Agenda item

The police officer reported that this premises was in the Finsbury Park cumulative impact zone.  There were 33 other licensed premises within a 250 metre radius of the premises, 14 of which had off sales.  This was a large number in such a small area and a grant of the licence would add to the cumulative impact.  The premises were situated just west of an area which was a street drinking hotspot outside Clarke’s shoes shop and they could not see how the grant would not impact on the area.

The applicant’s representative stated that the shop had existed for 30 years.  The new owner bought the premises on the 2 December 2015 and had a personal licence with 8 years experience. He would be robustly promoting the four licensing objectives. Posters would be erected and he would operate Challenge 25.  He would not be selling alcohol to street drinkers and all staff would be trained thoroughly. He reported paragraph 10.15 of the guidance which stated the hours for the sale of alcohol should be the same as opening hours unless there was good reason.  It was not a new premises.  A licence would be granted with conditions and the applicant would be happy to agree a 9am start time and to limit the area in the shop for alcohol to 15%.  He would not sell to street drinkers and there would be robust promotion of the four licensing objectives. 

In response to questions it was stated that they would tell street drinkers that they would not be served and erect posters.  The applicant stated the four licensing objectives. The applicant had spoken to the police half an hour before the meeting had commenced. The police were objecting on the basis of need but this was not a criteria. 

In summary, the police stated that street drinkers may not necessarily look as expected and would not be easy to identify.  The conditions were used as a safeguard if the licence was granted but they recommended refusal.  The premises were in a cumulative impact area and whilst good signage and good management was better than a poorly run premises this would still be another shop to buy alcohol in an area where there were already a large number of premises.

The applicant’s representative stated that they would work with responsible authorities.  The applicant had full training and the premises would be well run.  He would know the street drinkers that kept returning.  The area for alcohol would only be 15% and the police could review the premises if they were not properly run.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Groland Food and Wine, 52 Seven Sisters Road, N7 6AA 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 Holloway and Finsbury Park 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 the police representations that there were 33 other licensed premises within a 250 metre radius of the premises.  The proposed venue was situated in area which was a street drinking hotspot.  The Sub-Committee noted that the police had put forward conditions should the Sub-Committee be minded to grant the application, although he recommended refusal.

The applicant had recently taken over the ownership of the shop which had been operating as a newsagent for some 30 years. The Sub-Committee noted that he had a personal licence and had eight years’ experience. The applicant had submitted a full operating schedule which addressed the concerns that the police representation had raised however, the Sub-Committee noted that the police still objected to the application as the premises were in a cumulative impact zone.

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.