The Licensing Act Sub Committee of Cornwall Council was scheduled to convene to discuss a single application for a premises licence. The application has drawn representations from local residents and the police, and the sub-committee was to consider whether to grant the licence with or without changes, or to refuse it.

Here's a breakdown of the key items that were listed on the agenda:

Wing Shed Premises Licence Application

The central item for consideration was the application from EWG St Austell Limited for a new premises licence for the Wing Shed in London Apprentice, St Austell. The application seeks permission to sell alcohol for consumption on and off the premises during the following hours:

• Wednesday and Thursday: 11:00 - 20:30
• Friday and Saturday: 11:00 - 21:30
• Sunday: 11:00 - 20:30

The report pack indicates that the applicant intends to operate a chicken wing restaurant/takeaway with indoor seating and potential outside seating in the summer.

The applicant outlined steps to promote the licensing objectives¹, including:

• General: Frequent training, clear procedures, facilities and materials to log incidents.
• Prevention of crime and disorder: CCTV installation, lighting and visibility, staff training in conflict management, and a refusal of service log.
• Public safety: Fire safety and emergency procedures, safe premises design and maintenance, and compliance with food safety regulations.
• Prevention of public nuisance: Noise management, delivery driver conduct, waste management, and signage for customer behaviour.
• Protection of children from harm: Enforcing a Challenge 25 policy², staff training in age verification, preventing alcohol sales to underage persons, child safeguarding awareness, and maintaining a child-safe environment.

Representations

The application has received representations from both responsible authorities and other persons.

• Responsible Authorities: The police initially raised concerns but subsequently agreed with the applicant to include additional conditions on the premises licence. These conditions relate to staff training, preventing entry to intoxicated individuals, CCTV, and maintaining a notice of authority for staff selling alcohol.
• Other Persons: Eight representations were received from other persons, including Councillor Julie Cunningham. Concerns raised in these representations include:
  • Dangerous parking and traffic congestion
  • Anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance
  • Public safety, particularly for pedestrians
  • Potential harm to children

Alison Taylor, a local resident, expressed concerns about increased antisocial behaviour since the opening of the Wing Shed, including dangerous parking and damage to property. She also raised concerns about customers driving after consuming alcohol.

Hilary Myers, another neighbour, cited inadequate parking and increased traffic as reasons for objecting to the licence. She expressed concern that adding alcohol consumption would exacerbate these problems.

Andy and Tracie Cleverdon also highlighted parking issues, with cars blocking pavements and creating safety hazards. They referenced an incident requiring police and ambulance attendance and expressed fears about drink driving.

Julia Gibbs raised concerns about dangerous parking and the lack of safe crossing points, particularly at night. She also cited potential noise, smell, and disruption for local residents.

Joanne Chambers described issues with inconsiderate parking, making it difficult to walk dogs safely. She also mentioned antisocial noise from customers and employees.

Councillor Julie Cunningham stated she had witnessed dangerous parking and anti-social behaviour. She raised concerns about public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm.

Nigel and Rebecca Parker objected to the licence based on the prevention of public nuisance, the protection of children from harm, and public safety. They cited concerns about noise, anti-social behaviour, and the risk of drink driving.

S Sweet raised concerns about parking congestion, dangerous obstructions on the road, and the potential for increased noise and poor behaviour.

The applicant, responding to these concerns, stated a willingness to address the issues raised and highlighted steps taken to mitigate the impact of the business on the surrounding area. These steps included implementing a pre-order system, communicating with customers about respectful parking, and arranging for signage to discourage poor parking. The applicant also stated that staff would follow responsible alcohol service practices.

Several residents disputed the applicant's claims of community engagement and improvements in parking and noise levels. They provided further details and photographic evidence to support their concerns. Alison Taylor stated that the applicant's statement regarding collaboration with local residents was inaccurate, and that previous attempts to address issues had been met with uncooperative responses. She also challenged the applicant's claims about the cause of a road traffic incident and the effectiveness of measures to prevent dangerous parking.

Hilary Myers stated she had seen no evidence of the applicant wishing to work collaboratively and that the business was already negatively impacting the area. She also questioned how staff would implement responsible alcohol service practices.