Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for (A.V Wholesale), 47 Goulston Street, London E1 7TP
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for A. V. Wholesale, 47 Goulston Street, London, E1 7TP. The application sought authorisation for the sale by retail of alcohol from 10:30 hours to 20:30 hours seven days per week with the same opening hours as the hours applied for licensable activity. It was noted that representations were received by the Licensing Authority, two residents association and individual residents. Objections made, had reference to the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone and issues of public nuisance.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Abbie Kumar, Applicant explained that the company’s main business was the wholesale of cigarettes and household goods. He explained that if a licence was to be granted, they would sell alcoholic beverages ranging from different brands and different types which would not be readily available elsewhere. He stated that these alcoholic drinks would mainly be for special occasions and to be consumed at home with family and friends and not to be consumed on the streets.
Mr. Kumar said that the objections related to late night nuisance and he did not consider that to be the case as the Premises had moderate opening hours and closed early. It was also noted that they did not often open on Saturdays but if they did, it would usually be open until 13:00 or 14:00 hours.
The Sub Committee then heard from Ms. Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer, she referred to her representation contained in the agenda pack and acknowledged that the hours applied for, were within the Council’s framework hours, however the application had made no mention of the CIZ or the issues that existed in the area in their application.
She stated that the applicant had mentioned at the meeting that the alcohol to be sold was not an “everyday” product, but this had not been mentioned in the application. It was also noted that there were some confusion over whether the alcohol was being bought in bulk for wholesale purchase or by retail? It was noted that the applicant had agreed to the Licensing Authority’s suggested conditions, if the licence were to be granted, but that did not alleviate the concerns regarding the CIZ.
The Sub-Committee also heard from Mr. Lloyd on behalf of SPIRE and Mr Yekub Miah, a local resident. He explained that the Premises was located in a hotspot for anti-social behaviour (ASB). The business was the wholesale of cigarettes and selling alcohol would change that and attract and cause ASB. He also expressed concern over the fact that there was no control over the type of alcohol being sold or where it would be consumed. That the premises was in close proximity to residential dwellings and therefore an increase in footfall would increase noise nuisance.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- Mr. Kumar confirmed that that alcohol would be sale by retail and not as wholesale.
- Mr. Kumar stated that a benefit for granting this application would help to keep people calm by allowing them to purchase alcohol for their home as well as to help promote multi-culturalism.
- That there were no nearby off-licences and so prices in the area were inflated and by granting this licence this would encourage competition and better prices.
- That staff had the right to refuse sales if in doubt or had concerns and that they had experience of both the business and the area and Mr Kumar did not think they would negatively add to the existing issues of public nuisance.
- That they did not intend to compete on the prices of cans with local providers such as Sainsburys in Bell Lane, rather, the intention was to do so with bottles.
Concluding remarks were made by all parties.
DECISION
The Sub-Committee considered an application by AV Kakker Wholesale Ltd. for a new premises licence to be held in respect of A. V. Wholesale, 47 Goulston Street, London, E1 7TP (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the sale by retail of alcohol from 10:30 hours to 20:30 hours seven days per week. The opening hours of the premises were the same as the hours for licensable activity.
The application received objections against it from a number of local residents, two residents’ associations, and the Licensing Authority. The representations made reference to the Premises’ location within the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate how they would avoid adding to the problems of over-saturation of licensed premises within the CIZ, particularly with respect to public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee heard from Abbie Kumar on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the company’s main business is wholesale of cigarettes and household goods. The intention with alcohol sales was to import hard-to-find products. The area was a diverse and multi-cultural one and the intention was to give people that taste of home. It was not intended that these would be items that people would drink on the street and it was suggested that they would be “showpiece” items.
Mr. Kumar did not consider that there would be any noise impact as the Premises would be closing early. In addition, their Saturday hours were flexible. They did not often open on a Saturday, but, if they did, it would usually only be to around 13:00 or 14:00 hours.
Ms. Miller-Johnson addressed the Sub-Committee with respect to her representation. The application had made no mention of the CIZ or the issues that existed there. The applicant had mentioned that the alcohol to be sold was not an “everyday” product, but that had not been mentioned in the application. There was also some confusion over whether the alcohol was being bought in bulk for wholesale. She noted that Mr. Kumar had agreed to her suggested conditions, if the licence were to be granted, but that did not allay her concerns. Mr. Kumar later, following a query from the Legal Adviser, confirmed that that alcohol would be by retail. Our Legal Adviser informed us that the Licensing Act 2003 excluded wholesale of alcohol from the need to be authorised by way of a premises licence.
