MOTOR FUEL LTD, CONVENIENCE STORE,
PORTHMADOG FILLING STATION, PORTHMADOG, LL49 9NG
To consider
the above application
Minutes:
1.
APPLICATION FOR PREMISES LICENCE - MOTOR FUEL LTD, CONVENIENCE STORE,
PORTHMADOG FILLING STATION, PORTHMADOG
The panel and the officers
were introduced to everyone present. It was announced that everyone had up to
10 minutes to share their observations on the application.
On behalf of
the premises: Mr Chris Mitchener
(Licensing Solutions agent on behalf of Motor Fuel Ltd).
Others in attendance: Councillor Jason Humphreys (Local Member Porthmadog East),
Councillor Selwyn Griffiths (on behalf of Porthmadog Town Council)
The report and recommendation of the Licensing
Section.
a) Submitted – the report of the Licensing
Manager giving details of the application for a premises licence for
‘Convenience Store’ Porthmadog Filling Station. It
was highlighted that the application was one for a single-storey convenience
store to be located on the forecourt of the existing garage with the intention
of selling alcohol to be consumed off premises and the provision of late-night
refreshments on the premises. It was noted that the applicant had included
appropriate steps to promote the four licensing objectives as part of the
application.
In the report, reference was made to the relevant
legal information: Paragraph 5.21 of the Revised Guidelines (March 2015)
published under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 where it is noted that
Section 176 of the Licensing Act 2003 prohibits the sale or supply of alcohol
from premises that is used primarily as a garage, or is part of premises that
is used primarily as a garage. It was emphasised that a premises was used
primarily as a garage if it was used for one or more of the following
·
the retailing
of petrol
·
the retailing
of derv
·
the sale of
motor vehicles
·
the maintenance
of motor vehicles
It was emphasised that it was a matter for
the licensing authority to decide, based on the licensing objectives, whether
it would be appropriate for the premises to hold a licence. Attention was drawn to the operating schedule
and the plan submitted with the application along with additional information.
Following a consultation period, it was
noted that no observations had been received from the Environmental Health
Service nor the Fire and Rescue Service and that North Wales Police did not
oppose the application. Two objections to the application had been received
from the Local Member and Porthmadog Town Council.
b) In
considering the application, the following procedure was followed:-
· Members
of the Sub-committee and the applicant were given an opportunity to ask
questions of the Licensing Manager.
· The
applicant was invited to expand on the application.
· Consultees were given an opportunity to submit their
observations
· The
licensee, or his representative, was invited to respond to the observations.
· Members
of the Sub-committee were given an opportunity to ask questions of the
licensee.
·
Members of the Sub-committee were given an
opportunity to ask questions of the consultees.
c) In elaborating on the application, the agent noted on
behalf of the applicant that he was happy with what had been submitted and
corroborated the following observations:
·
The intention was to sell
alcohol between 6:00am and 23:00pm - reasonable hours
·
No observations /
objections had been submitted by the Police, local residents or any other
responsible authority
·
There was no relation
between drink-driving and selling alcohol on a garage forecourt
·
‘Need’ was not a Licensing
Act matter
·
No evidence had been
submitted with the suggestion of placing labels on alcohol bottles - no
responsible authority had requested this
·
There had been no evidence
to suggest that the sale of alcohol from the shop would contribute to crime and
disorder
·
Transport matters were not
part of the application
·
That alcohol would be sold
responsibly - the staff would receive appropriate training
·
Waste bins would be
installed on the forecourt
·
The garage did not exist on
selling fuel alone - had to invest in a convenience store
·
A new CCTV system would be
installed on the site - if the application were approved, the number of cameras
would increase.
·
Could not give
consideration to 'what could happen’ - had to consider the evidence before
them.
In response to a question, it was noted that the shop
would close voluntarily at 23:00pm with a service window to sell goods after
that. This would ensure safety and protect and safeguard the staff.
In response to an observation made by the Licensing
Manager in terms of proving that the core use of the premises was as a shop,
the agent noted that the business had already increased by 10% by introducing
new products, with the intention of further investment to make the site look
like a retail site.
ch) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the
following comments:
·
He would appreciate the
collaboration of the premises to support the bottle labelling scheme (as an
indication of responsibility)
·
Suggestion to synchronise
the hours for the sale of alcohol with nearby premises
·
He
did not accept the analysis of the flow of customers predicted (a document that
had been presented with the application) as the seasonal element had not been
considered when estimating the figures
·
Concern
that the site was near popular areas where late night drinking occurred - it
was predicted that the garage would be an attraction
·
Concerns already existed
regarding traffic - another reason to visit the shop would be likely to
maximise issues
·
Historically
a garage had been at the site - it should not be referred to as a 'convenience
store'
In response, the Licensing Manager noted that
consuming alcohol was not a licensable activity and it would be difficult to
evidence that the alcohol bought on the site would be consumed in nearby
locations.
d) Taking advantage of the right to speak, Councillor
Selwyn Griffiths made the following observations on behalf of Porthmadog Town Council:
·
The main priority of the
site was fuel - it was strongly argued that it was a garage selling fuel and
not a convenience store
·
Disappointing that the
seasonal aspect had not been considered in the analysis of customer flow
·
Needed to ensure detailed
legal observations when considering the core use of the premises.
