Agenda item

Application for the grant of a premises licence for Kasa, 278A Belle Isle Road, Belle Isle, Leeds, LS10 3QJ

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Officer (Elections and Regulatory) regarding an application for the grant of a premises licence made by Jon Atkin Ltd, for Kasa, 278A Belle Isle Road, Belle Isle, Leeds, LS10 3QJ


The Chief Officer Elections and Regulatory submitted a report for Members consideration on an application for the grant of a premises licence made by Jon Atkin Ltd, for Kasa, 278A Belle Isle Road, Belle Isle, Leeds, LS10 3QJ.


Attending the meeting were:

  • Chris Rees-Gay, Woods Whur, Applicant’s Representative
  • Aqueel Bashir, Director, Jon Atkin Ltd, Applicant
  • Warren King, Acoustic Expert
  • Councillor Wayne Dixon, Middleton Park Ward
  • Vanessa Holroyd, Environmental Protection Team
  • Lisa Starbrook, Public Objector
  • Tracy Morris, Public Objector


The Legal officer explained the procedure for the hearing.


The Licensing Officer presented the application informing the Members of the following points:

  • The application had been made by Jon Atkin Ltd. for a convenience store which was currently licensed under the Licensing Act 2023 and proposed to authorise alcohol sales for consumption off the premises for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  • Responsible authorities and Ward Members had been notified on the application and had attracted representations from Ward Members, responsible authorities and other persons.
  • The premises currently benefited from a premises license for the sale by retail of alcohol from Monday to Sunday from the hours of 7:00 to 23:00 and the new application was for Monday to Sunday, 24 hours a day.
  • A copy of the application form was available at appendix A, a map detailing the location of the premises at appendix B, a copy of the Environmental Protection Team’s (EPT) objection at Appendix C, a copy of the agreed conditions with West Yorkshire Police (WYP) was available at Appendix D, Ward Members and Local MP objection, along with 30 public objection letters were available at appendix E.
  • 10 of the public objectors were concerned with retribution if their details were exposed and had not attended the meeting but wanted their comments considered by the Sub-Committee.
  • A letter in support of the application was available at appendix F.


The applicant’s representatives provided the Sub-Committee with the following information:

·  Grant of the application was sought, with the agreed WYP conditions attached.

·  The premises was a small convenience store and the new application had been submitted in response to customers requesting increased hours to purchase products, including alcohol.

·  Support for the application was demonstrated by the petition of support detailed from pages 7 to 91 of the first supplementary information pack for item 6. 198 signatures and 78 support letters contrasted the 30 objection letters.

·  The convenience store had been in operation for 13 years, had previously been a pub and no enforcement action was noted for the premises.

·  The applicant and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) had held a personal license since 2003, which had been renewed in 2014.

·  Kasa was a chain of stores with four owned in Leeds by the applicant’s family members.

·  If the application were granted, two new members of staff would be recruited.

·  The DPS had supported local football teams financially, including South Leeds AFC.

·  The application was for offsite sale of alcohol only and the existing license would be surrendered if the application were granted. 

·  The DPS was a professional operator and had contacted responsible authorities to discuss appropriate measures for operation.

·  A schedule of proposed conditions were detailed at pages 26 and 27 of the agenda pack, with eight conditions for CCTV provision, along with WYP proposals at page 38 and were deemed sufficient for meeting the licensing objectives.

·  As agreed with WYP, customers will not enter the shop past 23:00 and service past this time will be conducted through a hatch, with appropriate measures in place to discourage people from congregating outside.

·  Further proposed conditions regarding litter and limiting noise disturbance to local residents had been submitted as part of supplementary pack 2. Anti-social behaviour will be discouraged, and delivery hours restricted.

·   Point 2.18 of the Section 182 guidance noted matters for personal accountability regarding noise nuisance.

·  A letter had been sent out to local residents, through Entertainment Licensing on the 7th of August 2023 but had received no response.

