “For the Right Reasons” and the purpose of this particular social enterprise was to deal with people who had real issues around addiction, whether it be drug addiction, alcohol addiction or gambling addiction.  Mr Laird believed that if the Board were to grant this application and put a gaming shop right across from this charity it would be in direct contradiction to the protection of such vulnerable people.  If they put a bookies opposite a place where people were trying to get away from addiction they would be putting temptation in their path and putting them at greater risk of relapsing into gambling addiction.  Mr Laird advised therefore that at the appropriate time would be moving refusal of this application on those grounds.

 

The Clerk advised the Board that the police were one of the responsible authorities who were consulted and as they had not made any representation based on crime statistics, crime could not be used as a reason for refusal.

 

Mr A Duffy advised that he knew the area very well and shared Mr Laird’s concerns.

 

Mr Laird accepted the Clerk’s advice and stated that he would not pursue the first objective as a reason to refuse but that he would pursue the third one.

 

The Chairman shared the sympathies expressed stating that the social enterprise “For the Right Reasons” would not have been set up if there were no issues in the area.  This area was known as a socially deprived area.  However, as the Police had not objected as a statutory consultee and neither had Social Work, it made it difficult to refuse.

 

The Vice-Chairman considered it would be difficult to justify refusal of the application since it was effectively for renewal of the licence which had been granted in 2009.  He cautioned members that if they did not approve the application they would leave the Board open to an appeal which would cost the Board money and he did not think responsibly that they could allow this to happen.  He indicated therefore that he would be moving that the application be granted.

 

Mr W MacKay advised that the Community Council’s letter did suggest there was overprovision and he was inclined to agree with Mr Burkitt and with Mr Laird and Mr Duffy.

 

The Clerk again reminded the Board that overprovision was not a competent ground of refusal under the Gambling Act.

 

Mr Stone stated that while he accepted the clear legal advice that overprovision could not be considered in determining this application, it was clearly a matter of concern to the Community Council and was possibly not a problem confined to Merkinch.  It could even be a Scottish problem.  He asked therefore that the Board write to Scottish Ministers about this.

 

The Chairman noted the request.  She then sought clarification from the Clerk as to whether there was any possibility that determination of the application could be deferred to enable the Board to ask the Police and Social Work whether they had any issues with the application.

 

The Clerk confirmed that there was no possibility of deferral for this purpose.  Police Scotland and Social Work had been given the opportunity to submit representations on the application and had not done so.  No-one had chosen to raise any matters apart from Merkinch Community Council.  It had been open to the social enterprise to which Mr Laird had referred to lodge representations and in fact it would have been good if they had done so as at least that might have given the Board some statistics and figures to consider and which the applicants could comment on.

 

He advised, however, that the Board had no official figures or statistics before them regarding vulnerable adults.  It would have been open to any responsible authority and other people in the area to make representations regarding matters of crime, vulnerable adults, children etc but none had chosen to do so.

 

The Chairman advised that she was aware that Mr Burkitt also worked for “For the Right Reasons” and perhaps this explained why they had not make separate representations.

 

Mr Laird stated that he was making a representation contending that this application would breach the Board’s gambling policy.  He asked the Board not to take the easy route of saying their hands were tied and while they would like to do something about it they were not entirely sure it would stand up. He was confident his case would stand up on appeal and justify the Board making a decision to refuse this application today.  The previous application had been granted four years ago in 2009 and there had been considerable social change in this particular part of Inverness since then.  The fact that it had been granted before did not mean that it had to be granted again.  Mr Laird expressed his confidence that his case for refusal was strong enough to be upheld on appeal.

 

The Clerk advised that it was not strong enough.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Depute Clerk also explained that Mr Laird’s case for refusal would not be assessed on appeal by reference to information which Mr Laird might be able to produce before the court.  It would be assessed on the basis of the information which was before the Board when they took their decision and on the considerations which the Board took into account.

 

Members were concerned that Social Work had not made some comment on the application and, irrespective of the outcome of the decision, they wished that Social Work be asked to explain why they had not submitted any comment on the application. 

 

The Clerk advised that the Board could certainly get in touch with all of the responsible authorities if they wished, but not as part of their decision-making process for the current application.

 

Mr R Laird, seconded by Mr A Duffy, moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it would undermine the licensing objective to protect vulnerable people from being harmed due to its proximity to facilities which supported such vulnerable people.

 

Mr D Millar, seconded by Ms M Smith, moved as an amendment that the application be approved.

 

On a vote being taken using the electronic voting system, votes were cast as follows:-

 

For the motion (6):

 

Mr I Cockburn, Mr A Duffy, Mr R Laird, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr W MacKay and Mr J Stone.

For the amendment (4):

 

Mr R Greene, Mr A Henderson, Mr D Millar and Mrs M Smith.

 

The motion therefore became the finding of the meeting and the application was REFUSED for the reason that permitting the use of the premises for gambling would be inconsistent with the third licensing objective, insofar as that objective seeks to protect vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling, because the premises were in close proximity to facilities which supported such vulnerable people. 

 

The meeting ended at 3.05 pm.