Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Licensing Sub Committee (ceased to operate 10/04/2017) Minutes

Date:
Monday, 29th April, 2013
Time:
10.00am
Place:
Council Chambers, Town Hall, High Street, Stockton-on-Tees. TS18 1AU
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Cllr Paul Kirton, Cllr Michael Clark, Cllr Phil Dennis
Officers:
P Edwards, S Landles (DNS); J Nertney (LD)
In Attendance:
Mr Holland (Solicitor for Shell UK Ltd); Mr Corrigan (Lockett and Co who acts as the agent for the Applicant); Mr Kelly (Shell Retailer); Mrs Metcalfe (proposed Designated Premises Supervisor); Mrs Early (Interested Party)
Apologies for absence:
None
Item Description Decision
Public
LSC
1/13
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
RESOLVED that Cllr Kirton be appointed Chair of this meeting only.
LSC
2/13
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
 
LSC
3/13
LICENSING ACT 2003 - APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A PREMISE LICENCE - SHELL YARM, THIRSK ROAD, STOCKTON-ON-TEES
RESOLVED that the application for grant of premise licence for Shell Yarm be approved for the following hours:-

• The supply of alcohol - Monday to Sunday 06:00 to 23:00
• Late night refreshment - Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 05:00

And that conditions be applied to the licence consistent with the operating schedule and the information provided by the applicant.
10.00am - 1.00pm

Preamble

ItemPreamble
LSC
2/13
There were no declarations of interest.
LSC
3/13
Members considered a report to determine an application for the grant of a premise licence under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of a premise, which was part of a garage premises and to which there had been a representation from an interested party.

The application had been received from Shell UK Oil Products Limited, in relation to their forecourt store, which has a retail space of approximately 600 square feet, at Shell Yarm, Thirsk Road, Yarm, Stockton on Tees. The site consisted of a petrol filling station and a retail outlet. The applicant had applied for the grant of a premise licence for the following:

Supply of Alcohol Off the Premises: Monday to Sunday 00.00 until 24.00 hours
Late Nigh Refreshment: Monday to Sunday 23.00 until 05.00 hours

A copy of the application form was provided to Members.

After mediation with Cleveland Police the applicant had reduced the hours for the supply of alcohol to Monday to Sunday 06.00 until 23.00 hours. The trading hours for late night refreshment remained the same.

Representations had been received from Cleveland Police and Environmental Health however; the representations were withdrawn after the applicant had agreed to reduce the hours for the supply of alcohol.

One representation had been received from an interested party relating to the prevention of public nuisance objective.

Members gave consideration to the report, the application and the representation which had been received. Members indicated to the applicant that they were minded to determine as a preliminary issue the question of "primary use" and whether the premises was a disqualified site under section 176 of the Licensing Act 2003. If Members were satisfied that the premises was not disqualified under the Act then they would give a preliminary ruling on that issue and then invite the applicant to present his application which would be considered under the licensing objectives.

Mr Holland (Solicitor for Shell UK Ltd) had regard to the provisions of Section 176(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 and within the application papers a breakdown of sales figures at the premise which had been provided by Mr Lockett from Lockett and Co, Licensing Consultants. Mr Holland explained that Mr Lockett had many years' experience in dealing with such applications around the country. Mr Holland submitted that the prime concern in determining primary use was the intensity of use by customers. Mr Holland stated that the premise had no motor repair facility and goods such as engine oil and anti-freeze made up a very small percentage of goods offered for sale and could be less than 1% of the total product lines. Mr Holland submitted that the statistical evidence provided should satisfy Members that the premise was not excluded from holding a licence to supply alcohol under the Licensing Act 2003.

Mrs Early (Local Resident) stated that she would dispute the figures provided as in her view the premise had always been a garage/petrol station. The shop itself was not very large and there was very little parking that would attract customers to use the premise as a shop/convenience store.

All parties present apart from the Committees legal adviser then left the Committee Chamber while the Committee debated the issue.

The parties returned and Members indicated that they had considered the submissions on the primary use of the premise. Members had regard to the Licensing Act 2003 and the Statutory Guidance issued under the Act. Members had regard to the breakdown of sales figures provided by the applicant and although Members noted Mrs Early's challenge to the figures Members had no evidence before them to discredit the figures provided. Members took into account relevant case law on this issue and indicated that the primary use issue had been satisfied to their satisfaction and therefore indicated that the Committee would proceed to consider the application on its merits and in accordance with the licensing objectives.

