Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory

The report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory presented an application for the grant of a Premises Licence at The Hut, 147 Kirkstall Lane, Kirkstall, Leeds, LS5 3LF.

The following were in attendance:

·  Christopher Wenham, Director of Wenham Homes Ltd

·  Natalie Stocking – Partner of Christopher Wenham and proposed DPS

·  Sam Cunningham – The Hut

·  Councillor Hannah Bithell – Objector

The Legal Officer explained the procedure to be followed and the Licensing Officer presented the application.

The application was for the sale by retail of alcohol (for consumption both on and off the premises) every day from 11:00 to 23:00.

The sale of alcohol would be via a serving hatch to an outdoor seating area and there was no internal access for customers.  In agreement with West Yorkshire Police, the applicant had agreed to reduce the terminal hour of sales to 22:30.

The applicant had attracted representations from Ward Councillors and members of the public.

The applicant and their representatives addressed the Sub-Committee.  The following was highlighted:

·  The premises was currently running as a gift shop and also sold sweets, cakes and drinks.

·  The intention to sell alcohol was to give people an alternative to using off licences or visiting busy bars.

·  There had been a lot of positive feedback from the local community and existing customers had requested the sale of alcohol.

·  Having a licence would give opportunity to people who used the outdoor seating area to have wine or beer with their food.

·  A lot of the products sold at the premises were locally sourced from small businesses.  This included food and gifts.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the following was discussed:

·  Staff would do Challenge 25 training and would not serve anyone who was drunk.

·  The premises was set back from the road and fenced off.

·  A portaloo would be installed and this would be fenced off.

·  There would not be problems with the highway getting blocked.  There was only seating for 12 people.

·  Other bars in the area were closer to the roadside.

·  Alcohol has not yet been sold from the premises.

The objector was invited to address the Sub-Committee.  The following was highlighted:

·  Whilst the use of the premises as a shop was welcomed it was not felt appropriate as a licensed premises.

·  There had been attempts to visit the premises but it had always been closed.

·  Even though it was proposed to be a venue for higher priced drinks, there were other nearby higher priced drinking establishments that people attended just for drinking.

·  It had been reported that alcohol was already being sold at the premises and a chalk board was advertising wines and spirits.

·  There were concerns regarding toilet facilities and whether planning permission would be required for the portaloo.

·  Public safety – there were concerns with the proximity to the highway and a major road junction.

·  Prevention of public nuisance – There was not proposed to be any security staff and there were already problems in the area with car parking when the stadium was being used.  There were concerns about people congregating outside and where smokers would go.

·  What consultation had there been with local residents?

·  Why was there a need for a queuing area when there was only seating 12 people?

·  The premises were on a main route to Headingley Stadium.  What was the capacity for standing customers?

·  Concerns that signage asking customers to be quiet was inadequate and that music could be played.

·  Should the premises be sold, the licence would remain and there were concerns about how the premises could then be operated.

·  It was not felt that the licensing objectives relating to public nuisance and public safety would be met.

·  Should the licence be granted could it be with the condition that there were no alcohol sales on match days at Headingley Stadium.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the following was discussed:

·  The proposal to sell alcohol was to give people opportunity to have a glass of wine or beer with their food and had been in response to requests from customers.

·  The applicant indicated that they would be happy to have restrictions on the sale of alcohol during events at the stadium and for alcohol to be only sold with food.

·  The applicant had worked in the area for fifteen years and had a good knowledge of the area.  They had owned the premises for two years and had spoken to local residents regarding the proposals.  There were other bars close by that were near to residential properties.  It was not proposed to operate the premises solely as a bar.

·  Should there be any queues at the premises these would for at the perimeter of the building.  It was not anticipated that large numbers would turn up. 

·  It wasn’t expected that the sale of alcohol would greatly increase custom.  The applicant was willing to work with any conditions.

·  The premises had been open on matchdays selling soft drinks and there had not been any problems.

In summary, the applicant informed the Sub-Committee that the aim was to create a positive environment for customers and local people and that they would be happy to adhere to any conditions.

The Sub-Committee went into private session to make their deliberations and carefully considered the report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory, the submissions made in writing and at the hearing and also the Statement of Licensing Policy.

RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the following:

·  That there be no sale of alcohol at the premises during major events at Headingley Sports Stadium (with the exception of County Championship Cricket).

·  That alcohol only to be sold as a complement to food.