Agenda item
LICENSING ACT 2003: APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF A PREMISES LICENCE - MRH RUTHIN, PARK ROAD, RUTHIN LL15 1NB
To consider an application for the variation of a Premises Licence submitted in accordance with Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 (an outline of the submission and associated papers are attached).
Please note the procedure to be taken by the Sub Committee (which is attached to this agenda).
Decision:
RESOLVED that the variations as
applied for be determined as follows –
i.
Provision of Late Night Refreshment 23:00 –
05:00 Monday to Sunday – GRANTED FOR HOT DRINKS ONLY (no hot food provision)
ii.
Supply of alcohol for 24 hours Monday to
Sunday (for consumption off the premises) – REFUSED
Minutes:
The Licensing Officer submitted a report by the Head
of Planning and Public Protection (previously circulated) upon –
(i)
an
application having been received from Malthurst
Retail Limited for the variation of a Premises Licence
in respect of MRH Ruthin, Park Road, Ruthin to vary their hours to open 24
hours for the sale of alcohol as an off licence
together with the provision of late night refreshment (Appendix A to the
report);
(ii)
the
premises currently operated as a petrol filling station open 24 hours together
with a small convenience store with current licensing hours authorising
the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises only Monday to Sunday from
06:00 to 23:00;
(iii)
the
applicant having requested authorisation for
provision of the following –
LICENSABLE
ACTIVITY |
DAYS
APPLICABLE |
TIME
FROM |
TIME
TO |
Supply of Alcohol (for consumption off the premises) |
Monday – Sunday |
24 hours |
|
Provision of late night refreshment (both on and off the premises) |
Monday – Sunday |
23:00 |
05:00 |
Premises Opening Hours |
Monday – Sunday |
24 hours |
(iv)
nine
written representations having been received from interested parties in
response to the public notice (Appendix B to the report) relating mainly to
possible disturbance from noise and anti-social behaviour;
(v)
mediation
having not been an option in this case given the number of representations
received;
(vi)
the
North Wales Police having submitted representations to the application along
with a number of proposed conditions, which had subsequently been agreed with
the Applicant, to be incorporated within the premises operating schedule should
the variations be granted (Appendix C to the report);
(vii)
the
proposed Operating Schedule having been included as part of the application
detailing a number of additional conditions;
(viii)
the
need to consider the application taking due account of Guidance and the
Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy; other relevant legislation and
relevant representations received, and
(ix)
the
options available to the committee when determining the application.
The Licensing Officer summarised
the report and outlined the facts of the case.
APPLICANT’S
SUBMISSION
Mr. Robert Botkai
– Solicitor, Mr. Keith Dissamayake – Site Manager and
Designated Premises Supervisor, and Mr. Paul Masher – Area Manager Motor Fuel
Group were in attendance for the Applicant (Malthurst
Retail Limited).
Mr. Botkai
provided some background advising of the recent change of site ownership but
confirmed the application remained correct.
The current Premises Licence permitted the
sale of alcohol between 06.00 and 23.00 in line with its previous opening
hours. Since February 2018 the premises
had been trading 24 hours a day and the application had been made to reflect
the current trading hours. Reference was
made to Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act in relation to
hours of trading which stated that shops, stores and supermarkets should
normally be free to provide sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises
to match their opening hours unless there was good reason for restricting those
hours. The Council’s own Statement of
Licensing Policy was also quoted as it related to the general permission for
shops and supermarkets to sell alcohol during normal opening hours unless they
were the focus for disorder and disturbance.
Mr. Botkai
reported upon the two separate elements of the application as follows –
·
Late
Night Refreshment – the premises already sold hot drinks and had a limited hot
food offer. The intention was to sell
hot drinks only between the hours of 23.00 and 06.00 and the Applicant was
willing to accept a condition on the licence
prohibiting the sale of hot food between those times. It was hoped that this concession would help
to address some of the residents’ concerns
·
Sale
of Alcohol for 24 hours – it was submitted that the Police were the experts on
crime and disorder. The Police had
visited the site and a number of conditions had been agreed between the Police
and the Applicant to be imposed on the licence if
granted which had been reproduced at Appendix C to the report. The Police had been satisfied with the
application on that basis. The
application had been served on all statutory consultees
and no objections had been received from any of the responsible authorities.
