Earlier this month, Kingston Council granted permission for the owner of Carbonite Drinks Ltd. to store the rum he sells on his company's website in his home garage in Northweald Lane, Kingston.
The company's owner, David John Hughes, submitted the application to store rum from Panama in his home in February.
In his application form, Hughes writes: "The premises consist of a small garage located within a residential property, used exclusively for the storage of pre-bottled rum intended for online retail.
"No production or manufacturing of alcohol takes place on-site, with activities limited to the secure storage and occasional dispatch of orders."
"The premises are not open to the public, and no customers visit the site."
Previously, the rum had been stored in a bonded warehouse in Scotland.
Following the application submission, some 106 nearby addresses were informed that an application had been received.
However, 11 "Other Persons" responded to this news, expressing their anxieties about how approval of this application might cause crime and disorder and public nuisance in the local area.
In response to this, all Representation was forwarded to the Council's Trading Standards Officer in relation to the protection of children from harm licensing objective.
Following negotiation, the applicant addressed such concerns by making amendments to the operating schedule.
In light of these amendments, the concerns raised by the Council's Trading Standards Officer were satisfied and the representation was withdrawn.
Hughes also purchased fireproof cabinets and installed smoke detectors.
The garage doors were all locked (one half did not open) and he had cameras, floodlights and ring cameras in place.
He also vowed never to have more than four cases in stock at one time and that he agrees to have "heavy stipulations or appropriate conditions" put in place as to what he could do.
He said he had no intention of running a pub from the premises.
The sale of alcohol is to fulfil online sales only and Hughes will personally deliver all purchased items to his customers.
In a meeting of the council's Licensing Sub-Committee earlier this month, the committee heard submissions from four Other Persons who had submitted Representations against the application.
The first Other Person pointed out that there was a Restrictive Covenant on the property registered in the title deeds to each property in the Estate prohibiting non-residential use.
She also confirmed that residents had had a lot of problems with the tenants of a home in Kestrel Close in the social housing development nearby involving anti-social behaviour resulting in a recent eviction.
It was suggested that the storage of alcohol on this site would be a treasure trove for the people who had caused the trouble in Kestrel Close.
She had not personally experienced those people, but others had.
She was concerned about children playing and making their way to the garage.
She thought the property was 'under probate'. She was concerned about the experiences others had had with such residents.
The second Other Person's main concern was that expensive bottles of alcohol would be stored in a garage, and it would not be long before thieves would break in.
He was concerned about the potential for crime.
The third Other Person repeated what the first two had said and expressed concern about children coming from Kestrel Close.
She did not want any more issues and wondered why the applicant did not store the alcohol at the local Big Yellow Storage unit.
She was very concerned about the discomfort this application was causing neighbours.
She was concerned residents on their roads would be targeted.
She noted that Councillor Chohan had come down to see the problems at Kestrel Close and the residents involved had only recently been evicted.
The fourth Other Person echoed what had been said previously and told the Licensing Sub-Committee of anti-social issues they had had, arising from residents in two properties at Kestrel Close.
She asked why the applicant could not use Big Yellow storage which was close by and temperature-controlled.
She asked why the applicant wanted to store alcohol in a purely residential area near where children played, breaking the rules of the estate and stated her concerns over storage and security.
In response to questions from the Licensing Sub-Committee, the Other Persons advised the Licensing Sub-Committee that there had been a drug den in Kestrel Close.
The police had been called to it numerous times.
After much intimidation and harassment by the tenant and their friends, the tenants of the property had been served with an eviction order and the tenant had now been removed.
In their closing statement, the Other Persons addressed the estate's Restrictive Covenant, extensive ring videos of teenagers trying doors with a view to steal, and their view that the garage was not fit for the proposed purpose, and neighbours' unhappiness with the application.
They felt it was trouble waiting to happen.
In his closing statement, Hughes expressed concern that the Other Persons felt the way they did.
He said that if there was serious trouble and the police were called, he would shut it down. He noted his neighbours did not have a problem with the licence application and further that no one had spoken to him about the covenant.
He felt he was being vilified by the Other Persons and invited them to come and speak to him.
He had not considered Big Yellow storage but noted it was expensive, and his profit margins were low and by his calculation would wipe out any profit he may make from selling his carbonite own label rum.
He worked in the security industry and his garage was very secure and had been made more secure following the comments in the Representations.
He would ensure he protected his family and if there was any problem he would close the business.
He stated he was happy to accept any stipulations or conditions imposed on him by the Licensing Sub-Committee.
At this meeting, the Licensing Sub-Committee approved Hughes' application.
It noted that representation had been received from the Council's Trading Standards Officer in relation to the protection of children from harm licensing objective.
It also noted that the applicant had agreed to the Trading Standards conditions and that, as a result of their withdrawal, there was no outstanding Representation from any Responsible Authority.
This meant that the Responsible Authorities were not objecting to the application.
Moreover, the Licensing Sub-Committee took into account all the relevant written and oral representations from all 11 Other Persons which raised concerns relating to the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives.
You can watch the full meeting here.