·  The flat below the shop had submitted a letter of support, detailed at page 81 of the agenda pack.

·  The EPT’s objection noting noise nuisance was not perceived to be stemming from the premises and the representation was based on potential noise and lacked evidence as there were no current issues for the existing license up to 23:00.

·  The noise assessment, from page 93 of the first supplementary information pack had noted most of the noise in the area was from traffic. Noise had been monitored over a four-day period from Monday the 24th of July to Thursday the 27th of July 2023.

·  The reference to drugs and gangs in some objection comments had provided no evidence and if concerns were serious, an agreement with WYP would not have been reached.

·  A perception that Ward Members had wrote to local residents to increase objection was outlined.

·  There would be cigarettes but no vapes sold at the premises.

·  In line with the Thwaites Case 2008, applications should be determined against evidence and not perceived issues.


Responding to questions from Members the Sub-Committee were informed of the following by the applicant team:

  • No complaints against the store had been received since its opening from local residents or businesses.
  • It was confirmed the DPS was the landlord of the carpark and complex of shops of which Kasa was a part of. This included a vape shop and fencing shop. Complaints had been received regarding nuisance in the carpark.
  • Anti-social behaviour issues within the carpark were being rectified through WYP. The carpark was contained by a small wooden barrier and had a gate which was always open as the space was shared with the other businesses in the complex.
  • The shop sold beer, wine and spirits; the majority of sales were low strength beer with high strength beer noted as being less popular and expensive.
  • The representations regarding anti-social behaviour were not the fault of the store and the area was noted to be deprived with social issues across the ward.
  • The 24 hours daily had been applied for due to local demand and a shop run by a family member under the same name operated in Beeston under a 24-hour license, with customers often going there after 23:00.
  • The petition for support had been run over three days from the shop and the convivence element regarding sale of goods such as Calpol and nappies were offered by supporters to supplement the generic text.
  • Walking and drop off in taxi’s were the primary way people access the store.
  • The Acoustic Expert outlined the process for the noise assessment as a sound level meter being attached to the store, on the closest side to residents, and had been run from 9:30am on the Monday to 12:00 noon on the Thursday.
  • Members noted it may have provided more insight if the assessment had been run on a weekend where more disturbance was likely. It was explained that to provide a clear assessment and a worst case analysis, the assessment was conducted against the lowest baseline noise level with background noise increased at weekend.
  • The noise assessment had largely picked up on traffic which would be difficult to associate with the store. The assessment picked up on the loudest sound over a 15-minute period against the average background noise level.
  • Members were sceptical as to how much weight to apply to the noise assessment in their determination as it was not conducted over the weekend and the Acoustic Expert had noted some omissions of maximum noise when not constant.
  • Signage and the ability to refuse service or move people on was noted to discourage street drinking.
  • The application was submitted as a new application and not a variation on the existing due to policy of the legal representative, with new applications allowing firm policy and attached conditions.
  • Members noted the hatch service may increase street drinking, in response it was outlined the store was not within a Cumulative Impact Area, there was the WYP signage condition, and the staff will be to go outside and address any arising problems.
  • The complaints regarding aggregate storage within the carpark were from 2021 and had only been for a 3-month period.
  • The DPS would work with responsible authorities to address anti-social vehicle use in the carpark. It was noted that this was less frequent than in previous years and agreements had been reached with WYP, who would be objecting if majorly concerned.
  • It was not perceived that the extended licensed hours would encourage other local shops to apply for the same and the application should be determined on its own merits.


