Agenda item
Application for a Premises Licence for (Shop) 36 Toynbee Street, London E1 7NE
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 36 Toynbee Street, London E1 7NE. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of two Responsible Authorities, the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
Mr Emanuel Xureb, Applicant, explained that he had been in the drinks trade all his life and had a lot of experience in operating a licensed premises. He explained that the premises was not open yet and if a licence was granted he would sell quality wines and delicatessen food. He would be offering something different from the local supermarkets.
Mr Xureb said that he would be selling premium selected and outsourced wines from Europe, South America, and from small individual farmers across Europe to get unique flavours not on available on the high street. Mr Xureb said that he did not mind reducing the hours of operation. He stated that he would look to employ local people and train young staff. He wanted to start a good business and make it look nice.
Members then heard from Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer, who confirmed that the premises was in the CIZ. Ms Cadzow shared the concerns of Ms Driver in that there was insufficient information in the application to rebut the CIZ policy. She stated that if Members were minded to grant the application then additional conditions would be needed to promote the licensing objectives.
Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, explained that her objection was on the basis of public nuisance. She acknowledged that the hours were within the framework hours but noted that the application did not address the impact of the premises on the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ). She confirmed that the onus lay on the applicant to demonstrate how the premises would not negatively impact the area and the residents living in close proximity to the premises. She stated the premises plans did not show where alcohol would be stored and, in general, the application failed to adequately address the licensing objectives.
In response to questions the following was noted:
- The applicant would be selling premium wines at affordable prices.
- The applicant was happy to reduce the hours applied for.
- CCTV cameras would be installed at the premises in agreement with the Police.
- All spirits would be kept behind the counter in a glass cabinet.
- The store would be selling wines, spirits, craft beers, soft drinks, water etc.
- The applicant stated that no children under 16 years old would be served alcohol. When questioned further, he confirmed that he was unsure about the legal age to sell alcohol in the UK. He thought it was 16 years old but stated that he had got confused.
- The applicant was previously unaware that the premises was in the CIZ.
- The applicant presumed the issues in the area were under control.
- The applicant would employ door staff if the premises was having issues. He would also install a buzzer to let customers in and keep undesirable customers out of the premises.
- The applicant believed that the people who cause issues tend to drink cheap alcohol. He believed that the products sold at the premises would not attract people who are likely to cause issues.
- The applicant would install a panic button to notify the police.
- The premises would not sell alcohol without identification.
- The premises would operate the Challenge 25 policy.
- There were residents living above the premises and there were new developments being built in close proximity for residential housing.
- If customers are seen to be congregating outside the premises then they would be asked to move. If they failed to move, the applicant would call the police.
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 representations at the meeting from the Applicant and the Officers representing the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health objecting to the application, with particular regard to the prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises is in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ). The cumulative impact policy creates 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 it can demonstrate exceptional circumstances and that the granting of the application would not negatively add to the cumulative issues already experienced within the CIZ.
The Sub-Committee noted the representations from the Licensing Authority, and Environmental Health regarding the impact of the premises on the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and causes of concerns relating to licensed premises.
The Applicant was unaware of the extent of the issues experienced in the area and was unable to satisfactorily explain how the concerns regarding increased public nuisance could be mitigated. The Sub-Committee was concerned that the Applicant erroneously believed the age of alcohol sale in the United Kingdom was 16.
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the CIZ presumption had been rebutted as the Appellant was unable to demonstrate that the granting of the licence would not negatively add to the cumulative issues already experienced in the area. The Sub-Committee was particularly concerned that the addition of a further off-licence premises would lead to increased alcohol consumption in the area which would result in additional public nuisance. This would have a detrimental impact on local residents.
The Applicant suggested that the premises would only sell quality alcohol from small scale producers. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the Applicant’s proposal amounted to exceptional circumstances which would justify a grant of the licence.
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the licensing objectives would be promoted by the granting of the premises licence.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Shop, 36 Toynbee Street, London E1 7NE be REFUSED.
Supporting documents: