Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that additional photographs from a local resident had been circulated to members of the Sub-Committee.

The licensing authority reported that the premises were in a cumulative impact area.  It was reported that the applicant had not shown in the application how the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.  The application had shown little detail.

In response to questions regarding the ownership of the premises, the Chair of the Sub-Committee stated that there was no evidence of the applicant deliberately misleading the Sub-Committee and this was not likely to be a material consideration.

The officer from the public health team stated that the area already had a high density of licensed premises.  The premises were located in an area where there were seven off licences per thousand residents; higher than the Islington average of three. It was considered that there were already high levels of alcohol related harm in the area and further premises would add to the cumulative impact.

A local resident stated that another premises would be likely to add to crime and disorder.  There was already an issue in the nearby parks with ASB and drug dealing.  This application was for a new premise which would be likely to add to the cumulative impact and it was considered the impact had not been addressed or rebutted by the applicant. Duncan Street was a particularly problematic area and councillors had been working closely with the police. They had been informed that this was one of two major crime spots that the police were frequently called to and received Parkguard visits.  Littering including drug paraphernalia was not a rare occurrence and many front doors had been reinforced to prevent entry.  Some residents were worried about leaving their flats. The park area was two minutes’ walk away from the premises and there had been increasing littering including drinking bottles cans, knives and even bleach.  This was a speculative application which had not been made by the owner of the premises and the Sub-Committee were asked to reject the application. A second resident stated that there was an increasing number of bottles and syringes littering the area.  There was a burden on the applicant to demonstrate a negative cumulative impact and this was a hard area to rebut that presumption as a high concentration of licensed premises already existed.  This was directly in front of a primary school and was probably the worst area that the Sub-Committee could grant against the policy. 

The applicant’s representative clarified that the applicant was applying as a sole trader, which was perfectly legal.  He had four other premises in London and would become the designated premises supervisor of this premises if the licence was granted.  It was recognised that the original application was not strong on conditions but additional conditions had now been circulated.  There would be two staff on the premises after 6pm and the application was within framework hours.  The licensee could not be held responsible for previous incidents.  This would be a convenience store and could open 24 hours a day.  Low strength alcohol had been agreed as a condition, other conditions were robust and the police had not raised an objection.  The police were not saying there would be an increase in cumulative impact.  Staff would be trained over the next year.  The close proximity of the school was not a valid ground to refuse the application.  The applicant had held a personal licence for some years and he stated that the public health officer had said it would be acceptable if the application was in framework hours.  There would be CCTV and staff would discourage loitering and this was conditioned.

In response to questions, the applicant’s representative stated that problem drinkers would go to premises with maximum strength alcohol.  Strong beers would not be on sale in this premises.  Staff would be fully trained.  In response to a question asking if there was anything distinctive about the premises and whether it would enhance the area, it was stated that robust conditions would stop the premises causing a problem. It was stated that the training given to the designated premises supervisor would be an enhancement to the experience that he already had. The public health officer stated that the objection to the licence was on the basis of cumulative impact and not just on the hours applied for. 

In summary, the interested parties stated that they had not heard the applicant rebut the presumption.  The conditions offered were standard for a well-run establishment.

The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant had four other shops which had no issues.  He would run this premises with no addition to cumulative impact.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Angel Food and Wine, 44 Duncan Street, N1 8BW, 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 Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Angel and Upper Street 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 operation schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee also 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 operation schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

Twelve local representations had been received.  There were representations from the Licensing Authority and from Public Health.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Licensing Authority that the application had not dealt with how the applicant would rebut the presumption of cumulative impact.  The public health team recommended refusal on the grounds that there was already sufficient supply in the area which already experienced high level of alcohol-related harm.

Two local residents spoke against the application.  They stated that this area was a particularly difficult area with high levels of anti-social behaviour, homelessness, litter including drug paraphernalia, bottles and cans. This was one of 2 local major crime spots where the Police and Parkguard were frequently called out. They said that there was a burden on the applicant to demonstrate a negative cumulative impact and this had not been demonstrated. 

The applicant’s representative stated that although the original application was not strong on conditions they had now forwarded a large number of robust conditions. This included conditions regarding high strength alcohol and CCTV. The police had not raised objections.  There would be two staff on duty after 6pm and the hours were within framework hours.  The applicant would be the designated premises supervisor and had held a personal licence for some years.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the premises 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. In accordance with licensing policy 2, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the grant of the application would undermine the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee concluded 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.