Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that conditions had been agreed with the noise team and their representation had been withdrawn. 

The metropolitan police stated that they had received an acknowledgement to their email sent on 8 August 2015 but had no further response after this. The hours applied for were a concern to the police and they suggested that the sale of alcohol, if a licence was granted, should commence at 9am at the earliest.  They had policed this area and were well aware of the problems and did not want temptation for schoolchildren or for their parents. They required one SIA door staff for two months at the least.  The applicant had accepted the CCTV condition.  The area was saturated with off licences and the applicant had not put forward any security proposals. The police stated that their objection still remained.

The health authority reported that this area was probably the worst in Islington for the number of ambulance related call outs.  They were significantly higher than Islington as whole and 37 call outs in the area were directly related to alcohol in the past 12 months.  This area already had a large number of licensed premises. There were street drinking concerns in the area. 

The licensing authority reported that there was a high density of licensed premises in the area.  In a 250m radius there were 12 off licences.  The feedback from residents was that crime was a concern.  The licensing authority did not consider that there was any real evidence that had been provided that showed how the premises would not impact on the area.

Councillor Janet Burgess, ward councillor, reported that the area was improving through regeneration.  The police had increased resources in the area to improve problems related to street drinking.  The cumulative impact policy had been brought in partly due to the large number of off licences in the Archway area and had been used to good effect in the Clerkenwell area.  The start time of 6am was too early and the police were concerned with the crime issues in the Borough.

The applicant’s lawyer reported that this was an application for a new premises licence.  The instructions he had were for a licence from 6am until midnight.  The conditions put forward were not standard conditions and did have regard to the Licensing Policy.  Conditions had been included regarding no sale of single cans, no high abv and alcohol behind shutters to reduce the likelihood of street drinkers purchasing alcohol.  Street drinkers could go to other stores.  It was accepted that the security condition was vague but would prefer that this not be changed. There were other premises operating in the area which did not have these restrictive conditions.  He stated that with these conditions the premises would not add to the street drinking problems and were therefore unlikely to add to the cumulative impact.  The noise condition and police CCTV condition had been agreed.  He considered that underage and street drinking concerns were dealt with by condition.  Public health was not a licensing objective and he did not consider that this premises would make a difference to the number of ambulance call outs. That Sainsbury’s was part of the regeneration area should not stop an approval of the licence and he asked the Committee to agree the licence.

In response to questions it was noted that Sainsbury’s preference was for alcohol hours to be the same as the opening hours.  Sainsbury’s considered that alcohol was already available and was therefore unlikely to add to the cumulative impact.  Instructions had been given to apply for the hours 6am – midnight which were outside the core hours detailed in the licensing policy. The lawyer representing Sainsbury’s did not have the authority to agree the proposed police condition regarding the security guard however, he stated that this condition could be imposed by the Committee.  The applicant had not consulted the licensing team or the police prior to making the application.

In summary, the police considered that the proposed security condition was essential.  Public health reported that evidence indicated that an increase in the hours increased public harm.  The licensing authority stated that it was not only street drinkers that caused problems in the area but also non street drinkers. The ward councillor stated that this was yet another off licence in the area and it did not matter who managed the premises it was still a cause of concern for residents.

The applicant’s representative had nothing to add to his submission.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence at Sainsbury’s, 28-30 Junction Road, N19 5RE 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 Policies 2 and 3.  The premises fall under the Junction area of Archwaycumulative 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 the objection from the noise team had been withdrawn as the applicant had agreed the condition proposed. 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that there was a mistake in the police representation in that the applicant had acknowledged the email sent.  However, the police confirmed that there had been no other communication. The police expressed concerns about the hours sought and the security condition offered by the applicant.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from Public Health that there was evidence that both an increase in the number of premises in an area selling alcohol, and the increased hours that alcohol is available for sale does make a difference to acute public harm.  There had been 37 alcohol related ambulance callouts in the last 12 months in 100 metres radius of the premises. This was significantly higher than the rest of the borough.  Other alcohol related concerns in the area included street drinking.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the licensing authority that there was a high density of licensed premises in Junction ward. There were 12 off licences in a 250m radius of the premises.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the ward councillor, speaking against the application, who expressed concern as to the hours sought and confirmed that local people were concerned about street drinking, begging and the current number of licensed premises in the area.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant’s representative that the conditions put forward by the applicant were not Sainsbury’s standard conditions.  In particular, the conditions regarding shutters, spirits behind the counter, the selling of single cans and no selling of beer, lager and cider over 6.5% abv were not standard conditions. The condition regarding security showed the applicant’s intent for a dialogue with the police.  The applicant regarded these conditions as designed to stop street drinkers being attracted to the premises.  The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant would prefer not to be conditioned regarding specific times when security officers must be at the premises. The applicant accepted that the condition offered regarding security was a little vague. The applicant commented that the other licensed premises in the area did not have such restrictive conditions. Alcohol was already easily available. The applicant stated that the premises would operate Challenge 25 and that all staff would be trained. The applicant acknowledged that the area was being regenerated and stated that the company would be part of that regeneration as a responsible retailer operating to high standards.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had agreed to change their proposed condition about beer, lager and cider from 6.5 to 6% abv but were not prepared to reduce the hours sought nor agree the police condition regarding security staff. The Sub-Committee further noted that the applicant accepted that they did not consult with the licensing authority or other responsible authorities prior to making the application, although the applicant did maintain that they had regard to the licensing policy.

The Sub-Committee was concerned regarding the hours sought in the application which were outside the core hours set out in licensing policies 7 and 8. The Sub-Committee noted the concerns of public health and local residents in relation to the hours sought and noted that the applicant had not entered into any dialogue in this regard.

The Sub-Committee was not satisfied with the applicant’s submission as to why the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.  The Sub-Committee was concerned about the applicant’s lack of dialogue with police and licensing officers. The Sub-Committee noted the number of licensed premises in the area and the high level of alcohol related ambulance call outs.  The Sub-Committee was not satisfied with the applicant’s assertion that the grant of another licence would not add to the cumulative impact because there were so many licensed premises already. Even with the addition of the proposed conditions, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the concerns raised by local residents and the responsible authorities had been addressed. 

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the granting of the new licence would undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of another licence would add to the availability of alcohol in an area where there is already a large number of licensed premises with associated anti-social and criminal behaviour and therefore have a cumulative impact on the licensing objectives. In accordance with licensing policy 2, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the grant of the application would undermine the licensing objectives.  The applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the application if granted, would add to the cumulative impact area. The applicant did not show any exceptional circumstances as to why the Sub-Committee should grant the application.