Agenda item

The Licensing Officer requested that the applicant confirm his relationship to the previous licence holder. The applicant stated that the previous licence holder was his son.

The Police advised that the applicant was the owner when the previous licence was revoked. Concern was raised that he had an awareness of how his son was running the premises and that there had been breaches to the crime and disorder and public safety licensing objectives. The Police therefore had a lack of confidence in the applicant.

Public Health raised concerns about the relationship between the owner and the previous licence holder. There had been breaches in relation to underage sales and high strength alcohol. There were also concerns about the management of the premises. Licensing policy 29 stated that where there was a history of problems, any new application should demonstrate significant signs of improvement and this was not the case.

The Licensing Authority stated that at appeal the court had decided the committee decision to revoke the previous licence was fair. Six days after this, the new application had been submitted. It was suggested that this application contained fewer conditions than the previous one which had contained conditions requested by Trading Standards officers. The officer stated that on a visit, the applicant had stated he did not know the previous licence holder, when he was now saying he was his son. There was a lack of confidence that the licensing objectives would be promoted.

The applicant, through his daughter, who was interpreting, advised that his son had made mistakes and if the applicant was given a licence, the son would not be in the premises or have any involvement in the running of the business. The applicant would employ staff who knew about alcohol licences. He understood if the committee did not wish to grant the licence due to the way the premises had previously been managed, however if that was the case, he would prefer to be given a licence so that he could sell the business. Someone had shown interest in buying the premises, but he was waiting for the applicant to receive a licence. The applicant would prefer though to be given a licence to run the business and make improvements. 

The Chair asked the applicant what he understood by ‘Framework Hours’. The applicant’s daughter stated she did not understand the term so could not interpret.

In response to a question from the Chair as to why the hours in the application were outside those set out in policy, the applicant stated that the hours requested were the same as the previous ones.

The Chair asked the applicant how he would challenge those attempting to make underage purchases and whether he could do this in English. The applicant advised, in English, that he could ask for ID if customers looked under 25 years old.

In response to a question from the Chair about which external agency would be used to conduct test purchases at the premises every 6 months and submit the results to Trading Standards and the Licensing team as stated in the application, the applicant’s daughter explained that she was unable to interpret this.

In response to a member’s question, the applicant stated that at the time breaches were taking place, he was unaware of the problems. His son did not tell him until he was waiting for a court hearing.

In response to a question about how the applicant would avoid problems recurring, he advised that he was now aware of the mistakes of his son and he would make sure new members of staff were experienced and received training.

Trading Standards advised that the applicant’s son had been given a licence in August 2016. Officers visited in October 2016 and offered the licensee training that was offered to all new licensees. He had said he was too busy to attend. On 8 December 2016 a test purchases was undertaken and alcohol was sold to an underage person. Training was offered again. In January 2017 another test purchase was undertaken and alcohol was sold to an underage person. The officer therefore had concerns that Challenge 25 had not been followed.

The applicant responded that he was told about training once and he had attended. He was aware of his son’s mistakes and assured the committee that these would not happen again. He would make sure to get advice from officers.

In the summing up, the police representative stated that he did not have confidence before the hearing and from what had been said during the hearing, he now had even less confidence in the applicant’s ability to manage the premises. Concern was raised that the applicant did not understand what the framework hours were and that he wanted a licence so he could sell the premises.

In his summing up the Licensing Authority representative stated that in the six months between the previous licence being revoked and the ceasing of trading following the appeal, the licensee could have demonstrated improvements were being made but he had not.

In his summary, the application stated that he understood the comments made and could not change the past but if the licence was granted he would change the way the premises was run in the future.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Essex Alternative Supermarket, 360 Essex Road, London, N1 3PD 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 29, paragraph 150 which provided that where a licence was revoked, any new application for the premises would be considered against the policy – there would be a full consideration of the applicant and the operating schedule with no assumption that a licensed premises can continue in that location.

Therefore the Sub-Committee considered Licensing Policies 4,6, 7 and 8. 

The Council had adopted a special policy relating to cumulative impact in relation to shops and other premises selling alcohol for consumption off the premises.  Licensing policy 4 created a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which were likely to add to the existing cumulative impact would normally be refused or subject to certain limitations, following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant could demonstrate in the operation schedule that there would be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted the evidence of the responsible authorities regarding the impact of the premises on the licensing objectives:

• The police submitted that the application should be refused because the premises would negatively impact on the crime and disorder and public safety objectives. The applicant was the owner of the premises throughout the history of reviews and breaches of conditions. The police submitted that the applicant would have had full knowledge of the issues of concern but failed to deal with these. The application before the Sub-Committee was unchanged in its terms only substituting Mr Kurt as the applicant rather than his son.
• Public Health submitted that the history of non-compliance associated with the management of the premise raised concerns regarding access to alcohol for children and young people and the potential availability of cheap, high strength alcohol. Public Health raised concern that the premises would continue to be managed by the same owners whose licence was revoked on 6 March 2018. Public Health were also concerned that the proposed hours for the sale of alcohol were outside the framework hours for off licences and that extended hours of sale could increase alcohol related harms. In summary, public health submitted that the granting of the licence to the premises would negatively impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives preventing public nuisance and crime and disorder.
• The Licensing Authority submitted that the previous licence was revoked as a result of significant management failures linked to repeat breaches of licence conditions and underage test purchase failures. The Licensing Authority submitted that the applicant had failed to provide any additional controls to mitigate against crime and disorder or public nuisance that might be linked to the extended hours.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant submitted that he was not aware of the problems at the premises at the time, he only became aware of them when they were waiting for the court hearing. The applicant submitted that he would employ new people who were experienced and who he would provide training for. However, the Sub-Committee concluded that the applicant was closely linked to the previous management of the premises and the applicant failed to demonstrate that he was aware of or understood some of the proposals set out in the operating schedule, in particular arrangements to employ an external agency to conduct training for all new staff. Additionally, the applicant when questioned, did not evidence knowledge of the authority’s licensing policy and importantly in relation to this application, he was not aware of the policy’s framework hours (Licensing Policy 6).

Licensing Policy 7 set out that the Licensing Authority expected the highest standards of management to be demonstrated through the operating schedule. The applicant’s operating schedule did not include previous conditions suggested by Trading Standards and the applicant did not appear to be familiar with the operating schedule and did not understand some of the proposed conditions. The Licensing Sub-Committee therefore concluded that the applicant would not be able to demonstrate the high standards of management required under Licensing Policy 8.

The Licensing Sub-Committee concluded that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption under the special policy relating to off sales of alcohol from shops. The applicant failed to demonstrate that with the granting of the premises licence there would be no negative cumulative impact on the licensing objectives to prevent crime and disorder, the protection of children from harm and public safety.

The Sub-Committee also considered the application in the context of the authority’s other licensing policies. The Sub-Committee concluded that the application was also refused because the proposed hours of operation were beyond framework hours and the applicant failed to demonstrate a commitment to best practice and high standards of management and therefore the licensing objectives would not be promoted.