Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application. The Sub Committee understood the concerns of the objectors in relation to the problems which already existed in the area. However, Members considered that the premises was not located in an area covered by a cumulative impact policy and did not consider that the granting of the licence would undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the addition of a condition stating that there would be no sale of individual cans of beer, cider or lager. Members accepted that there were issues associated with problem street-drinkers in the area and that a condition restricting the sale of single cans was appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. Members accepted the concerns raised by local residents in relation to the undercroft and the use of the car park. However, the undercroft was beyond the direct control of the premises and did not form part of the application. Members did not feel that any evidence had been presented that the licensing objectives would be undermined except for the issue in relation to the sale of single cans. Members therefore agreed to approve the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the additional condition set out above.
There were no declarations of interest.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application. The Sub Committee understood the concerns of the objectors in relation to the problems which already existed in the area. However, Members considered that the premises was not located in an area covered by a cumulative impact policy and did not consider that the granting of the licence would undermine the licensing objectives.
Present: Applicant: Anand Kumar Interested Others: Michael Michael David Driscoll (Petitioner) The Application An application for the Grant of a Premises Licence had been received from Lion Hills Ltd in respect of Lion Hills Ltd, 66 Plasmawr Road, Cardiff, CF5 3JX. The applicant had applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption off the premises. (2) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “News and convenience store with post office, alcohol sale only to consume off the premises”. (3) Unless otherwise indicated the premises may be open to the public during the following hours and for any hours consequential to the non-standard timings: Monday to Sunday: 06:00 to 00:00 hours (4) To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption off the premises: Monday to Sunday: 06:00 to 00:00 hours A representation had been received from South Wales Police, but following agreement on closing at 11pm the representation was withdrawn. Applicant Representations Mr Anand Kumar addressed the Sub Committee, stating that it was a modest and straightforward application. No further comments were received. Other Persons Representations Mr Michael Michael addressed the Sub Committee as a local resident. Members were advised that he had lived and run a business in the area for more than 50 years. In recent years, the character of the shopping precinct has changed and there were five off-licences within walking distance of this location. He noted that the licensing objectives included the prevention of crime and disorder, as well as the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. He was aware of recent incidents of violence in the immediate area, and he regularly personally witnessed drug dealing taking place. There were two schools in the area and there was a risk of children being exposed to antisocial behaviour. He suggested that while South Wales Police had withdrawn their objection due to agreement on adjusted hours, they had not consulted with residents or local business owners like himself. There would be no benefit to the community to add another late-night establishment selling alcohol, particularly when there were already problems in the area with alcohol and drugs. Mr Michael considered that granting the licence was likely to increase antisocial behaviour. The applicant asked whether Mr Michael believed granting this licence would increase the risk of harm to the licensing objectives. Mr Michael confirmed that he did believe this would happen. Mr David Driscoll addressed the Sub Committee, presenting a petition with around 600 signatures. He stated that the petition represented local residents who were fed up with an increase in antisocial behaviour in their area, especially issues around drugs and alcohol. There were already 8 off-licences within a mile of this location, including one next door, and several pubs open til 11pm. Residents wanted to feel safe in their local area and were concerned that granting a new application would compound an already bad situation. The Sub Committee queried whether the adjustment of opening hours in consultation with South Wales Police had any impact on his objection. Mr Driscoll responded that he did not feel it made a difference to his point about there already being more than enough off-licences in the area. Summing Up In summing up, Mr Michael emphasised that granting the application would add to the issues local people are already experiencing. The petitioner added that residents were worried about children being exposed to antisocial behaviour, with two schools within walking distance of the site. Mr Kumar did not agree with the suggestion that his application would compound antisocial behaviour. He was capable of handling this type of business and would take all the appropriate measures to keep his premises safe and secure, and he would engage with and support local people. RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application. The Sub Committee understood the concerns of the objectors in relation to the problems which already existed in the area. However, Members considered that the premises was not located in an area covered by a cumulative impact policy and did not consider that the granting of the licence would undermine the licensing objectives.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the addition of a condition stating that there would be no sale of individual cans of beer, cider or lager. Members accepted that there were issues associated with problem street-drinkers in the area and that a condition restricting the sale of single cans was appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. Members accepted the concerns raised by local residents in relation to the undercroft and the use of the car park. However, the undercroft was beyond the direct control of the premises and did not form part of the application. Members did not feel that any evidence had been presented that the licensing objectives would be undermined except for the issue in relation to the sale of single cans. Members therefore agreed to approve the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the additional condition set out above.
