Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Scott, for whom Cllr Jenks was substituting.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business.  (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear.  New items will be dealt with at item 8 below).

There were no items of urgent business.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at he commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member’s judgement of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair will explain the procedure that the Committee will follow for the hearing considered under the Licensing Act 2003 or the Gambling Act 2005.  A copy of the procedure is attached.

NOTED

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 Representation had been made by the Metropolitan Police but had subsequently been withdrawn when the hours for the supply of alcohol were reduced 0600 to 2200.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.

To consider any new items of urgent business admitted under item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting of the Licensing Sub Committee C held on 22^nd March 2011.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of Licensing Sub Committee C held on 22 March 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair.

The meeting was adjourned at 9pm on Tuesday 26^th April.

The Committee reconvened on Thursday 19^th May 2011 at 7pm.

After introductions around the table, the Chair clarified for the record that both he and Cllr Jenks had bought petrol from the premises in the past. The Chair explained that, further to a request from the Committee for greater clarity on the primary use of the premises, the issue of primary use needed to be addressed first and foremost as, if the Committee were not convinced that the primary purpose was not that of a garage, then the Committee would not be able to grant a premises licence. Following a presentation from the applicant on primary, the Committee would adjourn to deliberate on this particular issue.

The applicant’s representative, Mr Grant, addressed the Committee on the issue of primary use. Mr Grant presented the current position in respect of petrol stations and the competition faced from supermarkets, and the low level of profit derived from fuel sales in the current economic climate. Mr Grant spoke about the way in which the exemption of garages from sale of alcohol had come about and that this was based on perception, despite evidence demonstrating there was no link in sale of alcohol at garages and drink-driving levels.

The Committee was advised that there was no standard definition of primary use and Mr Grant outlined the different ways in which this could be measured. Turnover was not seen as the preferred test for assessing primary use on the basis that a single significant transaction could distort the picture, and Mr Grant argued that footfall was a fairer test, as the Licensing Objectives would be engaged by the people visiting the premises.

Mr Grant took the Committee through the additional data provided by the applicant in relation to footfall, and proposed that this clearly demonstrated that the majority of transactions at the premises were non-fuel related. The Committee was also asked to consider the financial data comparing profit on fuel and non-fuel sales, and it was proposed that this also demonstrated that the primary use of the site was non-fuel. The Committee was advised that were a licence granted and the position changed such that the primary use of the premises did become that of a garage, it would no longer be legal for the premises to supply alcohol.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding whether there was any record of the way in which customers physically arrived at the site, it was reported that there were no records of this kind available. It was also confirmed that the figures provided did not include any data relating to the car wash. The Committee asked about the figures provided and what was included in these figures, in response to which the applicant confirmed that operating costs were deducted for all transactions at point of sale.

The Committee asked about the different means of assessing intensity of use, in response to which Mr Grant emphasised that, for the reasons outlined previously, he felt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.