·
Selling alcohol on the site
would be likely to bring back past problems
dd) In summarising his application, the agent noted on the applicant's
behalf that the facts and evidence presented on the day should be considered
and if any concerns arose or were highlighted then there would be a right to
review the licence. Should problems arise, it would be possible to collaborate
with the support of the Town Council and the Police. It was noted that it would
be possible to consider labelling bottles for a short period - again, with the
support of the Town Council and the Police.
DECISION
The Sub-committee
came to a decision after considering the application and those observations
what were relevant to the principles of the Licensing Act 2003
• Crime and Disorder
• Public Safety
• Preventing Public
Nuisance
• Protection of Children
from Harm
along with the
Guidance of the Home Office.
Firstly, the Sub-committee had to decide whether it
was legal for the site to sell alcohol, recalling the restriction under section
176 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the fact that petrol and diesel was sold on
the site. Following consideration of the applicant's marketing report along
with paragraphs 5.21 and 5.23 of the Guidance, the Sub-committee came to the
conclusion that the premises would be used as a garage to some extent but would
also be used to a larger extent as a convenience store. As a result, the committee was of the opinion
that the premises would not primarily be used as a garage.
In these
circumstances, the Sub-committee was satisfied that the application did not contradict
section 176 of the Act and that it was legal for the premises to sell alcohol.
In discussing the merits of the application, the
applicant's observations were considered along with the observations of the
local member, Councillor Jason Humphreys, regarding the prevention of crime and
disorder, public safety and the protection of children from harm. Specifically,
the local member presented evidence that serious traffic problems were caused
by vehicles queuing for fuel on and around the site, which caused traffic
congestion and a risk of accidents. The
member suggested that extending the range of services on the site would be
likely to worsen these problems.
While such evidence
was useful and could be relevant to the three objectives raised, disappointment
was expressed that evidence of specific events had not been received, including
the dates of events, what had happened, and what the outcome had been, etc.
This was not a criticism of the member, perhaps he did not have that level of
information in his possession, but without this additional information, it was
impossible for the Sub-committee to objectively measure the sum and substance
of any problems that already existed with the premises that were relevant to
the licensing objectives. As a result, the weight that could be given to these
observations was minimal.
The Sub-committee highlighted that the Police and the
Fire Service did not object to the application. If there were a problem under
the licensing objectives, the Sub-committee would have expected observations
from these responsible authorities and in considering paragraph 9.2 of the
Guidance, the Sub-committee would have expected observations from the Police
especially, in relation to any crime and disorder issues. This lack of observations
suggested that there were no problems associated with the premises.
The Sub-committee
disregarded some observations on the basis that they were not relevant to the
licensing objectives, including the following:
1. The observations of the local member
opposing the application's use of the description "convenience store"
when the premises in his opinion had not been referred to as that before. The
description of the premises was a matter for the applicant to decide. Of
course, when there is a change in the business direction of a premises, as had
happened in this application, the use of a new term to describe a premises
should not be surprising.
2. The
local member's observations had asked for consistency with the hours for the
sale of alcohol with nearby premises. The relevant criterion under the Act was
not consistency of hours with other places but whether the application was
compatible with the licensing objectives?
3. The Town Council's observations
opposing the application on the basis that they considered it to be unwise to
sell alcohol where there were drivers. With due respect, the fact that a shop
was easy for drivers to get to was not a good enough reason to refuse an
alcohol licence for this shop. It is easy enough in this day and age for
drivers to go to a shop, park in the car park, and buy alcohol. The
supermarkets in the town, including Tesco, were an example of this. Porthmadog Town Council should know that convenient access
for motorists is an important aspect of what makes a business sustainable in
this day and age.
4. The Town Council's comments that there
was no need for another site in the town to sell alcohol. Since 2005,
"need" had not been relevant to applications for a premises licence.
5. The
observations of the local member and the Town Council requesting a
bottle-labelling condition. The Sub-committee could see no justification for
introducing additional conditions on a licence when there was no evidence of a
problem in the first place that justified taking such a step. In the Sub-committee's view, setting a
condition on a premises where there was no reason to doubt that the standard
required conditions (e.g. operating Challenge 25) were sufficient to tackle any
risk of under-age drinking was putting the cart before the horse.
In the
circumstances, and from weighing and measuring the evidence presented, the
Sub-committee was satisfied that there were no problems relating to the
premises that were relevant to the licensing objectives and therefore the
licence should be approved in line with the application.
The Solicitor reported that
the decision would be confirmed formally by a letter sent to everyone present.
He also notified that they had the right to appeal the decision within 21 days
of receiving the letter.
Supporting documents: