Agenda item
Licensing Act 2003 Application for Variation of a Premises Licence for Angel Convenience, 23 Roman Road, London E2 0HU
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer introduced the report, which detailed the application for a variation of a premises licence for Angel Convenience, 23 Roman Road, London E2 0HU. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of the Licensing Authority, Trading Standards, the Metropolitan Police and local residents.
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Graham Hopkins, the Applicant’s Licensing Representative who firstly put forward amendments to the proposed opening times announcing a reduction of one hour to the proposed times as stipulated on page 108 of the agenda. Mr Hopkins stated the application before the Sub-Committee was in view of the Late Night Levy introduced earlier in the year as well as for the viability of the business. Referring to the objections from the Police at Appendix 7, Mr Hopkins stated that the requirement was for the CCTV to be operational and his clients CCTV was operational, albeit that the Applicant was unable to download the images from the system onto a USB stick. He said his client was unfamiliar with the equipment which had recently been upgraded with a new hard drive. Mr Hopkins stated he had viewed the footage from which it is clear the young person ran into the shop. However, the young person was not known to the Applicant or staff of the convenience store and was thrown out. Mr Hopkins stated the young person in question is barred from the premises and the back door is now closed.
Mr Hopkins made reference to the twenty two enforcement visits made by the Trading Standards team as documented on pages 161 and 162 of the agenda pack. He said that of those visits over five years, only four complaints had been made. Mr Hopkins said his client accepted the non-compliance of 21st May 2014 and 4th July 2015, but disputed the non-compliance of 9th October 2013 and 15th May 2018. With respect to the 9th October 2013 non-compliance, the Applicant stated the two open packets of cigarettes found behind the counter belonged to staff members and single cigarettes were not being sold to under-age young people. With regard to the 15th May 2018, the sale of alcohol was inadvertently sold, as the clock was behind the cashier rather than in front. Mr Hopkins said he had advised the Applicant Mr Alahi to move the clock onto the wall in front so the cashier had a clear view of the time. Mr Hopkins said that of the twenty two visits, seventeen were compliant.
Regarding the representations made by residents, Mr Hopkins said no photographic evidence had been provided and there had been no complaints to the Local Authority or responsible authorities. Mr Hopkins said his client Mr Alahi totally refuted the allegation of drug selling and/or drug use. The Applicant had taken remedial action and has installed a CCTV camera outside the shop as well as displayed a phone number in the shop window, for residents to contact should they need to.
Mr Hopkins stated that should the Sub-Committee be minded to grant the application, a set of amended conditions were being proposed.
At the request of the Chair, the Sub-Committee heard from the objectors. Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, PC Mark Perry for the Metropolitan Police, Mr Kevin Maple for Trading Standards and Ms Charlotte Boden on behalf of Tracy Barbe for Globe Town residents.
Ms Driver referred Members to the non- compliance of 15th May 2018 page 162 and the incidents referred to in Appendix 9 at page 166 – those of 5th May 2018 and 19th January 2013. Ms Driver pointed out to the Sub-Committee that the non-compliances were not a minute or five minutes past the hour but a total of forty one minutes on the 5th May 2018 and twenty minutes on the 19th January 2013. On the 9th June 2018, the officer conducting the test purchase was allowed to walk into the shop and pick up a bottle of alcohol before being told a sale could not take place. Ms Driver said the Applicant did not keep the alcohol covered at all times after hours and was selling to known customers As recently as to the 17th August 2018, complaints from residents were being received.
Mr Maple explained that it was a common defence to state the cigarettes belonged to staff when in actual fact single cigarettes are being sold to young people. He said the chargers that were seized on the 21st May 2014 were unsafe and if sold to potential customers could have caught fire or exploded without warning. Mr Maple said the ‘inadvertent’ sale of the 15th May 2018 was a sale which took place after the permitted hours. Further test purchases undertaken by a Police Cadet resulted in the positive sale of cigarettes on the 8th April 2017. Mr Maple stated a test purchase in August 2017 was aborted with the cashier stating “I cannot give you cigarettes, you’re not a regular and are not on the list.”
