Agenda and minutes

Councillor Angelo Weekes welcomed everyone to the meeting and officers and members introduced themselves. The procedure for the conduct of the meeting was outlined.

Apologies were received from Councillor Shaikh and Croft

Councillor Staff and Councillor Jeapes were substitute members.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a)Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

The order of business would be as the agenda.

The minutes of the previous meeting would be taken at the next meeting.

The Licensing Officer updated the committee and explained that there had been an amendment to the application to remove late night refreshments from outdoor area and the removal of off sales. There had also been an amendment to condition 15 and no drinks were to be taken outside.

The Interested parties presented their case. They explained that when the venue had previously operated as a pub their lives suffered from the negative impacts of noisy smokers and patrons gathering outside. It only took 1 or 2 intoxicated people to wake them at night, and they felt it was clear that this new premises was not for the community's benefit. The community which had been a very quiet area over the last few years, didn't want such a large new licensed premises to be opened on their doorstep. They explained the area was unequipped to deal with noisy premises. They felt the applicant had not demonstrated they wouldn't exacerbate this issue, especially considering the overcapacity of 80 people, not meeting Cumulative Impact Area standards.

They had further concerns that the applicant failed to engage meaningfully with residents, and the application had changed many times over the last couple of years. There was worry about the proposal's impact, emphasising the need for appropriate and proportionate conditions to be applied if the license was to be granted. The interested parties felt that the claim of no cumulative impact was untrue, as noise from the premises when open disrupted street-level peace. They reiterated that Residents should not have had to endure drunk and rude individuals, even patrons chatting in the smoking area caused a disturbance. Since the previous venue’s closure, the street had experienced a better community feel, as residents felt unwelcome in the previous establishment. Residents explained that they witnessed their failure to adhere to conditions and their lack of understanding of licensing objectives. The fear of them applying for TENs to circumvent regulations was concerning, especially considering the past instances of drunk individuals causing damage, like wrecking cars on the street. They felt communication with residents was lacking from the applicant and did not feel it necessary to have such long opening hours if the premises was to operate as a restaurant.

In response to questions from the committee, the interested parties explained, The relationship with the applicant has been virtually non-existent. Despite them dropping off sales at the last possible minute, they were left uninformed, indicating a lack of communication. Engagement ceased entirely since December 2022, with the applicant failing to participate in the last meeting they had. While there was a meeting over a year ago, it quickly turned unpleasant for both sides. Even during a meeting in 2022, concerns about outside drinking were disregarded until the very last minute when they had now dropped off sales, causing frustration. Regarding ideal closing times, the residents explained 10 pm would be appropriate for a residential street like theirs or at most last orders for food at 10 pm, with closing by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

The licensing officer noted there was a typo in the report and the off sales of alcohol should be 10:00am until 22:00 hours Monday to Saturdays.

The interested party presented their case explaining that, as a long-term resident of the area, they had serious concerns about the proposed operating hours for the establishment. The extended hours, from 10am to 10 pm, were simply too much, especially considering that there were already nine or more other places selling alcohol in the vicinity. The community, particularly the younger and more vulnerable members, were already faced with an excess of alcohol availability. The resident had experienced instances of drunk individuals causing disturbances, even to the point of kicking their door. The frequency of such incidents had led to a sense of resignation, where residents had become desensitised and often refrain from contacting the authorities. Moreover, the proliferation of off-licenses and gambling premises in the area had further exacerbated the situation. They strongly believed that the proposed establishment should maintain its original function as a post office, operating within regular business hours from 9am to 5:30pm. Transforming it into an establishment that operates from 10am to 10pm, selling alcohol, would only contribute to the oversaturation of alcohol-related premises, ultimately degrading the character of the neighbourhood. Additionally, the presence of so many alcohol-focused businesses posed a genuine concern for the safety of elderly residents who may feel apprehensive about venturing out late in the area with drunk people around.

In response to questions from the committee the interested party explained adding alcohol to the establishment would not dramatically worsen the situation, but it would contribute to the abundance of places selling alcohol in the area. Regarding the incident they had experienced, they could discern that it was alcohol-related because they could smell alcohol on the individual, and they did report it to the police accordingly. As for how the conditions agreed upon with the police alleviated their concerns, unfortunately, they did not. For them the reality was that the police don't actively monitor the area, and many businesses in the vicinity already fail to adhere to their conditions and licenses. Therefore, the agreed-upon conditions offer little reassurance in terms of mitigating potential issues related to alcohol consumption and nuisance in the neighbourhood.

The applicant presented their case, they were driven by the decline in post office usage, necessitating the pursuit of alternative revenue streams to sustain operations, cover expenses, and retain staff and rent payments. Despite the proposed changes, the post office's functionality remained unchanged, with all three counters retained, and space formerly occupied by dead stock would be repurposed. In terms of off-license offerings, they were committed to limiting sales of cheap alcohol and meticulously reviewed the Cumulative Impact policy to ensure compliance. Alcohol sales constituted only 15% of the operations, emphasising that the premises were not alcohol-led.

To mitigate potential risks, the majority of alcohol products were stored behind counters, making them less accessible and prone to theft. The selection also leaned towards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.