Christopher Lloyd of SPIRE addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of SPIRE and some of the local residents. He informed the Sub-Committee that the Premises are located in a hotspot for anti-social behaviour (ASB). The business was the wholesale of cigarettes and selling alcohol would change that. He also expressed concern over the fact that there was no control over the type of alcohol being sold or where it would be consumed.
During questions from Members, Mr. Kumar suggested that there would be a benefit in that it would help to keep people calm by allowing them to obtain alcohol from their home as well as to help promote multi-culturalism. Further, there were no nearby off-licences and so prices in the area were inflated. Granting this licence would therefore encourage competition. When asked how he would avoid adding to ASB in the area, Mr. Kumar stated that they had the right to refuse sales and that they had experience of both the business and the area and they did not think they would add to that. Their immediate neighbours were relatives and since returning to the area a few months ago they had not noticed any ASB and that the only incident of disorder they had seen had been between market traders. In addition, they did not intend to compete on the prices of cans; rather, the intention was to do so with bottles.
The objectors were asked for their views on the applicant’s reasons why the licence could be granted. Mr. Lloyd pointed out that the applicant clearly wished to compete with other off-licences, which was wholly contrary to the point of the CIZ. Randall Thiel, whose representation appeared at Appendix 12, addressed the ASB issues. Ms. Miller-Johnson echoed Mr. Lloyd’s concerns.
This application engages the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The Sub-Committee had read and considered all of the representations and listened to the oral submissions. The Premises are in a CIZ and the onus is therefore on the applicant to rebut the presumption in favour of refusal. The policy is intended to be strictly applied (Paragraph 7 of the Cumulative Impact Assessments) and that the applicant needs to demonstrate that they will be exceptional. The Policy gives examples of premises which might (not will) be considered exceptional, such as operating within framework hours and not being alcohol-led.
This application was within framework hours. It appeared to be ancillary to the main business of tobacco wholesale. However, if granted there would be nothing to stop that changing in the future. The Sub-Committee was told that the intention was to sell “showpieces” but was given no examples of this or of the prices. Further, this appeared to be contradicted by the applicant’s suggestion that it would allow for more competition. If the intention was to sell hard-to-find alcohol, it is hard to see how this would affect pricing of common products. In the absence of anything to support the applicant’s assertion, the Sub-Committee found it more likely than not that the Premises would be seeking to compete on prices of bottles, whether beers or lagers or spirits, and of products that could be or were similar to those found elsewhere. That could drive prices down and a likely effect of that is that people would purchase alcohol from the Premises to drink on the street within the CIZ and not, as suggested by the applicant, in the comfort of their home. That gave rise to an almost inevitable conclusion that there would be impact on the CIZ. Even though the Premises would be closed by 20:30 hours, the people purchasing alcohol from it might well be in the CIZ for a considerable time thereafter.
The Sub-Committee noted the reference in some of the representations to nearby hostels for people with addiction and substance abuse issues. The application did not appear to take that into account nor did it consider the potential for those persons to seek to purchase cheaper alcohol from these Premises or others as a result of the applicant’s intention to bring more competition.
The Sub-Committee also considered it highly unrealistic of the applicant to suggest that the option to purchase hard-to-find alcohol to give people a taste of home would have a calming effect or add greater harmony to the area.
The Sub-Committee was also concerned by the applicant’s apparent lack of appreciation of the area in which they intended to operate. Whilst the application is not required to specifically mention the CIZ, doing so certainly makes clear to the Sub-Committee that it has been considered. However, the operating schedule was wholly inadequate and suggested to the Sub-Committee that no appreciation or thought had been given to the CIZ or the Premises’ potential impact on it.
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had rebutted the presumption against refusal of the application. It considered that the application, if granted, was more likely than not to adversely impact the CIZ by adding to the existing nuisance, ASB and crime and disorder issues already prevalent in the area. The application is therefore refused.
RESOLVED
That the application for a new premises licence for A. V Wholesale, 47 Goulston Street, London E1 7TP be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- A V Wholesale cover report - 12 Mar 24, item 4.2 PDF 358 KB
- A V Wholesale Appendices Only - 12 Mar 24, item 4.2 PDF 11 MB