Present: Applicant: Santhosh Reddy Ian Rushton (representing the applicant) Simon Fry (landlord) Interested Others: Cllr Stephen Cunnah (Ward Member) Patrick Harper Alexandra Cowell David Evans Sarah Taylor Heather Lewis The Application An application for the Grant of a Premises Licence had been received from Santhosh Reddy Ashireddy in respect of General Convenience Store, 373-375 Cowbridge Road East, Cardiff, CF5 1JF. The applicant had applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption off the premises. (2) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “This is a new business venture as a new general convenience store which will sell a wide range of goods including newspapers, magazines, groceries, soft drinks, cigarettes, dairy goods, snacks, household goods, confectionery, etc. The applicant, an experienced retailer and a personal licence holder, would like to include some alcohol sales to allow the shop to develop and provide a complete all-round convenience service. The focus of the shop will be as a general convenience store with the proposed alcohol sales just being a part of the overall business”. (3) Unless otherwise indicated the premises may be open to the public during the following hours and for any hours consequential to the non-standard timings: Monday to Sunday: 06:00 to 23:00 hours Bank Holiday: 06:00 to 00:00 hours Christmas Eve: 06:00 to 00:00 hours New Years Eve: 06:00 to 00:00 hours (4) To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption off the premises: Monday to Sunday: 07:00 to 23:00 hours Bank Holiday: 07:00 to 00:00 hours Christmas Eve: 07:00 to 00:00 hours New Years Eve: 07:00 to 00:00 hours Applicant Representations Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Mr Ian Rushton explained that alcohol would only be one part of a business selling a wide range of goods. Mr Reddy was a family man and a responsible person with more than a decade of retail experience, who had worked in Cardiff since 2018 and knew the local area very well. He had operated two off-licences in other areas in Cardiff already and had a personal license with Monmouthshire Council, and there was no record of any problems or breaches. He had taken out a ten-year lease on these premises and had made a large investment in the business. He added that the application included a comprehensive set of conditions to promote the licensing objectives. This included the Challenge 25 policy in addition to 16 CCTV cameras in total covering both the inside of the shop and the area immediately outside. Mr Reddy would be the Designated Premises Supervisor in charge of authorising alcohol sales. He would also oversee regular litter picks to keep the outside of the premises clean, and would train staff regularly on all their responsibilities. Mr Rushton emphasised that the conditions had been accepted by all the responsible authorities, including South Wales Police. The applicant had sought to engage with objectors and was sympathetic to their concerns around antisocial behaviour. He reassured the Sub Committee that the premises would be kept clean, safe and secure, and that Mr Reddy was a responsible person. Members queried whether Mr Reddy intended to sell individual cans of alcohol, including high strength alcohol. Mr Reddy confirmed that he was, but he would be happy with this being restricted as a condition if it was a particular area of concern. The applicant responded to questions from interested others, clarifying that the CCTV would cover the shop’s rear entrance and also that he would be happy to add another camera covering the undercroft close to the residents’ entrance. Mr Simon Fry addressed the Sub Committee as the owner of the building. Members were advised that he had purchased it in 2015 and held the freehold to the whole of the building. It was in in his interest to ensure a good relationship between his tenants and the operator of the commercial space at the bottom. He reiterated Mr Reddy’s points about how issues of waste and antisocial behaviour would be dealt with, and suggested that having the shop in use rather than vacant was better for the area. He wanted the building to be safe and secure too. Mr Fry responded to questions from Members, clarifying that the small car park used by residents and with two parking spaces for employees of the shop was gated but not locked, due to fire regulations. On the topic of CCTV cameras, he confirmed that Mr Reddy would be responsible for the cameras inside and directly outside the shop, but any other cameras the tenants wanted in the car park would be a separate matter, not related to this application. He was happy to meet with residents to discuss and try to resolve any issues they were having. Other Persons Representations Speaking in objection to the application, Patrick Harper suggested that the requested hours constituted a major change of use. The previous occupants were offices or retail