Agenda item

The Chair thanked everyone for attending the meeting online due to recent severe weather conditions making travelling difficult.

 

The meeting was a hearing under the Licensing Act 2003.

 

The Chair introduced the members of the Sub Committee and the Officers present.

 

The Sub Committee’s Legal Advisor, Giles Salter, outlined the procedure for the meeting.

 

The Sub Committee considered the application for the grant of a new premises licence for the supply of alcohol to be consumed OFF the premises at Stranger Tides Brew Co., The Store/The Workshop, Little Bicton Place, Exmouth EX8 2SS.

 

The applicant, present and entitled to make representations, was Mr Connor Hawkins, accompanied by Mr Mike Prudence.

 

Also present, and entitled to make representations were Mrs Jane Urquhart, Mr Steve Murray and Mr Paul Turner.

 

The Licensing Manager summarised the application and made the following points regarding the report:

·        The premises was on a narrow street with parking restrictions and street views had been included with the report;

·        Clarification on parking restrictions had been received from Devon County Council since the report was published; loading was permitted and stationary vehicles should not cause an obstruction;

·        A letter from the Local Planning Authority had been included at Appendix D regarding planning permission and use class for the property;

·        The agreed position reached with the Police was included at Appendix E of the report;

·        The applicant had attempted mediation and correspondence was included at Appendix I.

 

Responses to questions for the Licensing Manager from Councillors included the following points:

·        The applicant had acknowledged the concerns regarding parking raised in the representations and had addressed this issue in the letter included at Appendix I;

·        The Highways Authority could be asked to provide further clarification on parking restrictions if needed.

 

There were no questions for the Licensing Manager from the applicant or from the interested persons.

 

The applicant, Mr Hawkins, made his case for the application and highlighted the following:

·        A letter of support from local residents, with 18 signatures, had been received by the applicant;

·        A nano brewery required the smallest level of brewing kit and the brewing of small batch, high quality artisan beer would be done by hand with as many components sourced as locally as possible;

·        The focus of the business was off sales and online sales, including local outlets;

·        The applicant, with 8 years of brewing experience, was unable to take on the cost of a retail premises;

·        The premises at Little Bicton Court was too small to accommodate future growth and the applicant would move should the business grow and require more space;

·        The applicant had contacted the nearby school, and no reply had been received;

·        It was noted that there was no legal minimum distance between a school and a premises producing or selling alcohol;

·        The hours applied for also needed to include the applicant’s time for making deliveries;

·        The premises would not be a shop, but customers could collect in person;

·        No drinking would be permitted on site and CCTV would be in operation both inside and outside the premises;

·        Parents picking up children from the nearby school frequently caused obstructions in the road;

·        The business would mainly focus on trade customers.

 

Councillors put questions to the applicant and the applicant’s responses included the following:

·        Regarding the likely number of deliveries and collections to the premises, the applicant was happy to move boxes to and from nearby Rolle Street in order to minimise any disruption due to loading and unloading;

·        Should any issues occur with odour from the brewing process, the applicant could install a condensing chimney;

·        The applicant anticipated that the main delivery day to local trade outlets would be a Friday. Collections for online sales would be booked in for one day a week. Delivery of ingredients would be approximately once every two months;

·        A local farmer would take waste from the business which would either be collected or delivered by the applicant;

·        The applicant would not charge for local deliveries and there would be no incentive for customers to collect from the premises;

·        The large wooden door opened inwards so did not cause an obstruction on the street outside;

·        There would be minimal noise from the process;

·        Waste from the business would be recycled or reused wherever possible;

·        The applicant had met with residents from the flats next door who would contact him in the event of an issue with odour or noise;

·        The legal advisor clarified that obstructing the road could be lawful, provided that it was for a reasonable time and was not excessive or done with intent.

 

The interested persons put questions to the applicant. Questions and the responses included the following points:

·        An interested person highlighted a case which was considered and refused by the Secretary of State regarding the use of a class E premises for a nano brewery. The interested person queried whether the Local Planning Authority had been aware of the case;

·        The legal advisor advised that a premises could be licensed whether or not planning permission was in place as these were separate processes;

·        The applicant was applying for longer hours under the licence so as to include local delivery times and to future proof himself as he grew the business;

·        The licensed hours referred to the times of day when the sale is appropriated to the contract. The licensed hours cover the picking, packing and distribution from the premises which holds a premises licence.

 

The interested persons made their case.

 

Mrs Urquhart’s objections to the application included the following points:

·        An ambulance was often parked in the layby on Little Bicton Court;

·        The road was inappropriate for the business due to being narrow and with garage doors opening onto it;

·        The parking restrictions were already being misused;

·        Other roads would be more suitable for a light industrial premises and the applicant had chosen the wrong road due to the difficulties already discussed.

 

In response to questions from Councillors and from the applicant, Mrs Urquhart reiterated that the road was inappropriate for a business producing and selling alcohol due to the long hours and with no guarantee that delivery vehicles would park in nearby Rolle Street. There was a risk that alcohol would be consumed outside the premises.

 

The applicant noted that a licence would not be necessary for a business such as a greengrocers.

 

The legal advisor advised that the applicant was under obligation to prevent the consumption of alcohol immediately outside the premises, but that this reduced further from the premises when it would become a matter for the Police. A licence review could be sought in the event of issues arising.

 

Mr Turner expressed support for Mrs Urquhart’s objections and strongly objected to the application on the grounds that the location was completely unsuitable for this type of business. A review of the licence could be undertaken, but only if problems were already being experienced.

 

Mr Murray was of the view that the number and frequency of deliveries would not be a problem. It would be unlikely that customers would consume beer immediately outside the premises as bottle conditioned beer had to settle for 24 hours before consumption. Local people would either be able to collect or have free local delivery.

 

There were no questions from Councillors or the applicant for Mr Turner and Mr Murray.

 

The applicant made his closing statement and thanked everyone for participating and discussing the application. Artisan beer had a different customer base from mass produced, cheaper products. The applicant’s product was small scale and more expensive. The application was supported by the owner of the building.

 

The Chair thanked everyone for attending given the short notice of changing the meeting to online due to the weather conditions. In response to a question from the Chair, those participating confirmed that they had no further questions or points to raise.

 

The Chair advised that the Sub Committee’s decision would be notified to all within five working days.