Agenda item

The Sub-Committee noted that Fisha Behani was present at the meeting.  He would be running the business with his brother Daniel Behani, the applicant who was not present.

The licensing officer reported that additional conditions and other papers had been received from the applicant’s representative which had been circulated.  These had been emailed yesterday evening.  These would be interleaved with the agenda papers.  It was reported that the applicant had attended a training course and it had been reported that he had contributed and seemed attentive.

The police reported that this premises was situated beneath residential properties.  There were already six off-licences within a 200m radius of the venue so the granting of the licence would add to the cumulative impact.  The officer did not consider that the applicant was ready to manage this type of venue.  No additional measures had been offered in the application to avoid problems. It was considered that the applicant had not shown that they were aware of their responsibilities. There had been 482 reported crimes in the 12 weeks prior to the police representation, which, although not necessarily alcohol related, were taking up police time and resources in an already busy area.  He stated that the applicant had not evidenced that he was a responsible licence holder and he therefore objected to the grant of the licence.

The licensing authority stated that there was little information in the operating schedule.  She accepted that hours had been amended and further conditions offered but was not satisfied that the grant of this licence would not add to the cumulative impact.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee she stated that the extra conditions and reduction of hours was helpful but it was necessary to have confidence in the applicant’s ability to implement the conditions.

The public health officer reported that Caledonian ward was an area that had a higher level of alcohol harm compared to the rest of the Borough.  There had been 76 alcohol specific hospital admissions in one year.  The premises were in a super outlet area and was ranked 37^th out of 118th in the borough for alcohol-related ambulance callouts.  It was noted that there was not a particular problem with street drinkers in the area and there were no primary schools within 250 metres.  It was considered that, if the licence was granted, it would significantly add to the cumulative impact of alcohol on the area.

The applicant’s representative reported that the licensing policy stated that each application would be considered on its merits and if an application was refused it would indicate that there was an undermining of the licensing objectives. He had heard the concerns that the completed application did not show a full understanding of the licensing objectives but stated that the licensee had managed the premises from 2012 until October 2014 and there had been no reports of crime failures or test purchase failures. The police had no specific issues.  The licence had been mistakenly surrendered instead of transferred.  The crime figures from the police did not detail alcohol specific instances.  Public safety was not a licensing concern.  Street drinking was not a concern in this area.  The additional conditions had been thought through over a period of time after liaison with the responsible authorities and proactive conditions were agreed.  Hours had been reduced to fall in line with the policy.  The premises had operated properly previously.

In response to a question relating to the lack of detail in the application regarding the public safety licensing objective, the applicant stated that they had a good relationship with neighbours and had passed an alcohol purchase test.  When asked again, the applicant stated he did not understand but had not sold to drunk people or customers underage and was trying his best.  He stated that he kept notes of refusals and the appearance of the customer in a refusals book.  The applicant’s representative stated that there was overlap with the responses in the schedule.  The CCTV paragraph could also be used for public safety or public nuisance.  The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had stated in his application that no further measures could be offered for public safety and the prevention of public nuisance and the applicant’s representative stated that they had engaged with responsible authorities since the application had been submitted.  Applications should be treated on their merits and the applicants had not disregarded these licensing objectives as this was not a problem premises.  They had now taken the cumulative impact policy on board and submitted a large number of conditions and reduced the hours.

In summary, the police reported that the applicant had not demonstrated in the application that they had understood the licensing objectives.  They had not offered robust conditions.  Licensees should demonstrate what they should do for the responsible authorities.

The licensing authority stated that the applicant had asked the responsible authorities what conditions they should include, rather than take responsibility themselves.  She was not convinced that all conditions would be implemented. 

Public health stated that if an ambulance was required in an area and the call was in respect of an alcohol related call out, this was a significant risk to public safety as far as the public health authority was concerned.

The applicant’s representative stated that conditions would be implemented and there was no reason to think that the managers would not be responsible.  The cumulative impact policy had been addressed through positive engagement, the premises had been operated and had not been identified as harmful. The premises had been managed appropriately.

RESOLVED that the application for a premises licence at Roma News, Food and Wine, 331 Caledonian Road, N1 1DW be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee took into consideration the application papers, the written submissions from the responsible authorities and residents as well as the verbal submissions made at the hearing.

Additional conditions were submitted by the applicant the day before the hearing and these were taken into consideration.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant provided very little information in his application papers regarding the steps he intended taking to promote the licensing objectives. In particular the Sub-Committee noted the lack of information provided in relation to steps that would be taken to promote public safety and the prevention of public nuisance. Under the heading, The Prevention of Public Nuisance, the applicant stated that the applicant “had considered this objective and no measures could be offered in this regard”.

The applicant and his representative were questioned by the Sub-Committee on this at the hearing and still insufficient detail was provided in response.

The premises are in a cumulative impact area. The Police provided evidence that there are high levels of crime in the area and there are numerous off licence premises in the vicinity.

The Sub-Committee was concerned with the ability of the applicant to properly manage the business in light of the submissions made and the apparent lack of awareness of the licensing objectives and steps required to promote them.

It was found that the applicant, both in the written application and at the hearing, 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.

Licensing Policy 10 applied. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the applicant failed to demonstrate a commitment to high standards of management. He failed to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of best practice or understand legal requirements. He failed to demonstrate that he had had regard to the licensing policy when preparing his operating schedule.

The application was accordingly refused.