Agenda item

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:

 

1. Noise nuisance had not necessarily been caused by Roma Wines and there had been no noise complaints about the premises since the Applicant had taken over in 2017;
2. The premises had traded beyond the permitted hours on one occasion only. The applicant was sorry and said it had been a mistake;
3. A petition had been obtained containing the signatures of 100 people who supported the application for extended hours;
4. The premises were in a parade of shops and therefore in a business, not residential area;
5. The hours applied for were not excessive;
6. The four Licensing Objectives would be promoted with the use of CCTV, flood lighting and Challenge 25 policy;
7. Parking issues had not been caused by Roma Wines;
8. West Midlands Police and West Midlands Fire Service had no concerns;
9. The Applicant was unaware of any break-ins in the area and there had been none at the premises;
10. The extended hours would not have a detrimental impact on the community.

 

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.

 

Resolved:

 

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:

 

1. Mrs Roshy had a good relationship with her customers and if they caused nuisance, she told them not to;
2. There had been no noise complaints about the premises since the applicant had taken over in 2017;
3. The four Licensing Objectives would be promoted and it was outlined how this would be achieved, including the use of CCTV and flood lighting to deter crime;
4. A petition had been obtained containing the signatures of 100 people who supported the application for extended hours;
5. Nuisance was not only caused by Roma Wines. Taxis and large lorries (not always connected with the premises) used the road outside the premises;
6. The premises were in a parade of shops and therefore in a business, not residential area;
7. Mrs Roshy was unaware of any break-ins in the area and there had been none at her premises;
8. West Midlands Police and West Midlands Fire Service had no concerns;
9. Mrs Roshy had no knowledge of cans or bottles littering the streets;
10. The premises had traded beyond hours permitted by the licence on one occasion only. The applicant had apologised and said it had been a mistake.
11. A letter in support of the application had been received from the landlord of the premises, PR Pathase.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee heard from Mrs Moreton, as Responsible Authority for the Local Authority that:

 

1. The Licensing Authority as Responsible Authority made representations in furtherance of all Licensing Objectives: Protection of Children from Harm, Prevention of Public Nuisance, Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Public Safety.
2. The City of Wolverhampton Council (CWC) had received a complaint about noise and that the premises were operating beyond hours permitted by their licence. This had been investigated by the Compliance Team at CWC. The investigation had revealed that the premises had been trading outside the hours permitted in the licence allowing the sale of alcohol.
3. There was concern over the applicant’s understanding of the legislative requirements.
4. The request to extend hours was excessive in what is a residential area.
5. There was insufficient information within the operating schedule of the application to vary as to how the applicant would promote the Licensing Objectives.
6. The premises had offered to reduce hours applied for however, there was concern that if this were granted the premises would still operate outside the hours allowed and therefore the application to vary should be refused.

 

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:

 

1. Caroline Bates was the daughter of residents who lived above the premises and represented them.
2. Representations were made in furtherance of the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective.
3. The parents of Caroline Bates had witnessed the premises opening/trading beyond hours permitted by their licence.
4. Customers were attending the premises in the early hours of the morning and there was a regular pattern of the premises closing at 12 midnight, 12:30 and 01:00. Customers would pull up outside in cars, leave radios and engines running, slam car doors and then speed off down the road.
5. Opening beyond hours permitted by the licence had occurred since Licensing Compliance had attended the premises in February 2020.
6. The noise generated was disturbing for those living in the flat above the premises.
7. Should the licensable hours be extended the disturbance was then likely to still extend beyond the hours permitted.
8. It was noted that the premises had offered to reduce the hours applied for in the application, but it was believed that disturbance would still occur.

 

 

And Neil Hodges confirmed:

 

1. These premises were in a residential area with houses opposite and flats above.
2. Noise from cars and customers visiting the premises could be heard up to 01:00.

 

 

And David Sargent confirmed:

 

1. The premises were in a residential area.
2. There had been a number of break- ins at shops/stores in the area.
3. Granting the extension of hours would add to the threat of further crime.
4. The access road to the premises was frequented by youths who visited the premises and empty cans and bottles which once contained alcohol were regularly scattered about the pavement and grass verges.
5. Additional hours would be a magnet for youths leading to further nuisance and disorder.
6. There was noise in the access road from large vehicles and inconsiderate motorists using the store.

 

 

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.