Mr Botkai was
grateful for the opportunity to address residents’ concerns relevant to the
application and acknowledged that issues would arise from time to time when
residents lived in close proximity to a petrol station. He was also willing to consider other
concerns unrelated to the application outside of the hearing. In making his client’s case and addressing
issues raised Mr. Botkai responded as follows –
·
specific
concerns had been raised regarding Saturday night in particular due to people
leaving other nearby licensed premises in the early hours – that would be an
issue for his client to monitor and he did not believe it would create a
problem given the way people generally behaved
·
referred
to his previous experience regarding concerns raised by residents in relation
to 24 hour sites at licensing hearings advising that in the vast majority of
cases residents’ fears did not actually materialise;
if any problems did arise residents were encouraged to report them and he
provided assurances that action would be taken to address them
·
his
client was not aware of any anti-social behaviour
experienced at the site
·
broken
glass had been raised as a concern but it was not necessarily procured from the
premises and was more likely to have originated from pubs in the area
·
the
drink driving representations were not relevant to the application and there
was no link between the two or evidence in that regard
·
the
car park next to the premises had been an issue for residents over the years
with problems associated with ‘boy racers’ etc., and the Council had taken
steps to address that. The car park was
not the responsibility of the premises and if problems persisted in that regard
it should not be held against the Applicant
·
road
traffic accidents referred to had no relevance to the application
·
concerns
regarding a hot food booth were unfounded given that there was a limited hot
food offer currently and the intention was to sell hot drinks only for late
night refreshment which also addressed concerns raised over food littering
·
there
would be a single cashier operating through a night pay window between 23.00
and 05.00 which was in line with how most stores operated and the Police had
been satisfied with that approach and had raised no objection in that regard
·
referred
to written representations received from Mr. K. Bennett and apologised
that he had not received a written response to his letter sent to the Store
Manager in September 2018 – the letter had been forwarded to MRH Head Office
but it coincided with the sale of the company and no response had been
sent. However steps had been taken in
response including cordoning off the car jet wash at night, and following
removal of the cones a token operated jet wash had been introduced limiting its
operation to no later than 21.00; vacuuming was not permitted during the night,
and whilst there was some signage on the forecourt asking people to leave
quietly, additional signage could be installed
·
the
point regarding lorry drivers switching off their engines was unclear but he
was willing to discuss the issue further with a view to resolution
·
provided
an undertaking not to carry out cleaning works during the night
·
advised
that contact numbers for the Site Manager would be distributed to facilitate
better communication with residents
·
steps
had been taken to ensure there would be no deliveries between the hours of
22.00 and 07.00 to address concerns and though they were not relevant to the
application, it demonstrated a willingness to listen and address concerns.
In closing, Mr. Botkai
referred to the powers to bring a licence review in
the event that there was real evidence of problems – he added that he had acted
for MRH for fifteen years and was not aware of any reviews that had taken
place, and in his more recent experience of Motor Fuel Group he was not aware
of any licence reviews. Mr. Botkai was
confident that if the application was granted, a licence
review would not be forthcoming and any issues of concern, whether or not
pertinent to the Premises Licence, would be
addressed.
Members put questions to Mr. Botkai who responded as follows –
·
there
was no requirement in the Licensing Act to demonstrate a need for a licence
·
the intention
was to operate from 23.00 to 05.00 through a night pay window during which time
doors would be locked and customers would not be permitted to enter the
store. The Designated Premises
Supervisor confirmed there were currently no queues of people at night and that
was not expected to change
·
experience
elsewhere had shown that in similar circumstances people behaved in a certain
way – it was not considered that people would leave the pubs in the vicinity to
buy alcohol from the garage. However the
situation would be monitored and if it did become an issue then, as a
responsible licensee, the premises would stop selling alcohol. Reference was made to previous cases where
Police held concerns that premises would become a focal point but following a trial
period those fears had not materialised and the
temporary licence had been made permanent – in this
case there was no evidence in that regard and the Police had not objected to
the application. Whilst the residents’
concerns were understandable they were not borne out in his experience
·
the
premises was already trading for 24 hours – the only change in provision would
be selling hot drinks between 23.00 and 05.00 and extending the sale of alcohol
from the current licensing hours (06.00 to 23.00) to 24 hours in line with the
current trading hours of the premises
·
staff
were fully trained and were not permitted to sell alcohol to anyone who was
already intoxicated
·
reiterated
that it was proposed to monitor the new licensing hours and in the event of any
problems, as responsible licence holders, the
practice would be stopped. The Police
had not asked for any restriction of hours or monitoring and there was no
evidence to support restricting the licence to
02.00. Whilst noting residents’ concerns
he did not believe those problems would materialise.
NORTH
WALES POLICE SUBMISSION
In the absence of a representative from
North Wales Police, their representations as detailed within the report were
taken as read. Conditions put forward by
the Police had been agreed with the Applicant in order to further promote the
licensing objectives in the event that the application was granted as applied
for.
