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 the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, REFUSED the application. The Sub Committee considered that the Cumulative Impact Policy applied in this case and no evidence was presented to support the view that the application was an exceptional application.
No declarations of interest.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, REFUSED the application. The Sub Committee considered that the Cumulative Impact Policy applied in this case and no evidence was presented to support the view that the application was an exceptional application.
Present: Applicant: Santhosh Reddy Ashireddy represented by Ian Rushton Responsible Authorities: Claire Dewhurst and Jason Jones, SWP Michelle Harries, Cardiff Licensing The Application 1.1 An application for the grant of a Premises Licence has been received from San Retailers Ltd in respect of San Retailers Ltd, 37 Caroline Street, Cardiff, CF10 1FF. 1.2 The applicant has applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises (ii) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors) (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 02:00 hours (4) To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises: Monday to Sunday: 06:00 to 02:00 hours (ii) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors): Monday to Sunday: 23:00 to 02:00 hours Applicant Representations Mr Ian Rushton presented the application. Members were advised that the premises is being refurbished as a convenience store and sale of alcohol was proposed to form part of their offer. The applicant has secured a 15 year lease at the premises and was committed to the business. Sale of alcohol would make the business more viable. Mr Rushton described the premises. The unit was small and any alcoholic products would be stored behind the counter or in a fridge immediately adjacent to the counter. The business would employ 5 members of staff covering shifts and would be suitably staffed at peak periods. The applicant was an experienced retailer with six other premises in Cardiff. All those premises operated well and there were no recorded issues. The applicant has held a Personal Licence for 10 years. The Designated Premises Supervisor was also experienced and held a Personal Licence. Mr Rushton stated that the applicant has taken into account the consultation responses and now proposed that the hours for the sale of alcohol be curtailed to between 0800 hours and 2100 hours daily. The application for late night refreshment was withdrawn. Mr Rushton considered that the application was accompanied with a comprehensive set of revised conditions aimed at promoting the licensing objectives. Mr Rushton highlighted a number of the revised conditions including the installation of a CCTV system, Challenge 25 and a condition restricting the sales of strong beers and ciders. Mr Rushton referred to recorded incidents of crime in the area. It was suggested that the provision of licensable activities at this premises would not increase crime or anti-social behaviour because the premises would not attract additional people into the area. An assurance was provided that all reasonable steps would be taken to avoid any issues with problem street drinkers. Members were asked to note that there was a slight reduction in the number of recorded crimes linked to off licences in the area last year. Mr Rushton also felt that comments made during the consultation regarding the local economy and Cardiff’s character were not relevant considerations and should be disregarded. Responsible Authority Representations PC Claire Dewhurst addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that there are currently 25 off licence premises within the Cumulative Impact Area in the City Centre. There was also strong evidence to support the view that additional sales of alcohol will contribute to crime and anti-social behaviour in the area. Members were urged to refuse the application in line with the Cumulative Impact Policy. PC Dewhurst referred to a visit to another premises managed by the applicant and made allegations regarding breaches of licensing conditions during the visit. The Legal Officer later asked Members to disregard those comments as introducing new evidence at the hearing was not permitted. Referring to the amended conditions submitted by the applicant, PC Dewhurst stated that the premises did not have planning permission for consumption of food on the premises and considered that the withdrawal of late night refreshment was not relevant. South Wales Police also considered that it would not be possible to provide the applicant written notice for major events in the city centre. PC Dewhurst felt that the conditions were not meaningful and were essentially the same conditions applied to the premises licence at another convenience store managed by the applicant. It was considered that the application was not exceptional and, therefore, the rebuttable presumption that the licence should be refused applied. PC Jason Jones asked Members to note that Caroline Street was a well-known hotspot for crime and anti-social behaviour, particularly in the evenings. Major events often finished before the 2100 hour cut off for sales of alcohol that had been proposed, for instance, rugby international matches. Furthermore, having one member of staff present also raised concerns because homeless people and problem street drinkers were known to congregate nearby. PC Jones questioned how the shop would prevent instances of shoplifting. PC Jones also stated that all off-licence premises were categorised as ‘red’ in the Cumulative Impact Policy. Ian Rushton responded to the points raised. Mr Rushton asked what more the applicant could do to amend the application to further support the licensing objectives. PC Jones considered that the Cumulative Impact Policy should be applied. Michelle Harries of Cardiff Licensing addressed the Sub Committee. Ms Harries acknowledged that since writing her initial objection, the applicant has submitted an updated operating schedule. Ms Harries addressed some of the conditions - since the initial application the applicant has sought to include the additional measures from the Cumulative Impact Assessment. However, she felt that if the licence were granted, all of the additional measures should be implemented. Ms Harries stated that she believed that an 8am start is still too early given the high number of street drinkers that you see daily in St Marys Street in the mornings outside off licences and that 9am would at least be consistent with the other off licences in the nearby area that have overcome the rebuttable presumption. However, it must be noted that those off licences also have security at the earlier morning times but this premises will not. An off licence provides readily available alcohol at generally cheaper prices than other licensed premises and that is an attraction to those visiting the city centre. Ms Harries explained that the nature of drinking is also changing with afternoon drinking sessions being very popular particularly for those travelling to Cardiff who have to catch trains home that don’t run into the early hours. Events in the city centre are also not solely evening based. Will the introduction of an additional off licence in this area with cheaper alcohol allow for greater intoxication and the opportunity for more alcohol related issues. The applicant’s experience has been mentioned. The applicant has 4 other premises licences in Cardiff, the earliest of which was only granted in late December 2022 and the latest two were only granted last year. None of these licences are in the city centre so do not fall within the CIP. The applicants do not have the experience of operating a premises within a cumulative impact are and she believed that the issues with the conditions that they are proposing highlights this lack of experience. Ms Harries found that the initial operating schedule was too generic in its drafting, had failed to take into account the area in which the premises was situated and the associated crime and disorder and public nuisance that is known to be prevalent in that area. The Licensing Authority is concerned that the introduction of an off licence into this street will attract more drinkers into an already challenging area for enforcement authorities and our partner bodies, and have a detrimental impact on the licensing objectives. Ms Harries concluded her presentation stating that the Cumulative Impact Assessment requires applications to be exceptional and this application is not exceptional. Summing Up PC Dewhurst stated that no evidence was presented that the licence will be of exceptional benefit and the application should be refused. Ms Harries considered that no due diligence had been undertaken by the applicant. The application was not exceptional and the conditions proposed by the applicant were unworkable. Ian Rushton disagreed with the previous comments. It was considered that the Cumulative Impact Policy was not a blanket ban ruling out all new applications. He considered that the application was exceptional and the review procedure was a mechanism through which any issues that arose can be addressed. The applicant was committed to working in partnership with the responsible authorities in promoting the licensing objectives. Members were invited to grant the application. RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, REFUSED the application. The Sub Committee considered that the Cumulative Impact Policy applied in this case and no evidence was presented to support the view that the application was an exceptional application.
No urgent items.
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.