Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that an email had been received from the applicant submitting a reduction in hours.

The licensing authority stated that this was a new application for a premises licence by the same family who operated the premises at 426 St John Street, whose licence was revoked by Sub-Committee a year ago.  It was concerning that the conditions proposed had been lifted from conditions from the licence at 426 St John Street.  It stated in the schedule that training would be attended in 2015.  This had not been done and it was now November 2015.  She understood the applicant was willing to reduce the hours applied for.  The hours were an issue.  She had concerns about the staffing and the training in the premises.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the licensing authority was concerned that not much thought had gone into the application and she considered that the proposal was not robust enough to take seriously.

The applicant’s representative stated that an application had been made in March 2015 and following objections from the responsible authorities, had been withdrawn.  In the intervening months the applicant had worked proactively with the authorities and following substantial alterations had submitted a new application. There had been no representations received from the noise team, police or trading standards for the new application.  He stated that the applicant had been proactive in solving issues that the responsible authorities had and was willing to restrict the hours still further and to stop sales of alcohol at 9pm.  Sales of tobacco had not been a concern, alcohol would be stored in a corner and withdrawn from the public at 9pm by use of a shutter system.  The main concerns raised in the licensing policy for the Bunhill/Clerkenwell area were the late night economy and it was proposed to only sell until 9pm.  He therefore did not think these premises would affect the cumulative impact.

The applicant had significant and genuine engagement with the responsible authorities.  The first application had been withdrawn and since then, the applicant had worked closely with the police and trading standards and conditions had been written in liaison with these authorities.  In relation to the history of non-compliance, this premises had completely different management and the conditions reflected any concerns regarding family links as it named family relations who would not be involved in the business.  These concerns prevented any potential problems in the business and were to the credit of the applicant.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, it was stated that the conditions were included in the application to pre-empt any concerns and to confirm that these family members would not be connected with the business.  The applicant had not wanted to ignore the public safety aspect and so was aware that a first aider was always present at the Old Red Lion during operating hours and had covered this by condition.  As the premises proposed to stop serving alcohol at 9pm there would not be an issue with late night drinking and customers leaving pubs, bars and restaurants and purchasing further alcohol.  The father would be the main designated premises supervisor.  The applicant had not worked at 426 St John Street.  He had purchased 424 St John Street two years ago and had no problems with it. 

In summary, the licensing officer stated that in previous email correspondence the applicant had offered a reduction of hours of 11am to 9pm. 

The licensing authority had stated that this was a cumulative impact area and concerns regarding new off licences was an issue for the whole of the borough.

The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant had made a real attempt to engage with the responsible authorities and was more than happy to reduce the hours.  There were issues in the area which could be dealt with by condition.  The views of responsible authorities had changed since the previous application, there were no other objections, the applicant was running a separate business from his family and had offered reduced hours of 11am to 9pm. The applicant had been running the business for two years with no problem and had commitment to a high standard of management.  He would undergo training by the end of 2015 and ensure all staff were trained.  There were no concerns regarding Challenge 25 and alcohol would be stored behind shutters.  He considered that the application could be granted. 

RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence in respect of 424 St John Street EC1V 4NJ be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee took into consideration the written application and submissions together with the verbal submissions made at the hearing.

The Sub-Committee further considered that the premises were situated within a cumulative impact area and that the application concerned was for off premises sales and that Licence Policy 4 would also apply.

The applicant was one of the sons of the family and the proposed DPS was the applicant’s father. There Sub-Committee heard that there were two other brothers in the family who were, unusually, specifically referred to in the operating schedule as not to have anything to do with the operation.  The applicant had reduced the hours requested from those stated in his original application.

The reason for this specific conclusion was due to the fact that the other two (excluded) brothers owned another off licence at 426 St Johns Street. Those premises had a very poor track record of compliance and the premises licence had been revoked twice for the illicit sale of alcohol and sales of alcohol to under age volunteers. 

The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the applicant failed to demonstrate both in his application and in amplification thereof at the hearing that he fully appreciated the responsibilities involved in running the business in such a way that they did not adversely affect the promotion of the licensing objectives.

No bespoke mitigation measures were proposed.

The Sub-Committee took into account the fact that there were already a large number of licensed premises in the area. They were of the opinion that an additional off licence in the area would undermine the work of the Licensing Authority in overcoming street drinking and preloading. Nothing submitted by the applicant in his papers or at the hearing ameliorated those concerns.

The Sub-Committee accordingly concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved would not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee considered the possibility of imposing additional conditions but concluded that in the light of what is stated above that that would not assist.

Taking the evidence presented as a whole, the Sub-Committee concluded that a refusal of the application was appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and proportionate to what it is intended to achieve.