Agenda item

The police officer reported that the venue was in the cumulative impact area and there was nothing in the application to demonstrate why the operation of the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.

The licensing authority reported that there had been no engagement from the applicant.  The saturation zone had not been addressed in the application. The licensing authority was concerned about street drinking in the area and asked that if the Sub-Committee were to grant the licence there should be a start time of 10am with the conditions proposed.  However, this was a heavily saturated area and there was no need for another licence in the area.

The applicant’s representative stated that as stated in the licensing policy at paragraph 4, each application would be on its merits and in paragraph 6, an exception would be a small premises with a capacity of fifty persons or less.  Conditions as proposed were all accepted and a later start time of 10am was also be agreed.  This application was consistent with licensing policy 8 regarding hours and the applicant was not seeking to go beyond this time.  He stated that an extensive operating schedule had been submitted.  The premises would not impact negatively with the operating schedule conditions and hours proposed.

In response to questions it was noted that there were 12 other licensed premises within a 200m radius.  The premises was currently operating on an unlicensed basis.  It was noted that this ward had the highest number of off licences in the Borough and the premises was not expected to be any different to others in the area.  It was noted that super strength beers would not be sold and the applicant offered a condition that no ciders would be sold.

In summary, the police stated that they had not heard anything about the venue that would be considered an exception.  The venue could not fail to impact on the area and considered that the application be refused.

The licensing authority agreed with the police and considered that they had not heard anything different about his premises. For a small premises to be considered exceptional they should not be alcohol led.

The applicant’s representative stated that the premises was currently trading as a community store so alcohol would be ancillary to the business. He stated that the operating schedule was comprehensive and all licensing objectives would be promoted.  He considered that the licence would not impact negatively on the area should it be granted.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Aya Supermarket, 599 Holloway Road, N19 4DJ 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 within the Holloway Road 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 heard evidence from the police that the premises were in an area with a high level of crime and disorder and that there were 12 other licensed premises within a 200 m radius. The Sub-Committee noted the police concerns that there was nothing in the application to show that the premises were not going to impact on the area.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the licensing authority that the applicant had not engaged with the authority and had not addressed the fact that the premises were in a saturation area. The Sub-Committee noted the concerns around street drinkers in the area.

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant’s representative that all conditions suggested were accepted as well as a reduction in the hours sought to 10 am rather than 8 am. The applicant’s representative stated that an extensive operating schedule had been submitted including terms in relation to CCTV, training, Challenge 25, the keeping of an incident book, fire risk assessments and emergency plan and conditions regarding nuisance. A comprehensive set of conditions had been submitted and this demonstrated that the premises would not have a negative impact. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant already has two licensed premises. The Sub-Committee heard that the premises were a small community store that was not alcohol led.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 8.  However, the Sub-Committee was of the view that the applicant had 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.

The Sub-Committee concluded that granting the licence would add to the availability of alcohol in an area where there was already a large number of licensed premises with associated anti-social and criminal behaviour and therefore have a cumulative impact on the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was concerned about street drinking in the area and that, even with the change in hours sought, granting the licence would undermine 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.