Agenda item

The applicant reported that he would be reducing the hours of opening to 07:00 to 23:00 hours.

The police reported that the premises were in a cumulative impact zone with a total of 18 licensed premises within 150 metres.  This was a very demanding area where over 2500 crimes were reported across the year from April 2013 to March 2014. 

A local resident spoke against the application.  He reported that the same objections that he put forward in the previous application would also relate to this application (see Minute No. 25 – 90 Old Street).  He considered that the concerns of the police were well founded.  These premises had a problematic history and he had no confidence in the current applicant.

Mr Mostak, spoke in support of the applicant, Mr Naveed.  He reported that the reduced opening hours would reduce the cumulative impact.  He reported that there was a reasonable training programme, an incident log book and the applicant would operate Challenge 25.

In response to questions it was noted that Mr Naveed was the sole owner.  He confirmed that he was a friend of the previous applicant and they were not related. To help ensure there was no adverse impact on the area, he would not allow people to stand outside the shop, he would operate Challenge 25, he had reduced the opening hours and he would join a local pub watch or other scheme.  The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had worked in a restaurant previously. He would ensure that staff were trained.  There were no former staff that worked in the premises. He would agree to a condition regarding the sale of high strength beers to deter street drinkers.

In summary the police officer stated that he had not heard anything that would make him feel confident about how the applicant would deal with crime.

The local resident reported that this area was a magnet for anti-social behaviour.  Drinkers would take alcohol to the local gardens or Coltash Court.  This premises would add to the cumulative impact in the area.

The applicant reported that there had been a misunderstanding regarding the meeting with the police and the police had not yet had time to meet up with the him. The applicant wished to work with residents and the police.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of A&Z Supermarkets, 92 Old Street, EC1 be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 2.  The premises fall under the Bunhill and Clerkenwell cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.  The applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the application if granted, would add to the cumulative impact already existing in the area.  The applicant did not show any exceptional circumstances as to why the Sub-Committee should grant the application.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had very little experience of running an off-licence and there was a history of past management of the premises failing to comply with conditions.  Licensing policy 10 states that where there is a history of non-compliance associated with the premises, the licensing authority is unlikely to grant a new or variation application unless there is evidence of significant improvement in management standards.  The Sub-Committee noted the police representation which stated there was a high level of crime in the area. The police had described it as a challenging and demanding area.

The Sub-Committee concluded that allowing the application for a new premises licence would undermine the licensing objective of crime and disorder. It would add to the availability of alcohol in an area already suffering cumulative impact from a large number of licensed premises with associated anti-social and criminal behaviour.