premises with low footfall, whereas a busy shop opening at 7am and closing at 11pm was very different. He asked that Members be mindful of the impact this would have on the people living there in terms of noise and nuisance, and suggested variance in hours if it was to be granted. He advocated noise insulation and soundproofing, as well as the necessary tests to ensure this was working effectively, before the shop opened. Speaking in objection to the application, Alexandra Cowell described Hamilton Court as a beautiful place to live that felt very safe. However, the major shift in use of the premises, both in terms of the opening hours and what would be sold there, might make it less so. She often came home alone late at night and was concerned about customers loitering outside the premises drinking alcohol. There was no lock on the gate of the residents’ car park. Also speaking in objection to the application, Sarah Taylor echoed the concerns raised by other tenants. She was not opposed to the business in general and had been impressed by the applicant’s presentation, but suggested that shortened hours would be more appropriate. Heather Lewis reiterated that 7am-11pm opening hours were not acceptable to residents. She also noted that the car park had an undercroft which might attract individuals and make it a gathering place for antisocial behaviour. Cllr Cunnah addressed the Sub Committee as the ward member, thanking the residents and applicants for their representations. It was the first time he had addressed this committee, having been persuaded by residents due to their genuine and well-grounded concerns. With regard to the licensing objectives, he noted that crime and disorder were often concentrated on Cowbridge Road East, including problem drinking and smashed windows. Both the police and the Community Safety Team had been heavily involved in this area and had consulted extensively with the local community. He had no doubt that Mr Reddy would manage the premises well, but there was evidence of widespread antisocial behaviour fuelled by public drinking from other licensed premises on this street. The applicant’s representative noted that the police did not oppose the application, and asked Cllr Cunnah if he had spoken to them about it separately. Cllr Cunnah confirmed that he had not. Summing Up In summing up, several residents reiterated their concerns about the impact of the opening hours and noise levels on those living in the building. Cllr Cunnah added that it was good to see dialogue developing between the applicant, landlord and residents, and hoped that this would continue. He suggested adding conditions varying the opening hours with the residents’ concerns in mind and requiring CCTV in the residents’ car park. Mr Fry agreed that it had been good to hear from residents directly about their concerns, and he would address them where possible. He emphasised that Mr Reddy was a suitable and responsible individual to run the shop which was currently vacant. He was also confident that the building’s concrete frame would alleviate the noise issue. Responding to points made by residents in respect of the car park, Members were advised that the two parking spaces permitted for use by the premises were for staff car parking purposes only and these would not be made available to customers at the premises. Summing up on behalf of the applicant, Mr Rushton suggested that this was a good application with robust conditions accepted by all the responsible authorities. The applicant and landlord understood residents’ concerns and would do what they could to ensure that there was minimum disturbance. Mr Reddy was an experienced licence holder who would take all the appropriate measures to keep the site clean and ensure there were no underage sales. He was also agreeable to not selling single cans as a condition. He felt this this application would promote the licensing objectives and hoped it would be approved. RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the addition of a condition stating that there would be no sale of individual cans of beer, cider or lager. Members accepted that there were issues associated with problem street-drinkers in the area and that a condition restricting the sale of single cans was appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. Members accepted the concerns raised by local residents in relation to the undercroft and the use of the car park. However, the undercroft was beyond the direct control of the premises and did not form part of the application. Members did not feel that any evidence had been presented that the licensing objectives would be undermined except for the issue in relation to the sale of single cans. Members therefore agreed to approve the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the additional condition set out above.
There were none.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.