Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

[To consider the application]

In Attendance

For the Premises

Mr Chris Mitchener – Licensing Solutions

Responsible Authorities

PC Mitch Harvey – West Midlands Police

Elaine Moreton – Licensing Authority

Other Persons

Councillor Wendy Thompson (Tettenhall Wightwick)

Mr & Mrs Jevons

Mr & Mrs Tykiff (Mrs Tykiff acting as spokesperson for some residents)

Mr M Bradshaw

Mr & Mrs Hobbs

Mrs B Bates (spokesperson for Neighbourhood Plan Forum Committee)

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

The Section Leader (Licensing) outlined the report, circulated to all parties in advance of the hearing.

At this juncture, Mr Mitchener outlined the application to vary the premises licence on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder.  He advised that, in light of the representations received from the Responsible Authorities and Other Persons, he had agreed to restrict the sale/supply of alcohol to Monday to Sunday, 0700 to 2300 hours inclusive. He further advised that there had initially been confusion regarding the hours granted under the planning permission and it had only recently been clarified that it was not for twenty four hours, but 0700 to 2300 hours.  Mr Mitchener stated that, as a result of the changed hours, the police were now content with the application. He pointed out that there had been no representations from Environmental Health and no evidence forthcoming in regard to noise disturbance emanating from the premises.  He indicated that he would be monitoring the site, would liaise with residents and would circulate his business card following the hearing to facilitate this.  He drew attention to the comprehensive training regime for staff and audits undertaken by the Designated Premises Supervisor and field manager.

Responding to questions, he advised that it was not possible to legislate for delivery times under the Licensing Act and that they would not necessarily fall within the licensable hours.  It was also pointed out that commercial concerns were not relevant to this hearing.

At this juncture PC Harvey outlined the representations of the West Midlands Police which related to the application for a 24 hour licence. He had checked the crime logs for the previous two years and advised there had been no reports of anti-social behaviour. The police had worked alongside the Licensing Authority with the applicant and agreed conditions to be added to the licence, including a variation to the timings. In view of this, the West Midlands Police were happy for the licence to be granted, subject to the agreed conditions being added.

Elaine Moreton outlined the representations on behalf of the Licensing Authority (as a Responsible Authority) and, in doing so, advised that the condition agreed with the Police in regard to sales of single cans of alcohol should replace that agreed with the Licensing Authority.

At this juncture the ‘Other Persons’ outlined their representations.

Councillor Mrs Thompson indicated that she welcomed the reduction in licensable hours.  She drew attention to the fact that the premises were in a quiet residential area, of the blight ensuing from lights at the  ...  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 3 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 variation application.

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

The Sub-Committee has taken note of all the written concerns raised in respect of Compton Filling Station, Bridgnorth Road, Wolverhampton and has listened to the arguments of those who have spoken at this hearing, both for and against the application.

Having considered the views of all concerned, the Sub-Committee has decided that the application to vary the premises licence is granted as applied for, subject to the following modifications:

Conditions agreed between the applicant and the Licensing Authority dated 26 October 2015

• Sale/supply of alcohol off the premises is reduced to the following:

    Monday to Sunday – 0700 to 2300 hours inclusive

• Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) notice, provided by the Licensing Authority, shall be displayed prominently on the premises visible from outside the store, advising that Police have powers to seize alcohol.

Conditions agreed between the applicant and the West Midlands Police dated 11 September 2015

2. An incident log must be maintained at the premises and a written record of any incident that occurs at the premises must be appropriately recorded.  Where it is deemed appropriate the incident must be reported to the West Midlands Police.  The incident log book shall be produced to a member of a Responsible Authority upon request.

3. To ensure compliance with ‘Challenge 25’ a refusals book shall be utilised, where any sale of alcohol is refused to persons who present themselves to be under age.

4. No single cans/bottles of beer, lager or cider with an ABV or 6.5% or over to be stocked or sold.

It is considered by the Sub-Committee that the above conditions should be attached in support of the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives.

Finally, such conditions as are specified on/or are consistent with the operating schedule will be attached to the licence, together with any mandatory conditions required by the Act.

