Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for Faizah Mini Market, 2 Old Montague Street, London E1 5NG
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Faizah Mini-Market, 2 Old Montague Street, London E1 5NG. It was noted that objections had been received by the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohammed Chowdhury, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant explained that a similar application was submitted last year which was refused by a Licensing Sub Committee due to the lack of consultation with the Police and local hostels nearby. He then referred to pages 57-61 of the agenda, copies of correspondences that were sent to responsible authorities and local hostels consulting them on the application proposed. Mr Chowdhury said that they had only received a response from the Police who suggested conditions which have been accepted. He referred Members to page 50-51 of the agenda and said that the premises would have no impact on the cumulative impact zone (CIZ) and his basis for this was the fact that crime statistics were lower in 2012 prior to the CIZ being introduced compared to 2015 where the levels were higher and the CIZ had been in place.
It was noted that the hours had been reduced to the Council’s Framework Hours due to concerns from Environmental Health. It was further noted that local residents had signed petition letters expressing their support for the application. Mr Chowdhury concluded that the applicant was a responsible and experienced man and would maintain and uphold the licensing objectives.
Members then heard from Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer. He explained that his objection was based on the fact that the premises was in the CIZ and reducing the hours to the Council’s framework hours did not automatically mean an application would be granted. It was based on evidence and despite the slightly reduced hours, the licensing objectives would still be undermined.
Mr Ali stated that there were no complaints against the premises but that was because there was currently no licence in place. He suggested that the applicant could have applied for Temporary Event Notices to demonstrate they could run licensable activities without adding to the cumulative impact before applying for a licence. He concluded by explaining that business need and customer demand were not licensing considerations, and therefore the petition signed by customers should be given little or no weight when making the decision.
Members also heard from Ms Nicola Cadzow who expressed similar concerns to Mr Ali. She acknowledged the applicant’s willingness to reduce hours, but mentioned that the Applicant had not contacted her about what measures would be in place to address public nuisance, especially noise disturbance, and therefore she was not satisfied with the operating schedule.
In response to questions the following was noted;
1. That the applicant had accepted conditions suggested by the Police
2. That the local hostels, had been contacted but have had no response back from them.
3. That the application was for off sales only.
4. That the appropriate consultation was made to all interested parties.
5. That there were no objections from the Police or local residents.
6. That CCTV cameras would be installed, there would be a challenge 25 policy in place, they would maintain an incident log, display notices and would not serve to intoxicated persons.
7. That the applicant was responsible, had taken sufficient steps to promote the licensing objectives, undertook consultation, accepted police conditions and reduced the hours.
8. That the applicant was unable to explain what exceptional steps would be taken to promote the licensing objectives.
Members adjourned again at 8.15pm for deliberations and reconvened at 8.40pm.
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;
- The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm.
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merits. The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and the oral representations from the Applicant’s Legal Representative and the Officers from Responsible Authorities objecting to the application, with particular regard to all four licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ), and so, the effect of a premises subject to a licensing application being in a CIZ is that there is a rebuttable presumption that where relevant representations are received by one or more of the responsible authorities and/or other persons objecting to the application, the application will be refused.
The Sub-Committee noted that under the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Applicant can rebut the above presumption if they can demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives by not adding to the cumulative impact of licensed premises already in the CIZ.
The Sub-Committee considered that the onus lay upon the applicant to show through their operating schedule, with appropriate supporting evidence that the operation of the premises, if licensed, would not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.
The Sub-Committee noted the representations from the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health regarding the impact of the premises on the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and concerns relating to the existing levels of public nuisance and anti-social behaviour in the area.
The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s representation that the hours originally applied for had been reduced to fall in line with the Council’s framework hours and the premises licence if granted, would be mitigated by conditions proposed and any conditions that would be agreed. However, the Sub Committee was concerned that this in itself did not address how the grant of a premises licence within the CIZ would not add to the cumulative impact of the number, type and density of licensed premises already in the area with regard to prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder. The Sub-Committee therefore considered that it had not heard enough evidence that rebutted the presumption against granting any further premises licence within the CIZ. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the operating schedule as presented at the Sub-Committee meeting met the requirement to uphold the licensing objectives in the CIZ.
Members also expressed concerns about the lack of clarity from the Applicant’s Representative when the questioned about the application, which did not satisfy the Sub-Committee that the applicant understood what was needed to seek to rebut the presumption against granting any further premises licence within the CIZ.
The Sub Committee was therefore not satisfied with the application and were of the view that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption against granting a premises licence for a premises situated in a cumulative impact zone, in that the applicant failed to demonstrate how they would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives by adding to the cumulative impact in the area.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Faizah Mini-Market, 2 Old Montague Road, London E1 5NG be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- Faizah Mini Market - cover report, item 3.1 PDF 253 KB
- Faizah Mini Market Appendices Only, item 3.1 PDF 14 MB