PUBLIC
REPRESENTATIONS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Nine written representations (Appendix B to
the report) had been received from interested parties relating mainly to noise
nuisance and anti-social behaviour. Those interested parties present at the
hearing included (1) Ms. C. Williams, (2) Ms. A. Lapage,
(3) Mr. K. Simmons, and (4) Mr. K. Bennett – all residents or in attendance on
behalf of residents/business of Park Road, Ruthin.
Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts had been
appointed by two interested parties to speak on their behalf – (1) Ms. C.
Williams and Mrs. A. Jones (not present).
(2) Mrs. A Lapage, (3) Mr. K. Simmons and (4)
Mr. K. Bennett advised that they intended to speak in their own right.
Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts – advised
that the garage was located in a rural market town, in a residential area,
close to three public houses which had door staff at certain times so that
anti-social behaviour could be managed, and the kebab
shops closed 30 minutes before the public houses as a means of addressing
anti-social behaviour. Residents were concerned that the garage was
accessible from every public house in the town leading to a challenge with
increased footfall and noise creating a hotspot, particularly given that the
town was slow to empty, and it would become a focus for youngsters to
congregate with queues on the garage forecourt.
The Applicant had indicated that hot food would not be sold but if the licence was granted as applied for there would be no
restriction. Other licensed premises in
the town had controls and restrictions to help address anti-social behaviour and allowing a 24 hour licence
would set a precedent. Residents’ concerns were clear
with crime and disorder being a potential issue; concerns around public safety
and noise nuisance with those residents in the nearby care facility having to
cope with those issues. The absence of
crime and disorder issues would change if a 24 hour licence to sell alcohol was
granted. In response to the Applicant’s
view that problems could be dealt with via review, Councillor Hilditch-Roberts
countered that it would be more difficult to revoke a licence once it had been
granted, and in the interests of residents, and the good work already carried
out in the town to address the problems, he asked that the application be
refused.
Mrs. A. Lapage –
submitted that the Applicant had dismissed the points raised by residents but
they were very real – residents lived in a very noisy street where cars drove
at high speed and drink driving was an offence which should not be
promoted. She referred to her written
representations and argued that for the wellbeing of residents the application
should be refused given that there were already issues relating to crime and
disorder and public safety in the town.
As part of her submission Mrs. Lapage made
reference to recent road traffic accidents and poor driving behaviours
and believed that selling alcohol for 24 hours would further compound those
problems. With regard to public nuisance
she reported upon existing problems in the car park adjacent to the garage and
road outside with cars revving and engines running during the night. She reported upon a meeting with the Police
and the Council to address concerns and whilst nuisance had reduced it had not
been eliminated and granting the application would increase the problem. Finally she raised concerns regarding broken
glass in the vicinity and links between alcohol and child abuse. She urged members to vote against the
application.
Mr. K. Simmons – objected to the
application which he believed would have a detrimental impact on the
community. He reiterated the points made
in his written representation and findings in the British Medical Journal
(2016) regarding licensing policies; fact sheet published by the Institute of
Alcohol Studies and the role between alcohol and criminal activity; the
Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, specifically in relation to crime and
disorder and promotion of the licensing objectives, and cumulative impact:
arguing that the area in the vicinity of the garage should be classed as a
residential area under stress. Mr.
Simmons submitted that the Applicant had not demonstrated how the operation of
the premises would not add to the cumulative impact already experienced and
urged refusal the application.
Mr. K. Bennett – highlighted a number of
points in his written submission and focused on the health and wellbeing of
residents, particularly from noise nuisance associated with the premises at
night, including cleaning and maintenance activities which the Applicant had
indicated had been addressed. Residents
had not been consulted or notified prior to the change in opening hours and the
problems experienced related to night time issues since the premises opened 24
hours and related to public nuisance, crime and disorder and public
safety. He elaborated upon a number of those issues
documented within his written submission and also referred to speculation
regarding a Costa or Greggs concession which would create an attraction and
impact on existing anti-social behaviour; ‘boy racers’ driving onto the garage
forecourt in two/threes at a time, noisy and shouting; challenged the use of
the night pay window; hauliers parking outside; and highlighted that his
concerns related to every night of the week, not just Saturday. Mr. Bennett had no
confidence in the assurances provided by the Applicant given that he did not
believe most of the issues in his letter to the Store Manager had been
addressed, and that no reviewing or monitoring had taken place since the
premises started operating 24 hours.
Rather than dealing with the matters retrospectively via review, Mr. Bennett felt that the application should be refused at
this stage.
At the close of the residents objections
Councillor Hilditch-Roberts summarised the issues
raised and argued that, given the location of the garage in a residential area
within a short walking distance to other licensed premises, granting the
application would create a focal point in the town for people to congregate in
the early hours of the morning with no controls in place leading to increased
anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance issues with
public safety difficult to manage.