PC Mark Perry stated the evidence from the Trading Standards made it clear there was no managerial control at the premises, with a total disregard for the legal requirement for selling alcohol and tobacco. He said they had undermined the licensing objectives. PC Perry referred Members to page 158 of the agenda and the incident which took place on the 4th June 2018. He said despite the incident taking place outside the shop, no effort was made by the Applicant or staff to report the anti-social behaviour or indeed help the victim. PC Perry stated it was clear groups of young people, known to the Applicant hung around outside the shop. PC Perry stated this was further supported by the resident’s evidence on page 173, second paragraph. He said this was a flagrant breach of the licence and was having a negative impact on the community.
This view was further endorsed by Ms Boden on behalf of the residents of Globe Town. She said the anti-social behaviour was having a negative impact and she did not think the premises should be permitted to open later in the night, when there were other providers in the area such as Tesco which was two minutes away.
In response to questions from members the following was noted:
- That it was a common defence to state cigarettes belonged to staff rather than admit they were being sold as single cigarette sales to under-age young people.
- That stating the CCTV was operational does not satisfy the condition to provide CCTV footage when asked for by the Police. To provide the evidence two months after the incident is unacceptable.
- The Applicant was asked if he thought it was acceptable to sell alcohol and cigarettes to under-age young people, to which he responded that it was harmful.
- The Applicant was asked how he could be trusted to adhere to the licensing conditions in view of the breaches evidenced. The Applicant stated he was better informed of the licensing conditions and would adhere to these.
The Applicants representative did not make any further remarks. PC Perry on behalf of the objectors stated that the Sub-Committee should satisfy themselves if the Applicant could be trusted to abide to the licensing conditions in light of the evidence before them.
Members adjourned the meeting at 21:21 hours for deliberations and reconvened at 21:56 hours.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licencing objectives:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merit. The Sub Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and considered written and verbal representation from the applicant, the Licensing Authority and the objectors with particular regard to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, the protection of children from harm and the prevention of crime and disorder.
In reaching their decision, Members noted the previous breaches of conditions, the selling of alcohol after the permitted hours, the sale of cigarettes to under-age children and the premises staying open beyond its licenced hours, as documented by the evidence provided by the Responsible Authorities. In particular Members were concerned about the incident which took place on the 4th June 2018, outside the premises as set out on pages158 and 159 of the agenda report. In that regard, Members were concerned about the Applicants slow response in providing CCTV evidence to the police and the lack of concern about seeking to prevent anti-social behaviour outside the premises.
Whilst the Sub-Committee appreciated the Applicants desire to extend the licensable hours for the business, and noted his reassurances that he would comply with the licencing conditions and objectives, Members had no confidence that if the additional hours sought were granted, the Applicant would not again fail to comply with the conditions of the premises licence and uphold the licensing objectives. Members considered that on the balance of probabilities, the concerns raised by both the Responsible Authorities and residents in their evidence showed the Applicant could not be trusted to keep to the existing licensed hours, nor to comply with the conditions of the existing premises licence if this current application were to be granted.
Members were not satisfied that the Applicant had shown he could be trusted to uphold the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the protection of children from harm and the prevention of public nuisance from the evidence of the Police, Trading Standards and the Licensing Authority in both their oral representations in the meeting and in their written representations of residents in the agenda report.
In reaching their decision, Members applied the civil burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.
Members reached a unanimous decision to refuse the application.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application for a variation of a Premises Licence for Angel Convenience, 23 Roman Road, London E2 0HU be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- RomanRd23, item 3.2 PDF 100 KB
- RomanRd23.APPENDIX.Redacted, item 3.2 PDF 2 MB
- re; Angel convenience store 23 Roman Road E2 0HT_Redacted, item 3.2 PDF 14 KB
- re Angel convenience store_Redacted, item 3.2 PDF 13 KB