Agenda item

An application for a Premises Licence in respect of Newstop, 64 High Street, Wednesfield, Wolverhampton, WV11 1SZ, was considered.  The premises was within a Cumulative Impact Zone and representations had been received from West Midlands Police, the Licensing Authority, Public Health and Other Persons.

The Chair detailed the procedure to be followed.  All parties confirmed that they understood the procedure.

Ms J. Till, Section Leader, Licensing, provided an outline of the application.  All parties confirmed that the summary was accurate.

The Chair invited the applicant to present the application.

Mr Surinder Buray JP of Reade Buray Associates on behalf of the applicant, Mr Balbir Singh, requested the agreement of the Sub-Committee to submit additional supporting information.  The Sub-Committee declined the request on the grounds that Mr Buray had been notified by the Democratic Services Officer that any additional information should be submitted prior to the day of the Hearing.  It would not be reasonable to permit the applicant to submit supporting information when all other parties had not been afforded that opportunity.

Mr Buray presented the application, supported by the applicant and Mr Rarvinder Singh.

The Chair afforded all parties present the opportunity to question the applicant in relation to its representation.  Mr Buray, the applicant and Mr B. Singh provided responses to questions asked.

The Chair invited West Midlands Police to make representations.  Acting Inspector Lee Davies, made representations.

The Chair invited all parties present to question the Police in relation to its submission.  Acting Inspector Davies provided responses to questions asked.

The Chair invited the Licensing Authority to make representations.  Mrs Elaine Moreton, Section Leader – Licensing, did so.

The Chair invited all parties present to question the Licensing Authority in relation to its submission.  Mrs Moreton provided responses to questions asked.

The Chair invited Public Health to make representations.  Mr Parpinder Singh did so.

The Chair invited all parties present to question Public Health in relation to its submission.  Mr Singh provided responses to questions asked.

The Chair invited all parties present to make their final address.

West Midlands Police, the Licensing Authority and Public Health all stated that they had nothing further to add.

Mr Buray made a closing statement on behalf of the applicant.

All interested parties, with the exception of the Council’s Solicitor and the Democratic Services Officer, withdrew from the meeting to enable the Sub-Committee to determine the matter.

All interested parties were invited back to the meeting and the Chair advised them of the decision of the Sub-Committee, which was read out in full by the Senior Solicitor.

Resolved:

The Sub-Committee was asked to consider an application for a Premises Licence In respect Of Newstop, 64 High Street, Wednesfield, Wolverhampton, WV11 1SZ.

The Sub-Committee considered the written and verbal submissions of the applicant and written and verbal representations from West Midlands Police, the Licensing Authority and the Local Health Board.  It also considered written representations from Other Persons (local residents), who were not present at the Hearing.

The Sub-Committee were of the view that the needs of the local community should be reflected in its decision and Members were not satisfied that the conditions proposed in respect of the application were sufficient to address the concerns raised by the Responsible Authorities through their representations.

The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the Cumulative Impact Policy was relevant to the application due to:

(a)    the premises being located within the Cumulative Impact Zone;

(b)    the licensable activity applied for at the premises is to include sale of alcohol or late night refreshment;

(c)    the likelihood that the activity will have an impact on the Crime and Disorder and the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objectives.

The Sub-Committee had regard to the Licensing Objectives and the fact that it should refuse an application based upon the Cumulative Impact Policy unless sufficient evidence is produced by the applicant to rebut the presumption that a Licence will not be granted or varied.  The Applicant did not rebut this presumption and the Sub-Committee were not satisfied of the need to grant the application.  The application was therefore refused.

This decision can be appealed to the Magistrates Court within 21 days from receipt of this decision. In the event an appeal is lodged and dismissed by the Court the Council will apply for its costs in defending the appeal.