Agenda item

 To receive the report of the Head of Elections, Licensing and Registration on an application for the grant of a premises licence, made by JD Wetherspoon Plc, for Former Elinor Lupton Centre JD Wetherspoon Plc, Headingley Lane, Headingley, Leeds, LS6 1BX.

 

(Report attached)

The Head of Elections, Licensing and Registration submitted a report for the application for the grant of a premises licence for Former Elinor Lupton Centre JD Wetherspoon Plc, Headingley Lane, Headingley, Leeds. LS6 1BX.

 

This was the first application for a premises licence for these premises and the application was for the sale of alcohol for consumption both on and off the premises between 09:00 to 22:30 Sunday to Thursday and 09:00 to 23:00  Friday and Saturday. No non-standard timings had been requested for bank holidays or special occasions.

 

The application had attracted representations from Leeds City Council’s Health and Safety Department in their capacity as a responsible authority as attached at appendix C of the submitted report.

 

Representation had also been received from Leeds City Council’s Environmental Protection Team in their capacity as a responsible authority which was attached at appendix D of the submitted report.

 

Members noted that both representations from the responsible authorities had been withdrawn prior to the hearing having agreed measures with JD Wetherspoons Plc. These had been emailed to objectors and copies were available at the hearing.

 

The Licensing Authority was in receipt of 29 individual letters of objection and a letter from the three ward councillors, all of which opposed this application on the grounds of crime and disorder, public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children from harm.

 

Members were advised that the premises were located within the cumulative impact area for Area 2. Members were directed to paragraphs 7.51 to 7.54 of the Statement of Licensing Policy which provides examples of how an application may be considered exceptional and the matters that the council would not normally take into consideration. Details of the cumulative impact policy specific to Area 2 and an outline of the evidence behind the reason for setting this policy was attached at appendix F of the submitted report.

 

Nigel Connor, Graham McCafferty and Alistair Broom of JD Wetherspoons Plc were at the hearing. Mr Connor informed the Sub-Committee that they had spoken with West Yorkshire Police (WYP) with regards to crime and disorder and the suggested measures would be incorporated in to the licence. Mr Connor said that he had also spoken with Ward Councillor Pryor.

 

Members were informed that it was the intention for the premises to open at 08:00am to serve breakfasts they were not asking for late licence only till 23:00 with 30 minutes drinking up time.

 

The Sub-Committee were informed that JD Wetherspoons had 932 premises in the UK with five premises located within Leeds City Centre and also a number of premises in the suburbs including Pudsey, Bramley and Chapel Allerton. Mr Connor explained that JD Wetherspoons had a broad range of customers with no specific customer base specialising in real ales.

 

Members noted that the site is on the former Leeds Girls High School site and had been the music centre. The site was on a main thoroughfare into the city.It had fallen into disrepair and would require a significant amount of investment to regenerate the building. 

 

The Sub-Committee was told that the main customer area would be located on the ground floor with a bar to the left hand side there would be additional customer areas on the first floor and an outside terrace fronting on to Otley Road which would be used as a smoking area. In response to Member’s questions they were informed that this was not a vertical drinking establishment - with main areas set out with seating able to provide 270 covers in main area, 52 outside on the terrace, and 50 on the first floor. It was anticipated that the venue would be limited to 550 people for health and safety reasons .

 

The emphasis would be on food which would be served from 08:00 to 22:00 with specialities offered on different days for example Curry club on a Wednesday which would include a complimentary drink. It was anticipated that food would be 50% of the sales and that it would be the same as other JD Wetherspoons establishments having no entertainment or music. Members were assured that tables and chairs would not be removed at weekends.

 

Members were informed that tea, coffee and soft drinks would be available at all times when the premises were open. Mr Connor said that JD Wetherspoons were popular with pensioners and those on fixed allowances offering a large menu of reasonably priced food and drink.

 

Mr Connor advised Members of the following:

·  JD Wetherspoons had met with the Community and heard their concerns

·  The team in attendance at the hearing knew the area well as they had lived or lived close to the area

·  JD Wetherspoons had strong control measures in place which had been tried and tested at other establishments

·  CCTV would be positioned around the site

·  JD Wetherspoons had 37 years operational experience

·  Policy measures were adhered to with Challenge 21 and zero tolerance for language and were members of Pubwatch

·  JD Wetherspoons had noted concerns of public nuisance but these were not in relation to the premises but to the area and in particular with the ‘Otley Run’

·  They had met with WYP and had agreed that when advised of an event at the Headingley Stadium they would undertake a risk assessment to employ door staff as necessary. This had been incorporated into the licence as condition 3.

