There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

[To consider the application for a new premises licence]

In attendance

For the premises

Simon Bailey – Solicitor

Lord D Deol – applicant

Mrs Deol – wife of applicant

Responsible Authorities

Elaine Moreton – Licensing Authority

Sergeant J Flanagan and PC M Harvey – West Midlands Police

Michelle Smith – Public Health

Other Persons

Mr Moore and Mr Singh – local residents

The Chair introduced the parties and outlined the procedure to be followed at the hearing.

The Section Leader (Licensing) outlined the report submitted to all parties in advance. 

At this juncture, Mr Bailey submitted the application for a premises licence on behalf of the applicant.  He advised that the premises would be a supermarket and not solely concerned with the sale of alcohol and summarised the steps to be taken to promote the four licensing objectives, as detailed at page 20 of the application.  Responding to questions, he advised that the timings for the sale of alcohol had been reduced to 8am to 11pm. 

In addition to the application, Mr Bailey produced letters from local businesses and a petition from local businesses supporting the premises licence application.  The documents were printed and circulated to all parties at the hearing.  The Council’s Solicitor advised that if these simply added to the application made, they could be submitted at any time prior to the hearing.  Council procedure provided that any additional information should be provided a number of days in advance of the hearing to allow all parties the opportunity to consider the information.  Little weight could be attached to the petition as the details could not be verified.

Responding to further questions, the applicant advised that he would not be running the premises himself as it would be leased out, that he was associated with Banks’ Bistro but had no involvement with any other signatories to the petition.  It was confirmed that the opening hours would be 7am to 12 midnight and that notices would be displayed advising of the restrictions on the sale of alcohol and as landlord he would keep strict control.  In view of Responsible Authority concerns, Mr Bailey suggested that the opening hours be the same as those for the sale of alcohol and confirmed that late night refreshment would therefore be no longer applicable. 

At this juncture, the Responsible Authorities outlined their representations.

Elaine Moreton, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, advised that she could not support the application in its present form due to the insufficient information contained within the operating schedule.

The Section Leader (Licensing) confirmed that, should the licence be granted, the some of the conditions contained within the operating schedule on the initial application would not be enforceable. 

The meeting was adjourned at this point to enable Mr Bailey to confer with his client.

The meeting was re-convened and Mr Bailey suggested that there were two options available, these being:

1.    to withdraw the application in order to firm up the operating schedule, or

2.    apply the same terms as a nearby licensed premise.

The Council’s Solicitor advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To pass the following resolution:

That in accordance with section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of schedule 12A to the act relating to the business affairs of particular persons.

Resolved:

            That, in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within paragraph 2 of Schedule 12A to the Act relating to the business affairs of particular persons.

The Sub-Committee discussed the issues which had been raised during consideration of the premises licence application.

The parties returned to the meeting and were advised of the Sub-Committee’s decision as follows:

The Sub-Committee have taken note of all the written concerns raised in respect of Merridale Supermarket, Clifton House, Merridale Road, Wolverhampton. They have listened to the arguments of those who have spoken at this hearing, both for and against the application.

The Sub-Committee have heard today that:

1. the application submitted does not demonstrate effectively how the applicant will promote the four licensing objectives;
2. the applicant referred to staff training and other ways to control licensable activities, yet none of these are detailed in the operating schedule to the application;
3. the application is weak;
4. there have been fifteen calls to the West Midlands Police in the last five weeks.  These calls have related to incidents in Compton Road, Chapel Ash, at the former eye infirmary and, more specifically, included two calls relating to Merridale Road. These calls related to males fighting, begging and urinating in the area surrounding the location of the proposed application;
5. Lord Deol himself complained to the West Midlands Police on 15 July 2015 about nuisance caused by alcohol related behaviour at the site which is the subject of the application;
6. Guidance under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 provides that due regard must be given to the location where the premises will be situated;
7. these premises are not in a Cumulative Impact Zone. However, there is a cumulative effect making this a hot spot for anti-social behaviour due in part to alcohol and that the highest level of alcohol related death in the City is in this area, and
8. The West Midlands Police, Licensing Authority and Public Health do not support this application.

The applicant has today proposed a reduction in hours, but essentially gives only commercial arguments as to why the premises licence should be granted.  The Sub-Committee are not satisfied that the premises will satisfactorily promote the licensing objectives, particularly as some conditions  in the operating schedule appear to be unenforceable .

Today the applicant has submitted information to include letters in support of the application and a petition.  The Sub-Committee is satisfied that this is additional evidence in support of the application.  Mr Singh (Other Person) has also submitted additional information today to include letters from persons who could themselves hold the status of Other Persons and a petition.  The Sub-Committee are satisfied that the letters should have been submitted as relevant representations and, as such, were not submitted in time to be considered here today.  However, the petition is accepted as additional evidence in support of the relevant representations made by Mr Singh.

With regard to both petitions, the Sub-Committee are satisfied that limited weight should be attached to them as the identity of those signing them cannot be verified.

Having considered the views of all concerned, the Sub-Committee have decided that the application for a premises licence should not be granted.

All parties have a right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of this decision.