5
The Sub-Committee received report ES/2137 regarding an application for a new premises licence for NineDeli, 202 Church Road, Kessingland, NR33 7SF to permit the sale of alcohol on premises (Monday to Sunday 08:00am to 10:00pm, New Year’s Eve 08:00am to 01:00am) and off premises (Monday to Sunday 00:00am to 00:00am).
The Legal Advisor outlined the procedure to be followed and there was a short adjournment for everyone to view two further representations that had been received today.
The Licensing Officer explained that the hearing was required because five representations opposing the application had been received and had not been withdrawn.
The Licensing Officer ran through the report and identified several points for the Sub-Committee to consider:
- the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003;
- the Council’s current Statement of Licensing Policy; and
- The Human Rights Act 1998
She explained that if the Sub-Committee had reason to depart from these it was asked to give full reasons for doing so.
The Sub-Committee was requested to determine the application by either granting the application subject to any mandatory conditions and to those consistent with the application, granting the application subject to the same conditions but modified to such extent as the Sub-Committee considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives, or by rejecting the application. The Licensing Officer advised that the Sub-Committee must state its reasons when announcing its decision.
The Chair invited the Sub-Committee to ask questions of the Licensing Officer. They asked what was meant by delivery hours. The Licensing Officer explained it was only of interest if the deliveries contained alcohol and the timings related to when they were dispatched from the premises.
The Chair invited the Applicant and Objectors to ask questions of the Licensing Officer. All confirmed that they had no questions.
The Legal Adviser asked if the hours for this application were the same as for the previous licensed premises at Southwold. The Licensing Officer confirmed that they were.
The Chair asked if there had been issues with the previous premises to which the Licensing Officer confirmed they hadn’t received any concerns or been made aware of any issues.
The Chair then invited the Applicant, Mr James Scott, to present their case including calling any witnesses.
The Applicant stated that he was a responsible person who had run licensed premises before. He explained he would be serving alcohol with food and occasionally coffees with an alcoholic shot in them. He said there wouldn’t be many people on the premises at any one time and he was mindful of nearby neighbours. He stated that if there were any issues with noise or litter he would deal with it and that he didn’t serve intoxicated people. He had not experienced any issues with his previous premises in Southwold or Lowestoft and that he tried to maintain good relationships with nearby residents.
The Chair invited the Sub-Committee to ask questions of the Applicant.
They asked how the delivery aspect operated. The Applicant explained that if he was called then he would make a delivery but it would be at a premium. He would also take payments online to dispatch orders the following day. He explained there would be no fuss or disturbance at the premises.
The Sub-Committee felt 8am seemed very early for selling alcohol. The Applicant explained that people should be able to buy a drink when they were on holiday. He felt it wasn’t any different to the supermarkets and shops in the local area who sold alcohol from the moment they opened. He also explained that customers could be buying alcohol to consume off premises later in the day. When he has opened on Christmas Day before people have come in from 8am for an alcoholic coffee.
The Licensing Officer had no questions for the Applicant.
One of the Objectors asked about storage and delivery of alcohol and if the Applicant would be using the road or car park. The Applicant explained that he would be making purchases from the wholesaler between 9am and 5pm. The Applicant would then access the property from the car park at the rear.
The Legal Adviser had no questions to ask the Applicant.
The Chair invited each Objector to state their case in turn.
The first Objector asked why it needed an alcohol licence when the application stated that it was a café and takeaway with delivery service. The Chair explained that the licence was for on and off sales and the Licensing Officer confirmed that the application did include reference to on and off sales.
The Objector continued that the premises was located near houses, holiday homes and a playground and was on a very busy road with a very narrow pavement on one side. She did not think it was a good example to see people drinking alcohol at 8am.
The Chair explained that some of these objections were not relevant to the application.
The Applicant explained that the premises didn’t face the playpark but that he also had no control where people went or what they did once they left the premises. He also pointed out that there were two other licensed premises nearby from where people could go to the playpark or beach intoxicated.
The Objector disagreed and felt the playground was extremely important and her objection still stood.
The Applicant felt that the car park could be more of a magnet for paedophiles than a café and couldn’t see the connection raised in the objection between alcohol and paedophiles.
There were no further questions for the first Objector.
The Chair invited the second Objector to state their case.