Mr Holland stated that Shell had approximately 375 premises in the UK which had licences to supply alcohol. The shop at this premise had 1500 lines of retail stock and included fresh bread, coffee, snacks and a range of household products.

Mr Holland noted that the application had been amended so that the hours for the supply of alcohol were now Monday to Sunday 06:00 to 23:00. The application also sought provision of late night refreshment Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 05:00.

Between 23:00 and 06:00 any sales at the premise took place through the night hatch. At the present time the night hatch was not designed to be able to provide hot drinks so the requirement for late night refreshment may not be used.

Mr Holland gave details of the extensive due diligence procedures operated by the applicant and copies of training manuals, refusals books and other documents were provided to Members.

Mr Holland addressed the objection of Mrs Early and stated that it seemed that most of her complaints related to issues surrounding the operation of the premise when the Tall Trees nightclub was operating. The Tall Trees nightclub was no longer operating and therefore such previous fears were not founded in relation to this application. Mr Holland reminded Members that in accordance with case law they should only deal with issues or evidence presented and not on a person's fears or beliefs.

Mr Holland stated that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that the licensing objectives would be undermined and that the licence should be granted.

Mrs Early was in attendance at the meeting and Members invited her to outline the grounds of her representation. Members also had regard to Mrs Earlys written representation which was included in the papers.

Mrs Early confirmed that she was happier with the supply of alcohol hours now that they had been amended following discussion with the Police.

Mrs Early's main concern was whether youths would congregate at the premise. Yarm had a very busy nightlife and if some of those customers were to start using the premise for late night refreshment then the noise from the forecourt could become intolerable. The forecourt was approximately four metres from Mrs Early's house and she currently suffered noise disturbance from the use of the premise. Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights tended to be particularly noisy. Mrs Early gave details of recent dates when she had been disturbed. Mrs Early stated that since the premise had been redeveloped the high intensity lights on the canopy are causing her some nuisance.

Mrs Early confirmed that she had lived at her property for 13 years.

All parties were given an opportunity to sum up with the applicant having the final submission.

Members noted that the application before them was for a new premises licence requesting the supply of alcohol and late night refreshment. Following representations from Cleveland Police the applicant had amended his application for the supply of alcohol to 06:00 to 23:00 hours Monday to Sunday. The application for late night refreshment remained the same requesting 23:00 to 05:00 Monday to Sunday.

Members noted that the Police had withdrawn their representation and it followed that they therefore had no concerns over the premise undermining the crime and disorder objective. Members noted that the applicant had extensive due diligence procedures in place.

Members noted the submission made by Mrs Early who was the only person who had objected to the application. Mrs Early had informed Members that her neighbour also objected but he had not lodged an objection within the statutory timescale. There was no evidence that Mrs Early had ever made any complaint about anti-social behaviour to the Police or any other authority. Furthermore there was no evidence that Environmental Health had ever received any complaints about the premise.

Mrs Early's representation referred to previous problems which had occurred when the Tall Trees nightclub had operated. Tall Trees was no longer operating as a nightclub and there was no evidence to suggest that there would be any intensity of use connected with the supply of late night refreshment at the premise. The premise could stay open 24 hours supplying fuel, cold drinks and snacks without the need for any licence. Members were of the view that there was no evidence to suggest an intensity of use if the licence was granted.

Members had no evidence before them that demonstrated the licensing objectives would be undermined if the licence was issued. Members were mindful of the relevant case law and in particular the case of Daniel Thwaites. It was noted that this application was for the supply of alcohol and late night refreshment and that even if the application was refused the premise could still trade 24 hours. Members had not been provided with any statistics detailing the level of anti-social behaviour in the vicinity. It was impossible for Members to make any reasoned assessment linked to anti-social behaviour.

The Licensing Sub Committee were legally obliged to consider the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 and irrelevant issues could not form part of their decision making and had to be disregarded. Members were satisfied from the evidence that had been presented that the there was no evidence to persuade Members that the licensing objectives would be undermined if granted.

Members gave consideration to all of the evidence and representations made both in writing and orally and were satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined and the application for the premises licence was approved for the following hours:-

• The supply of alcohol - Monday to Sunday 06:00 to 23:00
• Late night refreshment - Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 05:00

Members resolved that conditions should be applied to the licence consistent with the operating schedule and the information provided by the applicant.

Members wished to remind Mrs Early that should there be any crime and disorder, public nuisance or other relevant issues in the future then these should be raised firstly with the premise and also with the responsible authorities such as Cleveland Police, the Council's Environmental Health Section or Licensing Section.

Can't find it

Can't find what you're looking for? Let us know and we'll do our best to point you in the right direction