·  JD Wetherspoon offered a residents meeting with manager to discuss and address any issues prior to and 4 weeks after opening

·  Any customers under 16 years of age must be accompanied by an adult

·  There would be car parking for 13 cars  with 2 disabled spaces and this would be accessed from Richmond Road

·  There would be seating for 364 customers this would be a mix of fixed and moveable seating.

·  Vertical drinking would not be encouraged.

 

One objector raised the question of an incident involving trading standards where illegal tobacco had been seized at JD Wetherspoon in Basildon, Essex. Mr Connor said that this had now been addressed with no further action being taken.

 

Paddy Whurr of Woods Whurr Solicitors represented Arc Inspirations, he set out the main issue for concern that the premises were in a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) area and he informed Members that he was disappointed that Planning had given permission for a premises in this area.

 

He stated that although JD Wetherspoon said that they would only allow 550 people into the premises in order to address Health and Safety there was capacity to hold up to 1000 people this would make the premises one of the largest licensed premises in the city. This would make the CIP redundant and therefore the presumption of refusal rebuttable.

 

Mr Whurr said that there was nothing to force the establishment to be a food lead premises and he had noted that a poster outside one of the city centre Wetherspoon establishments focused on pricing for drinks.

 

He was of the view that the location of the premises on a main thoroughfare between the Original Oak, Headingley and the Hyde Park would provide those on the ‘Otley Run’ with a stop off point in a residential area. He highlighted issues of health and Safety along the main road with intoxicated drinkers walking along this stretch of road citing a recent incident where a rugby player had been hit by a bus.

 

A number of residents had attended the meeting with Mr Norton, Mr Blumler and Dr Tyler electing to speak to the Sub-Committee of their concerns which are as follows:

·  The premises would be located in between the Original Oak and the Hyde park on the ‘Otley Run’

·  Health and safety concerns in relation to drinkers walking along a busy main road towards the town centre

·  Large hen, stag and student groups doing the ‘Otley Run’

·  Contrary to CIP

·  These premises would be a super pub with planning permission quoting 1000 customers and how the effect that multiple voices had on decibel levels would have on the residential area.

·  Noise disturbance at closing time with cars, taxis, loud voices.

·  Premises would be in close proximity of schools

·  Drunken participants who become abusive, damage property, vomit and urinate in public spaces

·  Increased footfall and parking when Headingley stadium has events such as Leeds Rhino matches and district and test cricket matches

·  Lack of parking for such a large premises with only two disabled parking bays

·  Noise from air conditioning units and extraction fan

·  Smells from kitchens

·  The menu of alcoholic and energy drinks that would be available

·  Routes to the premises would be through residential areas making the ‘Buckinghams’ a ‘rat run’

 

Ward Councillor Walshaw addressed the Sub-Committee thanking all the speakers saying that they had all made very good points and asked Members to note that this issue had brought the community of this quiet residential area together to raise their concerns over anti-social behaviour and the harm that would be caused by siting a premises as large as the one proposed within this a residential and CIP area.

 

Cllr. Walshaw also asked that Members should note that this area had a number of cyclists and that the increase in taxis and cars would pose a danger to cyclists. 

 

He also said that this would be the second largest premises in Leeds and that there was plenty of capacity for vertical drinking within the establishment.  Cllr. Walshaw was also of the view that the menu offering cost effective food and drink would appeal to students on low budgets.

 

Mr Connor in summarizing for JD Wetherspoon informed the Sub-Committee of the following:

·  He referred to the Secretary of State in regard to CIP that each application should be decided on an individual basis and that the policy could not be used as an exhaustive list to rebut presumption.

·  He said that JD Wetherspoon had 37 years of experience in this type of operation and had provided evidence on how the licensing objectives would be upheld

·  The premises would be food lead and with low cost food and drink students would be attracted to the establishment as they need to eat also

·  JD Wetherspoon would not serve customers who were intoxicated

·  They were socially inclusive offering low cost menus of both food and drink

·  JD Wetherspoon had an excellent track record in Leeds working with all responsible authorities and had received no representation from West Yorkshire Police

·  JD Wetherspoon wanted to be part of the Community and hoped that the premises would be used by families and community groups

·  He said that it would be a shame if this application was tainted by the ‘Otley Run’ as they did not want the premises to be known as a disorderly or rowdy establishment.