She explained that although the front of the premises didn’t face the playground the gate at the back did. She was concerned at the increased risk of antisocial behaviour and littering and asked if anything could be done to help, such as signage in the playground stating no drinking alcohol. The Objector did acknowledge this was for the Parish Council though. She accepted that the Applicant could not be watching his customers after they left the premises, but she was concerned about such a small premises with no toilet available to customers.
The Applicant explained that you didn’t need a toilet for premises with under 10 seats but he would allow customers to use the toilet. He was asked if the correct Health and Safety policies were in place as it would involve going through the kitchen. The Applicant explained there was a partitioned wall and customers would go around the back of the premises.
The Objector requested that any drinks taken outside should be in unbreakable materials. The Applicant disagreed, arguing that disposable cups encouraged littering and that using plastic containers would put off customers. He explained that any breakages would be cleared up immediately. He said takeaway drinks would be in disposable cups and he was looking at biodegradable options.
The Objector still had the same concerns about the sale of alcohol near a playground and that because the pavement was not very wide the tables and chairs would halve the pavement space available.
The Applicant explained that the external area to be used was the premise’s boundary so the tables and chairs would not obstruct the pavement. The Chair asked for clarity on this. The Licensing Officer explained that if a premises needed to use space on the pavement it would require a pavement licence but if it was within the building curtilage it generally would not require a licence.
The Chair asked the Applicant if there was a clear demarcation between the property boundary and the pavement and he stated that there was. He also explained that in the four years he operated in Southwold, where there was no pavement and it was a very busy road, there had been no incidents.
The Sub-Committee asked about the rear of the premises and if it was within the licensed area. The Licensing Officer explained it was not included.
The Applicant explained the owner was fencing off land around the building that the applicant could use for tables and chairs which would be within the confines of the premises. There was an access gate but it couldn’t be accessed from the outside and a fence will be put in to prevent people accessing the upstairs flat from the side.
The Chair felt there was some complexity about how customers could access toilet and outside area. The Licensing Officer confirmed that any tables and chairs outside of the red line plan and where alcohol was consumed would be off sales.
The third Objector was invited to speak. She expressed concerns about the pavement situation citing that she had already been forced to walk into the road when walking her dogs. She questioned if large caravans went down the road in Southwold like they did in Kessingland. The Applicant explained large vehicles did travel along the road in Southwold.
The Objector questioned the plans for New Year’s Eve. The Applicant explained he would like to offer his customers a chance to celebrate at his premises. He didn’t expect he would be the only premises in the area to be open that evening.
The Objector explained that the car park was used by residents who didn’t have parking spaces and was concerned that the road would be obstructed by deliveries.
The Applicant explained he would be collecting from the wholesaler himself using a small car which he would park in the car park rather than having deliveries.
The Objector was unhappy that the Applicant had turned up at her house and that it was wrong the Council gave out their addresses. She and the other Objectors felt intimidated. The Applicant explained that he was advised to write letters to those who objected addressing their concerns.
The Objector finished by stating that Kessingland was a very different place to Southwold.
The Chair asked the Licensing Officer for clarity regarding revoking a licence if there were issues in the future. The Licensing Officer explained that if there was a proven noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour then the licence could be reviewed.
The Objector stated that she was not against the business but was against the late-night New Year’s Eve licence and felt it could be a magnet for rowdy people. She believed the 24 hour delivery licence seemed extreme and 8am was too early to serve alcohol.
There were no further questions and the Licensing Officer clarified that it was made clear to those who made representations that their details would be made available to the Applicant so they could try to resolve any issues.
The fourth Objector applauded Mr Scott for opening a business but just had concerns. She explained it was a busy road with many vehicles travelling in excess of the 20mph limit. She was concerned about the overspill from people outside and the noise, especially late at night and on New Year’s Eve, and the impact it would have on local residents who had sensitive issues.
The Applicant couldn’t understand where the concerns about noise were coming from. He explained that most activity would take place within the premises. He stated that it was not a rowdy pub playing loud music, but people having a coffee, a meal, perhaps with a beer or glass of wine. He felt that if someone was in the way of you on the pavement and stopping you passing you would just ask them to move or move around them.
The Objector stated that the pavement was blocked yesterday and it had only just opened. The Applicant explained that it was a novelty in the area so people were stopping to look in and ask questions. He wondered if the Objectors would also have the same objections to the pet shop and dog groomer moving in. He explained that there would be a decked area with a small barrier to stop people spilling out onto the pavement.
The Objector was still concerned that this was a residential area and not the same as Southwold.
