Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for (Stop N Shop) 59 Commercial Street, London E1 6BD
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Stop and Shop, 59 Commercial Street, London E1 6BD. It was noted that objections had been received by officers on behalf of Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Turabi Ay, Licensing Agent for the Applicant, explained that the hours applied for had been reduced to the Council’s framework hours. He said that the premises was a small shop and not alcohol led, which demonstrated exceptional circumstances to grant a licence in the Cumulative Impact Zone.
Mr Ay acknowledged the issues regarding the previous operator and the revocation of the previous premise licence, but confirmed that the applicant had no direct link with the previous operator and since the revocation, the previous operator had left. He highlighted the conditions agreed with in consultation with the Police. He concluded by explaining that all Responsible Authorities and local residents had the power to seek a review of a licence, if there were any problems once a licence was granted, and the Applicant should be given a fair chance.
Members then heard from Ms Corinne Holland. She explained that her objection was on the basis of the licensing objectives of preventing public nuisance, and preventing crime and disorder. She mentioned that Trading Standards had previously sought a previous review of the previous premises licence due to the sale of illicit tobacco and nitrous oxide, and as result, the previous premises licence had been revoked by the Licensing Sub Committee. It was noted that the premises was in the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), a saturated area in terms of public nuisance and crime and disorder, and a new premises licence would add to the cumulative impact of these issues in the area. She highlighted the fact that the onus was on the Applicant to demonstrate how he would not negatively impact on the area and how he would rebut the presumption of the CIZ. She expressed her concerns over the application for a premises licence for sale of alcohol being sought so soon after the revocation of the previous premises licence in relation to the same premises, and was concerned if the new operator would be put under pressure by customers of the previous operator to continue the previous operator’s style of operation. Ms Holland concluded that she was not confident that the applicant would promote the licensing objectives.
Members then heard from Mr Ibrahim Elias, Environmental Health Officer. He said having reviewed the application, there was insufficient information in its operating schedule to show how the applicant will promote the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance, particularly in the CIZ. He also stated that there were residential premises in close proximity, and concerns of noise breakout from the venue affecting neighbouring residents, with noise impact from access and egress to and from the premises.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That the applicant was also the landlord of the premises and would be operating the business.
- There was no contact with the previous operator
- There was no delivery option available
- That the applicant/landlord was unaware the premises licence had been revoked or its history until the previous operator left.
- The applicant failed to answer questions in relation to the licensing objectives, the responsibilities of a premises licence holder and general awareness of the implications of seeking to operate licensed premises in the CIZ.
- The applicant confirmed that he would not sell any of the illicit products that the previous operators did.
- That the premises had recently been refurbished.
- That the premises were not alcohol led and had other grocery products on sale, would have a refusal book and will actively prevent any noise nuisance by displaying notices around the premises asking customers to leave quietly and respect the needs of local residents. No details of the proposed proportion of alcohol to non-alcohol products was given, and when asked to clarify why it was said that the premises would not be alcohol led, the applicant’s representative replied that it was a small shop.
Concluding remarks were made by all parties.
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 licensing 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 at the meeting from the Applicant and his Licensing Agent and officers representing the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health objecting to the application.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises is in a cumulative impact zone (the 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 from the representation made by the Applicant and his Agent that the previous operator had left and had no involvement in the business following the revocation of the previous licence. It was noted that the Applicant was also the Landlord of the premises and wanted to operate the business himself. However, the Sub-Committee was concerned that the Applicant had a lack of knowledge and understanding of the CIZ and the steps needed to rebut the presumption of the CIZ. When questioned about his knowledge and understanding of the CIZ, the Applicant failed to explain how he would promote the licensing objectives and avoid adding to the cumulative impact in the area. The Sub-Committee was concerned that the Applicant showed a lack of understanding about running licensed premises in a CIZ, being an area with high levels of public nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
The Sub-Committee noted the Applicant’s representative saying that there was exceptional reason for granting this application for premises in a CIZ, in that he presented the premises as being a small shop, which was not alcohol led. However, the Sub-Committee did not receive any evidence as to why a small shop such as this one would not be alcohol led. Some businesses like restaurants and specified specialist shops tend to be obvious in many instances as not being alcohol led. The Sub-Committee were mindful that a small shop is not itself not alcohol led, nor is a larger shop in itself alcohol led. Whether a business is alcohol led depends upon what is primarily sells, and in particular, what proportion of sales would be made up of alcohol. Saying that a shop is small does not in itself suffice to present exceptional circumstance to justify granting an application relating to premises in a CIZ. No evidence was given specifying what would be sold, and what estimated proportion of sales would constitute alcohol.
The Sub-Committee being concerned that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the licensing objectives and the issues of seeking to operate licensed premises in a CIZ, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the Applicant properly understood what it would mean in that setting to uphold the licensing objectives.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Stop N Shop, 59 Commercial Street, London E1 6BD be REFUSED.
Supporting documents: