The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing. The Panel considered the written papers of the parties submitted, the oral representations of the parties who attended, and the relevant legislation. The hearing was conducted in line with the established hearing procedure.

In presenting their statement, the Applicants advised the Panel that they wanted to licence a storage unit which would be used for the storage of alcohol for internet sales distribution. The application requested the sale of alcohol and opening hours on a 24-hour basis. The premises itself would not be open or accessible to members of the public. It was confirmed by the Applicants that 24-hour access to the storage unit was not possible and that they intended to stock their delivery vans with alcohol so that their drivers would not require access to the storage unit 24 hours a day.  The Applicants therefore invited the Panel to grant the application on the grounds of a) the accessibility of Premises and Equitable Treatment in Licensing Decisions, and b) the adequacy of Public Nuisance Prevention Measures

The Panel then heard from the Licensing and Out of Hours (LOOH) representative, firstly on the grounds of the hours applied for. LOOH expressed concerns that the Applicants’ business would not be able to access the storage unit where the alcohol would be appropriated to a contract. It was highlighted that the Applicants  would not be able to ‘sell alcohol’ on a house to house basis yet that was what their proposed business model would require. The LOOH representative referred the Panel to the Applicant’s representative’s response to his query regarding the hours applied  as set out in the papers for the hearing.

The LOOH representative also advised the Panel that he was not satisfied that the Applicant had taken sufficient steps to demonstrate how they proposed to uphold the licensing objective of the Prevention of Public Nuisance, in particular how they would mitigate against nuisance in relation to noise associated with delivery service to residential addresses/areas. He also reminded the Panel that the whole of the city centre was subject to a Public Space Protection Order. The Applicants had not addressed this point in either in the application or at the hearing. Furthermore, the LOOH representative referred to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (in respect of LASP3 Delivery services (for alcohol and late-night refreshment)) and the Section 182 guidance (paragraph 3.8 and 3.9) which were applicable to the application.

The Panel then heard from the representative from Public Health who stated that hermain concerns centred on the age verification process which risked the Protection From Children from Harm and the Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objectives being undermined. She added that she was satisfied that the Applicants intended to not use third party drivers to deliver their goods and that a Challenge 25 process would be in place. However, the Public Health representative also stated that no assurance had been given regarding measures to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.