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

[To consider the application]

In Attendance

For the Premises

Mr R K Saharan – Applicant

Mr T Raj – Applicant’s father

Responsible Authorities

PC Mitch Harvey – West Midlands Police

Elaine Moreton – Licensing Authority

Dawn Erkek and Sheetal Panchmatia – West Midlands Fire Service

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

The Section Leader (Licensing) outlined the report, circulated to all parties in advance of the hearing. He advised that the hearing had been adjourned to enable the applicant to submit revised plans for the premises due to concerns of the West Midlands Fire Service and to enable the Fire Safety Officers to re-visit the premises.  However a copy of the revised plans had only been received that morning; two copies were produced to enable the Sub-Committee and Responsible Authorities to view them. It was noted that there was a typographical error in section 2.1 of the report relating to the applicant’s name and the date the application was received.

At this juncture, Mr Saharan outlined the application for a new premises licence as outlined at pages 11 to 27 of the agenda pack for the hearing. Responding to questions, he indicated that he had had difficulty in contacting his architect, hence the late delivery of the revised plans. He further indicated that the architect was the same one who had dealt with the planning application. The Fire Officer advised that the premises had been visited that morning and the required work to the premises was on-going with some last minute issues to be finished.  Mr Saharan was able to quote the four licensing objectives and stated that a Cumulative Impact Zone was an area in which there were too many drinking premises.  He stated that the premises would employ a door supervisor after 2300 hours and there would be a daily assessment of any occurrences.

At this juncture, Dawn Erkek outlined the Fire Service representations, advising that it would not be necessary to make a further visit to the premises as photographic evidence of the installation of a safety window would suffice.

Elaine Moreton, representing the Licensing Authority as a Responsible Authority, expressed concern that it was not clear whether the Planning Authority had seen the revised plans as it was clear that none of the Responsible Authorities had had chance to view them.  Rob Edge, Section Leader (Licensing), clarified that the original Fire Officer had visited the premises in June, that the premises licence application had been submitted in April and it was not clear whether the planning permission had been amended.  The Solicitor advised that it would be prudent for the applicant to speak to the Planning Authority following the hearing to ensure that the correct plans have now been submitted.  However, this did not affect the decision making for this Sub-Committee, which could determine the application provided that the Licensing Authority and Fire Service were happy with the plans produced at this hearing.

At this juncture Elaine Moreton made representations on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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 3 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 variation application.

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

The Sub-Committee has taken note of all the written concerns raised in respect of House of India, Market Street, Wolverhampton and has listened to the arguments of those who have spoken at this hearing, both for and against the application.

The Sub-Committee are satisfied that the Cumulative Impact Policy applies to these premises in relation to the promotion of the crime And disorder licensing objective.

1. The Sub-Committee has heard the following from the West Midlands Police that they have worked with the applicant and agreed possible conditions which can be attached to the licence, if granted.  However the police are concerned that, following a number of visits they made to the premises, the applicant ignored advice given during the visits concerning permissions for building works.  This led the police to have concerns regarding management of the business and the possibility that the applicant would ignore advice from the police on issues of crime and disorder.

2. The Sub-Committee has heard from the Licensing Authority (as a Responsible Authority) that revised plans have been submitted late in the process and that none of the responsible Authorities have had the opportunity to consider these properly.  They have concerns that this demonstrates that management at the premises is sub-standard.

3. The Cumulative Impact Policy does not extend to public safety and therefore fire safety issues.  The fire service has confirmed that when they first attended the premises they had concerns regarding the means of escape from the second floor of the building.  The fire service visited the premises this morning and works to address this have been carried out.  However, a window on the second floor requires the fitting of safety glass as indicated on the revised plan.  Although the fire service has been given an assurance that this work will be carried out it has not yet been undertaken, which undermines the public safety licensing objective.

Having considered the views of all concerned in relation to crime and disorder, the Sub-Committee is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been produced to show that the premises will not add to the cumulative impact already experienced and therefore the presumption of non-grant is not rebutted.

In addition the Sub-Committee is not satisfied that granting the licence would promote public safety and therefore the application is refused.

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