APPLICANT’S
FINAL STATEMENT
In making his final statement Mr. Botkai asked members to consider the evidence presented and
whether it was likely that there would be an increase in crime and disorder and
public safety put at risk. In
considering the evidence and submissions put forward Mr. Botkai
responded that –
·
the
premises already had a licence to sell alcohol
between 06.00 and 23.00. Councillor
Hilditch-Roberts had stated that there was no crime and disorder at the garage
at present and was concerned for the potential for crime and disorder if the
application was granted – the Applicant did not consider granting the
application would lead to crime and disorder and neither did the Police who had
met with the operator to discuss the application
·
the
location for the garage to become a hotspot was disputed – there were currently
no problems with youths congregating and no reason to think the situation would
change if the licence was granted
·
the
premises had never had an issue with queues at the night pay window and the
situation was not expected to change if the licence
was granted
·
whilst
understanding residents’ concerns they were unlikely to materalise
·
in terms
of bringing a review, the process was straightforward in the event of crime and
disorder as a consequence of selling alcohol, and it would be easy to remove
those hours if there was evidence to do so
·
in
terms of reference to traffic accidents, there was no link to the premises or
the application and could not be held against the Applicant, similarly there
was no connection with the premises regarding references to child abuse or
relevance to the application regarding concerns over parking of the sheep
transporter
·
there
were no grounds to refuse the application on the basis of the articles referred
to by Mr. Simmons in his submission, including cumulative impact
·
there
were no plans for a Greggs concession at the store and the Applicant had
already offered a condition not to serve hot food between 23.00 and 05.00
·
measures
had already been taken to address issues raised including CCTV which was a
deterrent and useful to the Police to aid their enquiries – numerous measures
had been carried out which had not necessarily been detailed within the
Operating Schedule and the company complied with its own statutory policies and
procedures in terms of management and operational issues
·
offered
a condition to close the shop door to customers between 23.00 and 5.00 with any
sales between those hours made through the night pay window.
In closing Mr. Botkai
asked the Sub Committee to consider the application based on the evidence heard
– he was very aware that if the fears of the residents were to materialise they would face a review of the licence. He asked
for the opportunity to address any outstanding concerns which would prohibit
granting the licence.
ADJOURNMENT
TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION
At this juncture (12.50 p.m.) the Licensing
Sub Committee adjourned to consider the application.
DECISION
RESOLVED
that the variations as applied for be determined as follows –
i.
Provision of Late Night Refreshment 23:00 –
05:00 Monday to Sunday – GRANTED FOR HOT DRINKS ONLY (no hot food provision)
ii.
Supply of alcohol for 24 hours Monday to
Sunday (for consumption off the premises) – REFUSED
The Chair conveyed the Sub Committee’s decision to all
parties present and the Solicitor reported upon the reasons for the decision as
follows –
Members had
carefully considered the application and representations submitted in this
case.
In considering the
application in context the Sub Committee noted that Ruthin was a small rural
market town and that the garage was located in very close proximity to local
residents, in the middle of a residential area with a care home facility
nearby. The Sub Committee found that the
structure and location of the premises had a tendency to amplify noise in a very
small and contained area – anything occurring in that area would be amplified
throughout, particularly at night. The
premises was also situated in close proximity to other licensed premises in the
town, all within walking distance. Those
other licensed premises were strictly controlled, with door staff and
restricted hours of operation, specifically so because of the issues which
currently existed in the town generally relating to anti-social behaviour and
alcohol related crime.
The Sub Committee
found that having such a premises which was accessible for 24 hours, within
walking distance of other licensed establishments, would undoubtedly create a
hub for anti-social behaviour – this was considered inevitable due to its
location. The provision of hot food
would also become an attraction and create a public nuisance with the
associated behaviours, such as littering and noise.
Whilst the use of
the car park adjacent to the garage was not under the jurisdiction and control
of the premises, it did however naturally create a hub for people gathering
with a tendency to engage in anti-social behaviour and public nuisance. The attraction of the garage serving hot food
and alcohol would be a magnet for those people.
Whilst the
Applicant had given some assurances about control measures, the Sub Committee
had heard unrebutted submissions that the night kiosk was not being used which
was a cause for concern.
Members had
disregarded irrelevant issues such as parking outside the garage (hauliers with
sheep); road traffic accidents outside the town; the association with drink
driving, and the submission about alcohol leading to an increase in child
abuse.
Taking all relevant
considerations into account the Sub Committee remained certain that the
introduction of alcohol and food sales over a 24 hour period would be in
conflict with the licensing objectives.
All parties had a
right to appeal against the Licensing Sub Committee’s decision to the
Magistrates Court within 21 days.
The meeting concluded at
1.30 p.m.
Supporting documents: