(a)

considered the report from the Director for Place;

(b)

heard from the applicant that:

·          

he had applied for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) between 19 September 2012 and 24 September 2012;

·          

he wished to operate a home delivery alcohol service open for 24 hours between the above dates;

·          

he agreed with the police on the need for stringent conditions to effectively promote the licensing objectives and was happy to abide by the conditions the police would wish to attach;

·          

the sale would take place over the phone at the premises;

·          

payment would only be by credit or debit card over the phone;

·          

the only staff responsible for delivery and telephone response would be by Mr Wright, a personal licence holder, and Craig Bullen, who had attended the course and test but had not applied for his personal licence yet;

·          

they would operate a challenge 25 policy.  As these were home deliveries there was clearly no issue with people having access to their ID;

·          

the car engine would be turned off at delivery sites to minimise noise;

·          

if the police had any additional conditions that they wished to add this was unlikely to be a problem;

·          

this temporary event was intended to be a trial for setting up a permanent alcohol delivery service to see if there was sufficient demand and was not to circumvent the need for a premise licence;

·          

as the main concern of the police was that conditions could not be attached to a TEN in the same way as a premise licence they had brought forward the premise licence application and this should be rejected if they broke any of the conditions informally associated with this TEN;

·          

the days covered by this TEN was important to this new business as this covered the period that new students arrived at University and they felt it was essential that they established a visible presence in this vital period;

(c)

heard from a representative of Devon and Cornwall Police that –

·          

they had concerns regarding the potential impact this application would have to undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm;

·          

they believed this application sought to circumvent the need for a full premises licence and made it impossible for the police and the applicant to effectively engage in the promotion of the four licensing objectives;

·          

they referred to paragraph 3.10 of s.182 of the Licensing Act 2003 regarding the consideration of appropriate conditions that should be attached to the operating schedule regarding internet and delivery sales of alcohol;

·          

there were significant concerns regarding the location where the sale took place, the methods of payment, the training of staff regarding underage sales, how to prevent public nuisance, what checks would be required before completing the transaction;

·          

this application though lawful was not within the spirit of the Act and, if granted, it would be impossible to effectively police without stringent conditions;

·          

they recommended that this application was refused.