Skip to content

Agenda item

Caledonian Supermarket, 288 Caledonian Road, N1 1BA - Premises licence variation

Minutes:

The licensing officer stated that they had nothing further to add to the report.

 

The police reported that there had been a reduction in crime of 11% over the same period to the previous year, which they considered was due to the work carried out by the responsible authorities.  They reported that there had been a large number of crimes in late night venues and increasing access to alcohol was not a risk that they wanted to take. 

 

The Public Health department stated that the ambulance callouts in this geographical area was significantly higher than the borough average.  This created a significant burden in terms of ambulance call outs, which peaked during the early hours.  It was considered that all the responsible authorities needed to work in partnership to reduce these incidents. 

 

The applicant stated that he struggled to pay his taxes.  Many shops had closed and not re-opened.  He considered that the increase in hours would be an improvement to help business owners and the local area.  Bigger stores opening locally had affected trade.  He had an oyster machine and pay point to improve the services he provided in his shop and wanted an extension in hours.  He would work with the police.  He said he was struggling to pay his workers but could pay them if the hours to trade were increased. He aimed to pay his taxes.

 

In response to a question regarding whether the premises would be an exception to the cumulative impact policy he stated that he had an oyster machine and would help people in the area.  He could not afford representation.  He stated that he did not sell alcohol to people when drunk and had a refusal book.  He trained his staff well and asked for ID.  He would require alcohol licensing hours to be the same as opening hours otherwise there might be trouble inside the store.  If customers bought alcohol they might use other services.

 

In summary the police stated that their objection that the premises were in a cumulative impact area still remained.

 

RESOLVED

That the application for a premises licence variation 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 Kings Cross cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for variations to 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.

 

Representations had been made by the licensing authority, the police and public health.  There were four local resident representations in support of the application.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were outside the framework hours specified in licensing policy 8.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that there were 23 licensed premises within a 250m radius of the venue.  Seven of these were off licences, that alcohol sales were ancillary to food and the existing licence with short licensing hours made the operation of a successful food led operation difficult.

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that the increase in hours would add to the existing cumulative impact in the area.

 

In accordance with Licensing Policy 7, the Sub-Committee noted the cumulative impact that the proliferation of late night venues and retailers in the borough was having on the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was of the view that the licensing objectives would be undermined if the variation to the premises licence was granted.

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that the increased hours applied for 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 would therefore have a cumulative impact on the licensing objectives.

 

In accordance with licensing policy 2, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that to grant the application would undermine the licensing objectives.  The applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the application if granted would not add to the cumulative impact area.  The applicant did not show any exceptional circumstances as to why the Sub-Committee should grant the application.

 

 

Supporting documents: