Minutes:
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.
The Chair invited each of the Interested Persons to present their case.
Councillor Everett – Borough Councillor
Councillor Everett stated that he had spoken to the Applicant in advance of the Hearing to raised resident concerns. He acknowledged that the applicant had made concessions including the Challenge 25 Policy for deliveries, CCTV and the reduction of the size of the hedge.
He stated that one of the concerns raised by residents was the loss of the GP Surgery, but acknowledged that the premises was unlikely to be brought back into use for this purpose.
He explained that residents were also concerned about the proximity of the schools and underage sales. He acknowledged the Challenge 25 Policy but felt that the close proximity of the premises raised exposure to children.
Councillor Everett commented that there were also high crime levels in this area and another licensed premises in the area could increase this.
Councillor Everett stated that the area did not need another venue selling alcohol as it would add to crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour.
The Chair invited questions to Councillor Everett and the Licensing Service Manager asked if Councillor Everett was aware that ‘need’ was not a matter for Licensing and Councillor Everett confirmed that he was aware.
Councillor Sandell referred to the press coverage and social media relating to this application, which indicated that the premises would be an off licence. She asked Councillor Everett if now, realising that the premises was to be a convenience store, did he still think that the application would have a detrimental impact. Councillor Everett stated that he didn’t realise that the premises would be a One Stop and was happier now that he knew the premises would not be an off licence.
In response to a question from Councillor Ayres, Councillor Everett stated that he was aware that ‘need’ was not a matter for licensing, but asked the Sub-Committee to consider the impact an additional premises in the area could have to the current antisocial behaviour issues.
In response to a question from Councillor Moriarty, Councillor Everett stated that he was satisfied with the condition to limit alcohol to 25% of display space within the store.
Councillor Colwell – Norfolk County Councillor
Councillor Colwell stated that he had received considerable correspondence from residents on this issue and concerns had been reflected on social media. He stated that the premises was on the main through route to the schools and he opposed the application.
He stated that he was pleased that the Applicant and his representative had visited the premises, but Councillor Colwell was local and knew the area well and had seen the issues and problems that had occurred.
Councillor Colwell stated that he was a Domestic Violence Solicitor and was aware of the impact that alcohol could have.
Councillor Colwell explained that in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder Licensing Objective, there was already issues in the area and Fairstead Ward was an area of high deprivation. He was concerned about the proximity of the schools and the history of crime and disorder in the area. Councillor Colwell provided statistics of incidents of reported crime within the area.
Councillor Colwell made reference to comments made by the Local Police Superintendent in the press relating to the impact of drug and alcohol misuse on crime and disorder. Councillor Colwell stated that the Police did as much as they could, and this application would add further pressure on their limited resources.
Councillor Colwell stated that residents were already frightened, and this application would attract drinkers to the area and needed to be refused. He referred to the late-night opening hours, that 25% of display space was still a considerable amount, and that although there was CCTV covering the premises there was a lack of it in the surrounding area.
With regard to the licensing objective protecting children from harm, Councillor Colwell provided detail of the sensitive locations surrounding the premises and that children would be exposed to alcohol and bad behaviour.
Councillor Colwell stated that the existing Morrisons was within the retail area, but this premises was not and was on the thoroughfare to the schools which risked children being exposed. He stated that there were already issues at Morrisons with people being sick outside, broken glass and inebriated.
Councillor Colwell stated that the plan and map within the agenda showed that the premises was located near to the car park which was used for school drop offs and pick ups.
Councillor Colwell also stated that you couldn’t control what people did after they had left the premises, there would be an impact on the public purse and residents needed to be supported.
He also referred to a petition which had been signed by local residents.
The Chair invited questions to Councillor Colwell.
The Licensing Services Manager referred to the petition as this had not been received by the Council. Councillor Colwell commented that the Community Shop had run the petition.
The Licensing Services Manager asked if the crime statistics reported by Councillor Colwell could be broken down to ascertain which incidents were directly related to alcohol. Councillor Colwell stated that he did not have those statistics available, but the website may be able to provide this detail.
The Licensing Services Manager asked if more than one premises in the area was likely to increase the amount of people in the area buying alcohol. Councillor Colwell stated that the issue was about the location as it was not in the main precinct and people couldn’t avoid it on the school run like they could Morrisons.
In response to a question from the Applicant’s Representative, Councillor Colwell explained that the distance from the Applicant’s Premises to the Morrisons store was 30 metres ‘as the crow flies’. The Applicant’s Representative also asked Councillor Colwell if he was aware that the premises would be open for two hours less than Morrisons and Councillor Colwell confirmed that he was aware of the time difference but stated that this application would impact the ability of people being able to avoid crowds and people purchasing alcohol when accessing the car park.
Councillor Sandell asked Councillor Colwell if he had received concerns from residents when the Morrisons opened, and Councillor Colwell stated that this may have occurred prior to him being a Borough Councillor. The Licensing Services Manager confirmed that the application for Morrisons had been received in 2014, which was prior to Councillor Colwell being elected.
In response to a further question from Councillor Sandell, Councillor Colwell commented that the applicant had provided good detail and mitigation measures, but when it came to location it just didn’t feel right.
Councillor Ayres asked if increasing the number of licensed premises in the area would increase the amount of alcohol purchased. Councillor Colwell felt that it wouldn’t, but it could cause issues if someone was refused in the first premises as they could ‘try their luck’ in the second premises.
Councillor Moriarty asked Councillor Colwell for his view on why the Police, as a responsible authority, had not objected to the application. Councillor Colwell felt it may be because resources had not allowed them to and that the office was based in Wymondham, rather than locally. The Licensing Services Manager explained that she had received a response from the local Police to say that they had no representations to make.