Agenda item

The licensing officer advised that amended conditions and hours had been submitted by the applicant and agreed by the responsible authorities so their representations had been withdrawn. These were circulated to the sub-committee. The licensing officer also advised that the shop and not the fuel was the primary income stream for the premises. He also stated that the Bunhill and the Off Licence cumulative impact areas both applied.

The applicant’s legal representative stated that the original application was for a 24 hour licence but having considered the responsible authority representations and conditions, the applicant had amended the hours and conditions. She explained that Shell was a highly experienced company and the concerns raised by the resident would not occur.

In response to questions from members, the applicant’s legal representative advised that the application was in the name of Shell. The premises was operated by a franchisee. Shell operated a yellow and red card system in the event of any problems. A red card resulted in instant dismissal. Shell held the licences so it could protect its brand and sites.

Members raised concern that the applicant had not adequately demonstrated that there would be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives. The applicant’s legal representative stated that following the amendment of hours sought to within framework hours and the acceptance of conditions requested by the responsible authorities, the responsible authorities had withdrawn their representations. This meant they were satisfied that the application would not add to the cumulative impact. In addition, she stated that the resident had not raised concern about cumulative impact.

The applicant’s legal representative stated that cumulative impact related to people congregating to drink and causing noise or crime and disorder after drinking. She stated that most people who bought alcohol from a petrol station usually left in a vehicle and took it home to consume.

In response to a question from the Chair as to the applicant’s response if the sub-committee restricted the sales of alcohol to those purchasing fuel or visiting the petrol station in a vehicle, the applicant’s legal representative expressed concern and stated she had never seen this condition on any licence.

In response to members’ concerns about pre-loading being a problem in the area due to the high prices of alcohol in nearby clubs, the applicant’s legal representative stated that Shell petrol stations were not the cheapest places to buy alcohol, Shell had CCTV, experienced and trained staff and a Challenge 25 policy in place.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Shell Service Station, 198-208 Old Street, EC1V 9FR be granted

1)    to allow the sale of alcohol, off sales, from 08:00 to 23:00 Mondays to Sundays,

2)    to allow the provision of late night refreshment, from 23:00 to 05:00      Mondays to Sundays; and

3)    to allow the premises to be open to the public, from 00:00 to 00:00   Mondays to Sundays.

Conditions detailed on pages 49 and 50 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence.

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 Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Bunhill cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 3 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant can demonstrate in the operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 4.  The Council has 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 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused or subject to certain limitations, following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant can demonstrate in the operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

One local resident objection had been received that focused on the original application hours.  The representations made by the responsible authorities had been withdrawn following the amendment of the application for off sales within framework hours of 8am until 11pm.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.

The Sub-Committee noted the conditions proposed by the responsible authorities that had been accepted by the applicant. The Sub-Committee also noted the provisions within the applicant’s operating schedule.

The Sub-Committee concluded that although the responsible authorities had initially raised concerns that the applicant had not addressed the potential impact on the local area, the operating schedule and the amendment to framework hours would mean that the licensing objectives would be promoted.

The Sub-Committee noted the possible exceptions set out in the Bunhill cumulative impact policy and were satisfied that the applicant demonstrated that there would be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives. In relation to licensing policy 4, the Sub-Committee noted that the premises was within an area based cumulative impact area. However, it was satisfied that with the operating schedule and the agreed conditions, the applicant had demonstrated that there would be no negative cumulative impact on the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee therefore concluded that it was reasonable and proportionate to grant the application.