The Applicant felt there wouldn’t be the same level of activity in Kessingland as there was in Southwold. However, he reiterated that he had never had a complaint at his previous property and that was also in a residential area. He pointed out that the pub down the road had loud music and live bands but didn’t feel you could compare that to a few people sat outside his café.
The Licensing Officer confirmed that if there were complaints which necessitated a licence review it would require hard evidence to prove it had been breached. Complainants would need to contact Environmental Protection and keep logs and then they and Licensing could take action if necessary.
The Chair invited everyone to sum up.
The Licensing Officer had nothing further to say.
The Applicant hoped that this small café/restaurant would be an asset to the village, and he hoped that people would be welcoming of a new business to the area. He simply wanted to fit in with people, have a quiet life and get on with his business. He added that he hoped these concerns would prove to be unfounded.
One of the Objectors summed up for the group. None of them had issues with a business or a café but they had concerns about what could happen with regards to noise and proximity to the playground if it had an alcohol licence. She acknowledged that he had a lot of experience with licensed premises but couldn’t believe he had not had to deal with any issues in the past.
The Sub-Committee adjourned with the Legal Advisor and Democratic Services Officer to consider their decision. On their return the Chair read the following decision notice:
Decision Notice
Mr James Scott (the applicant) has applied for a new premises licence for Ninedeli at 202 Church Road, Kessingland, NR33 7SF, to permit the sale of alcohol for on sales Monday to Sunday 08:00 to 22:00 with the exception of New Year’s Eve 08:00 to 01:00 and off sales Monday to Sunday 00:00 to 00:00.
This Sub-Committee has been held as five representations against the application had been received from other persons. The representations’ main concerns were that the premises is in the midst of residential properties and adjacent to a children’s play park. Concerns were raised that the noise and anti-social behaviour associated with a drinking establishment would be intrusive and unwanted.
The Sub-Committee first heard from the Licensing Officer, who summarised the report. The Licensing Officer provided the Sub-Committee with two additional documents at the start of the hearing: one being a representation against the application and the other being in support. The Licensing Officer when questioned confirmed that they had never received any concerns or complaints regarding Mr Scott’s other premises.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the applicant who explained that he has experience running licensed premises. When questioned by the Sub-Committee about the requested 24/7 off licence application, the applicant explained that this is because they intend to sell online and be available to deliver alcohol if someone contacted them at any time.
The Sub-Committee lastly heard from the objectors to the application. The objectors’ main concerns were in relation to the premises being in a residential area and adjacent to a children’s play park. The objectors believed that a licensed premises in this location would cause a disturbance to the residents from noise and an increase in litter and antisocial behaviour. There were concerns that there would be overspill onto the pavement which would cause an obstruction to those travelling along Church Road, which was described as a busy road. There were also concerns regarding the timings, stating that 8am was too early to consume alcohol in a residential area.
The decision of the Sub-Committee
The Sub-Committee, having considered the application, the Licensing Officer’s report and the representations received from the applicant and the objectors has decided to grant the on sales licence for Monday to Sunday 08:00 to 22:00, with the exception of New Year’s Eve 08:00 to 01:00, as applied for in the application. Off licence sales are granted but the hours are modified to Monday to Sunday 07:00 to 23:00.
Reasons for decision
In arriving at this decision, the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the representations of both the applicant and objectors as well as the Licensing Officer’s report. The Sub-Committee also considered the Council’s own licensing guidance and statement of licensing policy, as well as the Statutory Section 182 guidance, and Human Rights Act 1998.
The Sub-Committee took great weight in making its decision upon the lack of responses from responsible authorities, most notably the Police as they are the main source of advice on crime and disorder.
The Sub-Committee note the representations from the objectors in relation to parking and highways concerns however these issues do not fall within the remit of the Sub-Committee and do not directly relate to the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee has decided to restrict the hours of off sales in recognition of concerns raised by local residents.
The Sub-Committee considered the Council’s own guidance in relation to licensing objectives and that each new licence should be considered on individual merit. Additionally, 6.1 of the Council’s Policy states that the Sub-Committee should not seek to restrict the trading hours of any particular premises unless it is considered appropriate to promote one or more of the licensing objectives. As the applicant has previous experience of running a licensed premises the Sub-Committee is confident that the applicant is capable of promoting the licensing objectives.
Anyone affected by this decision has the right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receiving notice of the decision.
Date: 29 October 2024