To receive and consider the attached report ofthe Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory
The report of the Chief Officer, Elections andRegulatory presented an application for the grant of a PremisesLicence at The Hut, 147 Kirkstall Lane, Kirkstall, Leeds, LS53LF.
The following were in attendance:
·Christopher Wenham, Director of Wenham Homes Ltd
·Natalie Stocking – Partner of Christopher Wenham and proposedDPS
·Sam Cunningham – The Hut
·Councillor Hannah Bithell – Objector
The Legal Officer explained the procedure tobe followed and the Licensing Officer presented theapplication.
The application was for the sale by retail ofalcohol (for consumption both on and off the premises) every dayfrom 11:00 to 23:00.
The sale of alcohol would be via a servinghatch to an outdoor seating area and there was no internal accessfor customers. In agreement with WestYorkshire Police, the applicant had agreed to reduce the terminalhour of sales to 22:30.
The applicant had attracted representationsfrom Ward Councillors and members of the public.
The applicant and their representativesaddressed the Sub-Committee. Thefollowing was highlighted:
·The premises was currently running as a gift shop and also soldsweets, cakes and drinks.
·The intention to sell alcohol was to give people an alternative tousing off licences or visiting busy bars.
·There had been a lot of positive feedback from the local communityand existing customers had requested the sale of alcohol.
·Having a licence would give opportunity to people who used theoutdoor seating area to have wine or beer with their food.
·A lot of the products sold at the premises were locally sourcedfrom small businesses. This includedfood and gifts.
In response to questions from theSub-Committee, the following was discussed:
·Staff would do Challenge 25 training and would not serve anyone whowas 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 gettingblocked. There was only seating for 12people.
·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 theSub-Committee. The following washighlighted:
·Whilst the use of the premises as a shop was welcomed it was notfelt appropriate as a licensed premises.
·There had been attempts to visit the premises but it had alwaysbeen closed.
·Even though it was proposed to be a venue for higher priced drinks,there were other nearby higher priced drinking establishments thatpeople attended just for drinking.
·It had been reported that alcohol was already being sold at thepremises and a chalk board was advertising wines and spirits.
·There were concerns regarding toilet facilities and whetherplanning permission would be required for the portaloo.
·Public safety – there were concerns with the proximity to thehighway and a major road junction.
·Prevention of public nuisance – There was not proposed to beany security staff and there were already problems in the area withcar parking when the stadium was being used. There were concerns about people congregatingoutside 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 seating12 people?
·The premises were on a main route to HeadingleyStadium. What was the capacity forstanding customers?
·Concerns that signage asking customers to be quiet was inadequateand that music could be played.
·Should the premises be sold, the licence would remain and therewere concerns about how the premises could then be operated.
·It was not felt that the licensing objectives relating to publicnuisance and public safety would be met.
·Should the licence be granted could it be with the condition thatthere were no alcohol sales on match days at HeadingleyStadium.
In response to questions from theSub-Committee, the following was discussed:
·The proposal to sell alcohol was to give people opportunity to havea glass of wine or beer with their food and had been in response torequests from customers.
·The applicant indicated that they would be happy to haverestrictions on the sale of alcohol during events at the stadiumand for alcohol to be only sold with food.
·The applicant had worked in the area for fifteen years and had agood knowledge of the area. They hadowned the premises for two years and had spoken to local residentsregarding the proposals. There wereother bars close by that were near to residentialproperties. It was not proposed tooperate the premises solely as a bar.
·Should there be any queues at the premises these would for at theperimeter of the building. It was notanticipated that large numbers would turn up.
·It wasn’t expected that the sale of alcohol would greatlyincrease custom. The applicant waswilling to work with any conditions.
·The premises had been open on matchdays selling soft drinks andthere had not been any problems.
In summary, the applicant informed theSub-Committee that the aim was to create a positive environment forcustomers and local people and that they would be happy to adhereto any conditions.
The Sub-Committee went into private session tomake their deliberations and carefully considered the report of theChief Officer, Elections and Regulatory, the submissions made inwriting and at the hearing and also the Statement of LicensingPolicy.
RESOLVED – That the applicationbe granted subject to the following:
·That there be no sale of alcohol at the premises during majorevents at Headingley Sports Stadium (with the exception of CountyChampionship Cricket).
·That alcohol only to be sold as a complement to food.
