Agenda and minutes
Monday, 13 February 2012 7:00 pm
Venue: Salon - York House. View directions
Contact: Jessica Vine, 020 8891 7078, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).
The procedures were noted.
The record of the proceedings held on 11 January 2011 is attached.
The minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2012 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.
Councillor Palmer declared that she had twice dined at La Buvette in the last two years, but that she was not a regular customer of the restaurant and had not formed a prior view on the application.
To hear and determine an opposed application for the variation of a premises licence.
Participating in this item was Mr Peter Willan, Interested Party.
It was reported that John McGann, the Police Licensing Officer, was unable to attend the meeting but that his representation, as set out in the letter dated 5 December 2011, remained unchanged.
The Sub-Committee heard a representation from Mr Willan who explained that he was speaking on behalf of a residents’ association. Mr Willan drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the letter of the Richmond Society dated 13 December 2011. He made the following points:
(i) Though La Buvette was not located within the Richmond Cumulative Impact Zone as described in the Cumulative Impact Policy, the granting of an off-licence in this location could still be viewed as having a cumulative effect, increasing anti social behaviour in the town centre. A variation in the licence should only be granted as an exception.
(ii) The operation of La Buvette as an off-licence could be harmful to nearby residents as it could increase levels of anti social behaviour and encourage the consumption of alcohol in St Mary’s churchyard.
(iii) There was perceived ambiguity in the proposed wording of the variation: the licence should clearly state that the sale of alcohol was for customers who were dining in the restaurant at the time.
Mr Willan reported that he had attempted to contact the licence holder to discuss conditions but had been unsuccessful. In response to the concerns as set out in the Richmond Society letter, Mr Willan suggested that the Sub-Committee consider imposing the following condition on the licence:
“Off-sales shall be restricted to customers who have purchased wine as part of a substantive table meal at the premises and who express a wish to take the unfinished bottle contents home with them. Under no circumstances is any alcohol to be sold or supplied in opened or unopened containers for consumption in the churchyard of St Mary Magdalene Church, which adjoins the premises, and customers purchasing off-sales are to be advised of this restriction.”
Mr Willan also requested that the Sub-Committee consider the hours of alcohol off-sale and whether the licence variation should be personal to the two applicants.
In response to questions Mr Willan informed the Sub-Committee that:
(i) The intention of his proposed condition was to limit the amount of off-sales that were carried out at the premises and to ensure that customers were not visiting the premises solely to purchase alcohol.
(ii) Customers could be advised of a restriction on drinking in the nearby churchyard via notices in the restaurant. The consumption of alcohol in the churchyard was viewed as being a problem which the licence holder should be mindful of.
(iii) It was recognised that the number of off-sales was likely to be low at the restaurant in comparison with the nearby supermarkets. However, with the current application the premises could be sold to a new owner and off-sales could potentially become more frequent.
The legal adviser reminded the Sub-Committee that if, in future, problems were experienced with the off-sale of alcohol at the premises, the police would be able to apply to the Council to review the licence.
Mr Willan concluded that he did not oppose the application in its entirety but he considered that the off-sales needed to be restricted by limiting the purchases to unfinished bottles.
There being no other interested parties nor the applicant present, and no further summary by Mr Willan, the Sub-Committee retired to consider the application.
It was RESOLVED:
That the application for variation of the premises licence be GRANTED, with the conditions as set out in the decision letter, for the following reasons:
“The Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) did not apply to this premises as it was located outside the Richmond Town Centre CIP area. The premises is close to the CIP, but the Licensing Sub-Committee considered that the grant of the application would have little or no effect in respect of cumulative impact. This premises was a relatively small premises and the off sales proposed would be dependant on customers having enjoyed a meal in the premises, prohibiting wider off sales. It was also noted that the application sought off sales limited to wine only.”
(Full details of the decision and conditions are set out in the decision letter attached.)