Issue - meetings

To consider a new Premises Licensing at Wellington Service Station, 513 Archway Road, Highgate, London, N6 4HX.

In considering the admission of late documentation in respect of the application, the Chair agreed to a request by the applicant’s representative Mr Brian Kent, to make a submission on this point. The documentation in question consisted of sales figures and analysis, and it was the submission of Mr Kent that this information was not relevant to the application before the Committee and should not be taken into consideration as part of the hearing.

The Licensing officer, Keith Betts, introduced the report on an application by Roc UK Ltd for a premises licence at Wellington Service Station, 513 Archway Road, Highgate for the Provision of Late Night Refreshment and the Supply of Alcohol. Representation had been made by the Metropolitan Police but had subsequently been withdrawn when the hours for the supply of alcohol were reduced 0600 to 2200. A letter of objection to the application had been received from a local resident, as well as a petition signed by about 29 local residents. The objections related to issues of concern including refuse, anti-social behaviour, policing, the need for a premises supplying alcohol in the area and the impact on the local community. Mr Betts advised the Committee that the last sentence of paragraph 9 of the report contained an error, and should read “It is for the Sub Committee to decide if the supporting chart truly illustrates the ratio of fuel sales to non-fuel sales”.

The applicant’s representative, Mr Kent, addressed the Committee on the point that the only relevant issues the Committee should be considering were those raised as part of the consultation process and that, were the Committee to consider the issues raised in the ‘Licensing Officers Comments’ section of the report, it would be acting beyond its remit as these issues had been raised by the Licensing Authority and not the representations received from responsible authorities or local residents. Mr Kent cited the judgements in respect of BBPA and Others v Canterbury City Council (2006) and Murco Petroleum Ltd v Bristol City Council (2010) in support of his submission that only issues covered by representations made in respect of an application could be considered by the Licensing Committee. The hearing was adjourned for the Committee to seek legal advice.

On reconvening, the Committee’s legal advisor, Antonios Michael, reported that he had advised the Committee that they must consider section 182 of the guidance, which stated that “the licensing authority must decide whether or not any premises is used primarily as a garage”. Mr Michael also advised that, on his reading of the Murco Petroleum v Bristol City Council judgement, the Committee was entitled to consider the information, as residents had made representations under the Licensing Objectives.

Having considered the legal advice, the Committee confirmed that they would consider the information. The information was shared with the objectors, who confirmed that they had not objection to its admission.

The Committee next considered the issue of whether the premises was primarily used as a garage as, if it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19