Agenda item

App No	Ward / Cumulative Impact Area	Site Name and Address	App Type	Licensing Ref No.
2.	Church Street Ward / Not in Cumulative Impact Area	101 Bell Street London NW1 6TL	New Premises Licence	21/05642/LIPN

 

 

This will be a virtual meeting. Members of the Public can view the live broadcast using the media links on the Council’s website

WCC LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 3

 

Thursday 14^th October 2021

 

Membership:           Councillor Jim Glen (Chair), Councillor Heather Acton and Councillor Aicha Less

 

Officer Support:       Legal Advisor:         Horatio Chance

                                Policy Officer:          Aaron Hardy

                                Committee Officer:  Tristan Fieldsend

                                Presenting Officer:  Emanuela Meloyan

 

Application for a New Premises Licence 21/05642/LIPN

 

Full Decision

 

Premises

 

101 Bell Street

London

NW1 6TL

 

Applicant

 

A1 Bottles Limited

 

Cumulative Impact Area?

 

Not in a Cumulative Impact Area

 

Ward

 

Church Street

 

Summary of Application

 

The Premises proposed to operate a commercial office which would be used for distribution of online sales of prosecco and champagne. 

 

Proposed Activities and Hours

 

Retail Sale of Alcohol [Off Sales]

 

Monday to Sunday 11.00 to 23.00 

 

Representations Received

 

·       Environmental Health Services (Maxwell Koduah)

·       One local resident in objection.

 

 

 

 

Summary of issues raised by objectors

 

·       The application as presented would have the likely effect of causing an increase in Public Nuisance and may affect Public Safety within the area.

 

·       The application would negatively impact on the amenity of local residents. The Premises would be receiving deliveries on a regular basis and delivery drivers would be continuously pulling up to the Premises to collect deliveries of alcohol. These activities would increase noise, pollution and congestion in a residential area.

 

Policy Position

 

Policies HRS1 and OS1 would have to be considered under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP).

 

DECISION

 

The Presenting  Officer introduced the application and confirmed that the Applicant was not in attendance to present the application. The Sub-Committee was informed that written confirmation had been received that the Applicant would not attend and following discussions with a Director of the Applicant Company  further confirmation had been given that they would not attend the hearing, or any hearing rescheduled for a future date.

 

Mr Koduah, representing the Environmental Health Service (EHS), informed the Sub-Committee that their representation was maintained as the resident objecting to the application was unable to attend the hearing. The Sub-Committee noted that conditions had been agreed between EHS and the Applicant and Mr Koduah advised that these were sufficient to mitigate any concerns regarding public nuisance. These conditions included restricting when deliveries could take place to the Premises to between 07:00 and 23:00 hours and ensuring all deliveries would be undertaken by personnel employed directly by the licence holder or by the licence holder himself.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Koduah confirmed that the street the Premises was located on was of a residential nature, however it was not considered proportionate to require all deliveries to be undertaken by bicycle in order to reduce any potential public nuisance. The Sub-Committee also noted that the opening hours for the operation had not been provided and expressed grave disappointment that the Applicant was refusing to attend the hearing in order to provide further clarification on how the business was intended to operate that would help promote the licensing objectives.

 

Conclusion

 

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and noted that it was not located within a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) or Special Consideration Zone. Therefore, the Sub-Committee had a duty to consider the application on its individual merits and took into account all the Sub-Committee papers, the proposed conditions and the oral evidence given by Mr Koduah on behalf of EH during the hearing in its determination of the matter.  

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had failed to attend the hearing despite being given ample opportunity to do so and was even contacted again on the day of the hearing by the Licensing Authority but refused to participate and give oral evidence. The Applicant had also declined the offer of an alternative date to attend any future Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee was disappointed to note this and considered it was imperative for the Applicant to have attended the hearing to answer pertinent questions of the Sub-Committee regarding the proposed venture. 

 

After considering all the evidence and the Revised Home Office Guidance the Sub-Committee was not persuaded by the Applicant that the application should be granted and therefore refused the application. The Applicant’s attendance was considered imperative so that the relevant questions could be asked of him, and clarification sought on any aspect of the application together with details as to how the Premises is to be run on a day to day basis when selling alcohol, in particular the non-recording of hours for the appropriation and preparation of goods, potential issues around the Premises relating to noise, deliveries to private residences and the proper supervision of delivery drivers likely to congregate outside of the Premises so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents.  

 

The Sub-Committee was of the view that the lack of engagement by the Applicant provided no confidence that the licensing objectives would be promoted, in particular the public nuisance licensing objective given the many concerns raised by the resident objection. Furthermore, based on the information the Sub-Committee had before it, it concluded that no proper consideration had been given regarding the character of the street, namely that it was residential in nature and the likely impact the operation would have on residents from a nuisance perspective.  

 

The lack of engagement by the Applicant also provided no confidence that the proposed licensing conditions would be complied with particularly when it came to age verification and safeguarding the prevention of children from harm licensing objective. As a result, there was insufficient information to determine the matter that would ultimately give rise to the promotion of the licensing objectives and the policy requirements contained under Policy OS1 of the SLP. 

 

The Sub-Committee decided that the above issues were all material in nature and went to the very heart of the promotion of the licensing objectives and how ultimately the Applicant is to run the Premises. Regrettably due to the Applicants failure to attend the hearing and with these events in mind it is not the role of the Sub-Committee try and second guess how the licensing objectives are to be upheld with very limited information.

 

The Sub-Committee decided that the Applicant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the granting of the application would promote the licensing objectives and therefore refused the application in all the circumstances of the case.  

 

The Application is Refused.

 

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

14 October 2021