Agenda and minutes

Councillor Seacome was elected as the Chairman by the Sub Committee.

None

None

Ladbrokes, 11-19 Winchcombe Street, Cheltenham, GL52 2LZ

Prior to the start of the meeting all parties introduced themselves as follows;

Ladbrookes Betting & Gaming Ltd

Jeremy Phillips – Barrister

Julia Palmer – Solicitor

Derek Bacon – Company Development Manager

Christopher Lynch – Regulatory Property Director

William Hill

Philip Kolvin – Barrister

Andrew Lyman – Head of Public Affairs

Brian Minihane – Development Manager

Richard Taylor – Solicitor

Louis Krog, Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.  An application had been received from Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited to vary their existing betting premises licence to reduce the size of the existing betting premises to 11 – 17 Winchcombe Street. 

At the same time an application for a new betting premises licence was also made for new betting premises at 19 Winchcombe Street effectively splitting the existing premises into two separate betting premises.

Appendix A of the report showed a copy of the current licence.

Appendix B of the report showed copies of both applications.

Appendix C of the report detailed drawings of the proposed new layout of the premises.

Appendix D of the report detailed a drawing of the existing layout of the premises.

An objection had been submitted against the application and variation from William Hill.  The objection was attached at Appendix E.

Jeremy Phillips, Barrister spoke on behalf of Ladbrookes Betting & Gaming Ltd.  He referred the Committee to the opening submissions that would be referred to.  A copy of the submissions will be attached as supplementary documents to the minutes for reference.

Jeremy Phillips confirmed Ladbookes Betting & Gaming had applied for a variation and a new application.  The interested party, William Hill objected to the applications because they felt their business interests may be affected if the licences were granted.  The interested party will have to accept that there can be no objection made based on demand or need.

William Hill says the representation is purely commercial and claim the applications are against the spirit of the Act and that the premises is being split.  The applications were not made to specifically cater for demand during Cheltenham Races – this is not relevant and Jeremy Phillips argued that the plans showed separate premises.

Jeremy Phillips referred the Committee to the plans of the premises and in particular the staff area in the lobby.  The plan suggested a wall partitioned the side of the lobby but in fact this was a fire door that enabled staff to have access to the toilet on the ground floor.  This area was a private space for staff use only and if the Committee were preferable to the door being screened off creating a wall then the applicants would be happy to do this.

Jeremy Phillips turned to page 2, point 4 of the papers which showed the applicants six principal submissions in response to the objection.

Jeremy Phillips turned to page 5, point 4e of the papers which referred to the ‘Camden application’ and noted referrals to this made by the interested party as point ei, ii  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.