An application for a Variation of a Premises Licence in respect of Roma Wines, 55 Pendeford Avenue, Wolverhampton, WV6 9EH was considered following representations received from the Licensing Authority and Other Persons.
Jaswinder Kaur, Democratic Services Manager, welcomed all parties to the hearing and explained that the meeting would be conducted in line with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. She invited all parties to introduce themselves and all parties did so.
The Chair welcomed all parties to the hearing and outlined the procedure to be followed. All parties confirmed that they understood the procedure.
Debra Craner, Section Leader Licensing, provided an outline of the application. Ms Prabhpreet Singh, Applicant’s daughter and representative,
confirmed that the summary provided was accurate.
The Chair invited the Applicant to present the application.
Ms Prabhpreet Singh, Applicant’s daughter and representative, did so as per Appendix 1 of the report. She acknowledged the representations that had been received and stated the following:
The Chair afforded all parties present the opportunity to question Ms Prabhpreet Singh in relation to her submission.
Ms Prabhjeet Singh and Mr Jarmanjit Singh, Applicant’s husband,
responded to questions asked. They stated that the other businesses along the parade closed around 10pm and confirmed that the applicant was willing to reduce the hours applied for.
The Chair invited the Licensing Authority to make representations. Elaine Moreton, Section Leader Licensing, did so as per Appendix 4 of the report.
The Chair afforded all parties present the opportunity to question the Licensing Authority in relation to its submission. Elaine Moreton responded to questions asked.
The Chair invited Other Persons to make representations.
Mrs Caroline Bates, local resident, did so as per Appendix 5 of the report. She stated that the premises regularly traded beyond the hours permitted by the licence and continued to do so after Licensing Compliance Officers had attended the premises in February 2020.
She further stated that the petition referred to by the Applicant had only been signed by customers of the premises and not by local residents.
The Chair afforded all parties present the opportunity to question Mrs Bates in relation to her submission. Mrs Bates responded to questions asked.
The Chair invited all parties present to make their final address.
Caroline Bates, Elaine Moreton, Prabhjeet Singh and Jarmanjit Singh made a final statement.
Councillor Bolshaw, Councillor Crofts, Councillor Inston, the Senior Solicitor and Democratic Services Officer, withdrew from the meeting to enable the Sub-Committee to determine the matter.
The Sub-Committee adjourned at 12.26 hours.
The Hearing reconvened at 12.58 hours.
Councillor Bolshaw, Councillor Crofts, Councillor Inston, the Senior Solicitor and Democratic Services Officer re-joined the meeting.
The Chair advised all parties of the decision of the Sub-Committee, which was read out by the Senior Solicitor.
The Statutory Licensing Sub-Committee had taken note of all the written concerns raised in respect of the application for the variation of the premises licence in respect of Roma Wines, 55 Pendeford Avenue, Wolverhampton, WV6 9EH. It had listened to the arguments of those who had spoken at the hearing, both for and against the application.
The Licensing Sub-Committee heard from the applicant, and those who had attended the hearing in support, that:
The Licensing Sub-Committee heard from Mrs Moreton, as Responsible Authority for the Local Authority that:
The Sub-Committee heard from Other Persons who had made Relevant Representations, namely Caroline Bates (orally at the hearing and by written submission), Neil Hodges and David Sargent (via written submission only) that:
And Neil Hodges confirmed:
And David Sargent confirmed:
The Sub-Committee were satisfied that nuisance, including noise, currently existed. They were further satisfied that the premises had operated beyond hours permitted by the premises licence, that this had occurred on numerous occasions to include since the visit by Licensing Compliance. It was noted that the applicant had made reference to a petition. This had been signed by customers of the premises only and was not signed by residents generally. This had not been available at the hearing but the Sub-Committee were satisfied that it existed. However, they were unable to verify its authenticity and therefore, limited weight had been given to this.
Based upon the above and in accordance with Section 35 of the LA 2003 the Sub-Committee decided that the application to vary the premises licence should be refused.
It was considered that the above decision was in support of all the Licensing Objectives.
Written confirmation of the Sub-Committee’s decision would be forwarded within the next five working days.
All parties had a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of receipt of the decision.