Agenda item

The licensing officer tabled a photograph of Passing Alley which indicated the installed lighting.  This would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The representative from Sainsbury’s stated that the premises was already open and trading without alcohol and fell in the cumulative impact area.  Sainsbury’s had met with the police and the licensing team prior to the submission of the application and had moved the sale of alcohol commencement time to 11:00 am to address their concerns regarding early morning drinking.  There had been no objections to the application from the police the licensing authority or the noise team.   A public meeting had been arranged for residents on the 23 February to discuss the application and no residents had attended.  There had been no objection from ward councillors. Opening hours of the store would be from 7am to 11pm and the sale of alcohol was an important part of the convenience offer.  Customers would sometimes leave their basket of shopping behind if they were unable to buy alcohol with their food.  Lighting and CCTV had been installed in Passing Alley and a further nine conditions had been added to the application made in 2013. It was not expected that adults would buy alcohol for those underage. The hours requested would not be contributing to the late night economy. Fears expressed regarding deliveries and smoking had not materialised. Ten residents, the local authority, the police and the ward councillor had made objections to the previous application.  The granting of this application was not likely to add to the cumulative impact and additional conditions had alleviated concerns.  The review process was there to be used if necessary.

In response to questions it was noted that the alley previously was dark and was now well lit and a deterrent to anti-social behaviour.  Sainsbury’s stated that they would report back the observation that a litter/nuisance patrol for Passing Alley would be a gesture of goodwill.  Sainsbury’s was unable to state that a variation would not be applied for in the future, but if an application was made residents would have the opportunity to object and the application would be within the terms of the licensing policy.  They wished to maintain dialogue with residents.

In summary, it was reported that residents had been widely consulted, there had been a real effort on the part of the applicant to reduce opposition to the application, the hours had been reduced. The licensing policy was designed for tailored applications and Sainsbury’s asked that the application be granted.

RESOLVED

a) That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Sainsburys, 91-93St John Street, EC1 be granted to permit the premises to sell alcohol on Monday to Sunday from 11am until 8:00pm.

b) That conditions as outlined in appendix 3 as detailed on pages 37 and 38 of the agenda be applied to the licence.

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 Sub-Committee noted that no written or verbal submissions were made by the Responsible Authorities. Three residents had made written submissions. It was submitted by the Licensing Officer, that he had written to the three residents in question on three occasions to engage with them about their concerns and to discuss the applicants’ response to their concerns. He did not receive a response. The residents did not attend the hearing.

The Sub-Committee heard submissions from the applicant’s representative.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the Applicant had engaged with the Licensing Authority prior to submitting it’s application and that it had also taken the concerns of residents on board. The applicant had reduced the hours for selling alcohol to 8pm and had taken steps to light and CCTV the alleyway near the premises so as to prevent anti- social behaviour in the area.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the proposed conditions and hours of sale were such that the granting of the licence would not add to the cumulative impact and otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.