The objectors addressed the Sub-Committee providing the Members with the following information:


Environmental Health (EPT)

  • The applicant owned the attached carpark, where anti-social behaviour, often involving vehicles occurs.
  • There were no other stores with a 24 hour license to sell alcohol in the locality and would be a magnet for young people through the night and noise and disturbance to nearby residents was expected.
  • The condition for service from a hatch after 23:00 hours posed the potential for long queues outside late at night with no real measures in place to discourage noise and nuisance such as a security guard.
  • People may be able to purchase alcohol and drink on the streets 24 hours a day.
  • The support comment submitted by the flat below was suspicious as the flat was owned by the applicant as there may be fear of retribution to complain against your landlord.
  • Nearby residents had outlined experience of nuisance and feeling unsafe, particularly focused on anti-social behaviour in the carpark which will likely increase with extended licensed hours.
  • Complaints had been received when the carpark had been used as an aggregate yard.
  • Drunk behaviour and increased disturbance from cars were expected and the offered conditions would not go far enough to control nuisance.
  • Pubs had the ability to turn drunk people down whereas, for this model, people could purchase alcohol for others, not in view of the shop who may be intoxicated.
  • The overnight hours will encourage loitering and if the application were granted EPT will have limited powers to deal with arising issues.


Councillor Wayne Dixon

  • Acting in the capacity as an elected Ward Member and on behalf of local residents there was a perception that the convenience store had lost the trust of some locals and there was concern that the hours applied for showed low consideration for those living nearby.
  • The store was used by nearby residents as there was not a lot of shops in the area and may suffer from fear of retribution if they were to object.
  • The conditioned use of the hatch at night did not address issues of people congregating in the carpark and causing disturbance.
  • A CCTV camera had bee funded through the Inner South Community Committee, costing £35,000 to monitor anti-social behaviour occurring in the carpark, largely stemming from motor bikes and quad bikes.
  • The support comments in the supplement pack were generic and some had referenced buying nappies overnight and not alcohol which seemed unusual.
  • Approval of this application will set a precedent for other shops in the ward to apply for later hours and increase access to alcohol.
  • Kasa was located in a deprived area with access to cigarettes and alcohol 24 hours a day impacting health outcomes and increasing alcohol and smoking related diseases. Local alcoholics may struggle with addiction further with increased access, contributing to social issues.
  • Mitigating noise from cars late at night will be difficult to enforce and there were no measures for proper security or control for anti-social behaviour.




Public Objector

  • The local resident lived behind the store and often experienced noise and anti-social behaviour and was unable to go to bed until after the shop closed at 23:00 due to the nuisance. Extending the license and opening hours will heavily impact their sleep.
  • The anti-social cars and bikes using the carpark pose danger and risk to the public, especially children, with a local nursery unable to let children play outside due to this.
  • The patrons from the nearby working men’s club will likely use the shop after the club has closed, encouraging heavy drinking, street drinking, drink driving and overall disturbance.
  • The carpark was often used by drug users, with cannabis often being openly used which was undesirable to the local community.
  • They were scared to use the shop at later hours and as living with a disability, walking to other stores was very difficult.
  • Fear of retribution due to objecting to the application was noted.


Responding to questions from Members the following information was provided by the objectors:

  • The public objectors noted they had not received the letter that the DPS had sent out on the 7th of August 2023.
  • Councillor Dixon confirmed he had received the letter via email.
  • The Inner South Community Committee had funded the carpark CCTV camera from June 2022 to June 2023 in order to mitigate and track anti-social behaviour.


In summing up the applicant’s representative outlined the following:

  • Street drinking was not an issue for the area and would not be encouraged by the grant of the new license.
  • The loss of trust with local people was disputed as the store was 13 years into operation and contact details had been provided to local residents to assist with addressing concerns.
  • There was no notable evidence for any drug use being encouraged or allowed from the premises.
  • The store was not located within a Cumulative Impact Area and there was no enforcement action against the premises.
  • If serious concerns were held regarding anti-social behaviour WYP would be objecting in their capacity as a responsible authority.
  • The operating schedule was thought to be robust and appropriate to the business model.
  • EPT had provided no hard evidence for their claims and disturbance was speculative.
  • The application should be determined against its own merits and objection should be based on evidence, with reference to the powers of review and the Thwaites Case 2008.


RESOLVED – To grant the license as applied for, including the additional conditions and amended operating schedule as agreed with West Yorkshire Police.


Supporting documents: