A bid to sell alcohol a food van next to a homeless shelter has been refused.

The owner of a food van, operating in the beer garden of the former Dolbadarn Hotel (Gwesty Dolbadarn), Llanberis wanted to vary a licence to allow alcohol to be sold, but only with food.

Sarah Hopwood, for the applicant, said the proposal was for a “family friendly'” scheme with tables set out in the garden – and open until 10pm.

No alcohol would be served without food and groups would not have access.

She stated the application could help “control” use of the beer garden which residents of the former hotel were entitled to use, amid complaints from neighbours about “anti-social” behaviour in the area.

The application however was opposed by Public Health Wales and the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, over fears around the sale of alcohol next to a building that houses “vulnerable” homeless people.

Cyngor Gwynedd’s central licensing sub-committee considered the application in September and published the reasons why it refused the application recently.

The committee was told in a report that local residents had objected, referring to “anti-social behaviour issues, that included the hotel’s residents convening to drink”. Concerns were also raised for “the welfare of people staying in the hotel with alcohol dependency issues” as the “availability of alcohol at the premises would increase temptation,” if alcohol was allowed to be sold at the site of the former beer garden.

Councillors also heard that “the police and the ambulance service were often called to the hotel” and that there was a lack of CCTV provision and poor lighting that could “increase the likelihood of criminal activity and disorder”.

Ms Hopwood stated: “Although she sold food and offered a place for customers to sit in the garden of Gwesty Dolbadarn, the public could buy alcohol from a nearby shop or pub and drink that in the garden.”

She had “understood” the concerns and welfare of nearby residents, but noted that the hotel residents were entitled to use the garden.

“Although it was a difficult situation, it was not her responsibility to say no, but she could refuse to serve alcohol to them.”

The application was also “intended to make the area safe with better lighting, CCTV and toilets.”

In response to complaints about noise, they had operated under TENS (temporary events notices arrangements) for 21 days, and “no issues had arisen,” and a “noise control scheme had been drawn-up.”

The sub-committee said that while it “understood the reasoning” behind the application, that getting a licence to sell alcohol on the site would be a means to prevent people from bringing alcohol from other places and control the types of alcohol.

“However, it had to be borne in mind that the site was in private ownership and as the owner and licence holder the applicant (Ms Hopwood) had a responsibility to manage the site responsibly…”

But the sub-committee refused the application to ‘vary the premises licence’ due to “insufficient regulation measures to comply with licensing objectives.” In reaching its decision, the committee had felt comments by health body’s were “significant.”

Quoting Public Health Wales, the report stated that homeless and other persons who resided in the hotel were “vulnerable” and providing alcohol would create “a very challenging situation to those who had left hospital with complex mental health requirements and problems relating to alcohol and/or other substances.

“Homeless persons used alcohol as a coping mechanism; that the homeless population had more cases of health problems than the general population. Where a licensed premises was being used as temporary accommodation – this could lead to a rapid deterioration in mental condition leading to hospital admission,” the report stated.

Concern was also expressed over “how preventing residents from buying alcohol would be managed.” North Wales Police had not objected to the application; but required “amendments to the present licence conditions”.

“The Public Health Service, and Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board had submitted observations to oppose ‘in the context of the licensing aims, to protect children from harm and public safety and risks associated with the sale of alcohol close to a property that provided temporary accommodation to homeless persons’.”

The Planning Service had also objected due to “insufficient information”. “The sub-committee had considered the practicality of keeping the site under control as the applicant intended while the caravan was in operation,” the report stated.

But the sub-committee had “not been persuaded that it would be possible to sufficiently manage the site taking into consideration the open and public nature of the site, and the number of staff who would be present at any time. “Neither would it be practical for staff to be able to identify all the hotel’s temporary residents to differentiate them from other customers and to refuse serving them.”

“The specific use made of the hotel and the vulnerable nature of the residents meant that this could exacerbate the situation.”

After considering the application, the sub-committee resolved to refuse the application.