Agenda item

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 Representation had been made by the Metropolitan Police but had subsequently been withdrawn when the hours for the supply of alcohol were reduced 0600 to 2200.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 was determined that this was the case, the application would be rendered invalid. The applicant’s representative, Mr Kent, addressed the Committee on this point and advised that, since the section 176 of the Licensing Act 1988 was written, circumstances in the trade had changed and the only way for garages to survive in competition with supermarkets was by operating as convenience stores; this was the service customers now expected. On the basis of the information supplied, Mr Kent stated that the primary use of the premises by turnover was groceries, not fuel sales. Mr Michael addressed the Committee and stated that under the section 182 guidance, paragraph 5.24, an assessment of whether a premises was primarily a garage was based on ‘intensity of use’, which was a general term and had to be determined on a case by case basis. In response to a question from the Committee, it was confirmed that there was no definitive measure of intensity of use, and that it was open to the Committee to decide how they wished to interpret this.

The Committee considered the figures provided in respect of fuel and non-fuel sales, and asked questions regarding the way in which this information was compiled. It was confirmed that there was a system in place which recorded data on the number of customers and the items purchased, although there was no record of where customers came from or the means by which they had travelled.

The Committee adjourned to consider the issue of whether the premises was primarily operated as a garage.

The Committee decided that it was not at this stage, based on the information supplied by the applicant, satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises was not primarily used as a garage, which would deem the premises subject of the application as an excluded premises. The Committee, however, considered that it would be fair to allow the applicant a further opportunity to supply more detailed information to help the Committee determine this issue, since it was the lack of sufficient information upon which this decision had been reached. This would also allow an opportunity for all appropriate parties to have more time to consider the evidence, which the Committee would of course consider with an open mind. The hearing was therefore adjourned to a specific date, such date to be set no later than Thursday 28^th April 2011. For the avoidance of doubt, as many dates to be avoided by all parties would be obtained immediately at the conclusion of the hearing this evening.

The meeting was adjourned at 21:00hrs.