 

Members were of the view that the application was contentious and in view of this they wished to adjourn the hearing to consider all the evidence that had been presented from all parties and that they would reconvene when all the evidence had been considered.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee reconvened at 10.30am on Friday 2nd December 2016, however it should be noted that Councillor Coulson was not able to attend the re-convened hearing due to illness.

 

Members Cllr. Hyde and Cllr Wilkinson, determined that they would proceed, as the three members had intimated their decision already during their deliberations on the Tuesday, had decided to reconvene to finalise their reasoning and the draft decision would be sent to Cllr. Coulson for his approval.

 

The Sub Committee took into account all of the evidence and representations before them, including the contents of the report of the Head of Elections, Licensing and Registration; the four licensing objectives – but in particular the prevention of crime and disorder, the promotion of public safety and the prevention of public nuisance.  Members also paid close regard to the representations made at the hearing on behalf of the applicant and local residents.

 

The Committee also considered the Local Authority’s Statement of Licensing policy 2014 – 2018 (“the Policy”), having particular regard to the Cumulative Impact Policy (“CIP”). While the CIP creates a rebuttable presumption that applications that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, it does not create a blanket ban and this was not a case in which the application had to be an exceptional case. 

 

While having in mind the CIP, the Sub Committee considered the application on its individual merits in accordance with the principles within the statutory guidance under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003. 

 

The Sub Committee considered whether the application would be likely to add to the cumulative impact on the crime and disorder and public nuisance objectives.  The premises would have a large capacity and, on the applicant’s own case, would be attractive to a broad customer base. As the applicant accepted, its client base would include students.  It would offer reasonably-priced food and drinks in a venue that would undoubtedly appeal to many customers.  There was absolutely no criticism from the Sub Committee in this or in respect of the business aims or strategy of the enterprise.

 

The Sub Committee considered that a premises the size of this proposed Wetherspoons, even at the likely anticipated capacity of 550 persons rather than 1000, would be likely to have a significant impact on an area which already experiences some level of public nuisance and public disorder as a result of licensed premises in the area. Members noted that the Applicant had referred to the Otley Run as being a pre-existing problem. Additionally that crime and disorder and public nuisance within the Headingley and Hyde Park CIP area remain a major concern to members of the public.  The safety of members of the public in crossing and re-crossing the road to attend the premises was also a matter that Members considered.

 

Irrespective of the steps proposed to be taken by the operator in their standard operating schedule to control or moderate the behaviour of customers, the Sub Committee considered that there would be an increased impact on public nuisance and crime and disorder as a consequence of the numbers of people who would be attracted to this area – whether taking part in the Otley Run or otherwise – and subsequently dispersed, including via the surrounding residential areas, at least some of whom would in all probability be intoxicated. 

 

Members were concerned over the arrangements for doorstaff provision as, under the applicant’s standard operating schedule, it was proposed to allocate resources dependant on an unspecified risk assessment to be determined in conjunction with WYP when the applicant was notified of specific events in the area. However Members noted that no doorstaff were proposed to deal with the anticipated volume of patrons which could be attracted on a regular basis.

 

Whilst the Otley Run was an existing problem, Members felt it was not one they could ignore as it was a source of real problems for the members of the public who had made representations and as raised by the local Ward Councillor.

 

The Sub Committee had heard that whilst the premises would attract a wide range of clientele, and although located in an area which students frequent, the premises themselves were reportedly in an area which is predominantly family orientated rather than primarily comprising houses in multiple occupation.

 

The Sub Committee had regard to the Cumulative Impact Policy, but was also mindful that each case must be considered on its particular circumstances and with an open mind.  However, despite the good intentions of this well-established operator, the Sub Committee were sympathetic to the concerns of the local residents about such a large premises obtaining a licence and the impact it would have on this residential area.

 

In their view, there was an absence of measures that it considered specifically addressed the Headingley and Hyde Park CIP or demonstrated that there would be no additional impact.

 

Having further deliberated the decision, a copy of the drafted decision letter was shared with Councillor Coulson who confirmed in writing his agreement.

 

RESOLVED – That the Licensing Sub Committee considered all the evidence and representations presented to them.

 

The Sub-Committee were not persuaded that the licensing objectives in respect of public nuisance and crime and disorder could be promoted by this premises in an area which already had cause to be subject to a CIP. Therefore, on this basis the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application.