Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that there had been no submissions in advance from the licensee. A layout plan of the premises was circulated with the agenda.

The licensing authority stated that no application had been made for a special treatment licence and legal proceedings would commence.  The review was supported by the police, public health, community safety and trading standards.  The premises were in a very poor state of repair. Despite numerous attempts to engage the licensee since April 2019 there had been no response.

Photos were tabled indicating that stock had been removed and the premises had been tidied up.  The police officer advised that he had visited the premises on Monday 3 February and he had not considered much had changed in the premises at the time.

He stated that although he couldn’t comment on the building work that had reportedly taken place, however items were still available on the counter in large quantities.

The police officer stated that all engagement efforts had failed.  The licensee had no willingness to resolve issues. Although the premises could not be linked to specific crimes it was considered that the stock held should not be in licensed premises and management standards fell short.

The trading standards officer reported that there had been no engagement from the licensee.  A warning letter had been sent after illicit alcohol had been found on display in the premises.  At a further visit, more alcohol had been found. Standards of management were lacking and trading standards supported revocation or a suspension with modification of conditions.

The officer from public health stated that the premises were only 350m away from Better Lives recovery service. The people in treatment at this service should not have easy access to high strength alcohol or drug paraphernalia.

The community safety officer stated that there were significant challenges in the Finsbury Park/ Nags Head area relating to drug use/anti-social behaviour and homelessness. There had been partnership working between the police, the Council and local business to improve the safety and welfare of residents. They would have concerns about a premises that was selling high strength alcohol and drug paraphernalia.

The licensee’s representative stated that there had been no items sold from the premises that was not legally allowed to be sold.  Invoices were available for the goods.  Items had been purchased from a cash and carry which had no English writing on. He had taken pictures and had shown these to the responsible authorities.  He stated that substantial changes had taken place at the premises and paraphernalia had been moved away from the children’s area. The licensee had been in trade since 2006 and was not given the time required to make changes.  He proposed a DPS change and stated that things had changed quite a bit. He stated that he proposed eight conditions as the way forward. Improvements had started and pictures and invoices were available.

In response to a question about engagement, the licensee’s representative stated that there was to be a meeting in May that was cancelled.  The licensing authority stated that there had been no response from the licence holder regarding this meeting. The licensing team had written several times and had received no response.  On visits to the premises the licence holder had not been in the shop and staff were not forthcoming. It was stated that products were still in the premises on Monday 3 February and there had been no engagement until this week and in response the licensee’s representative stated that changes were made in November 2019. The licensee stated that photographs of improvements had been taken in November 2019. The police stated that when he visited on Monday 3 February, odorisers were still on display on the counter and the licensing officer stated that he had photographs dated 11 December which showed crack pipes in the window. The Chair asked if the licensee could find photographs on his phone and asked when they were taken.  The licensee showed two photographs from his phone dated 12 January.  He stated that he could not find others. In response to a question regarding the cannabis products he was selling, the licensee stated that he was not harming anyone.  He was not selling to those under 18 years.  He had not attended a number of meetings with council officers and he stated that this had maybe have been because of family issues. He was made aware about the illicit alcohol but Trading Standards had found more when they revisited the premises.  He had not submitted an application for a special treatment licence.  The licensee stated that he had now applied. He had decided that he was not a suitable person to be the designated premises supervisor as he did not have the time to run the premises but he had not resigned.  He did have someone in mind. He had decided this in December 2019.

In summary, the licensing officer reported that of the four premises that needed to apply for a special treatment licence in the area, he had been the only person not to respond or apply. 

The police stated that there had still been cannabis grinders on the shelves when they had visited on Monday.  He stated that there was very poor management and the licensing objectives were not being promoted. Conditions had been proposed and this reflected how unconditioned the licence had become. 

The trading standards officer stated that invoices had been produced now but this was too little too late.  If the licensee had engaged, the licence would not have reached a review stage. When the team send out a letter about illicit alcohol they would not expect twice as much illicit alcohol on a second visit.  On visits, the licensee had not been at the premises and had not contacted officers afterwards

The officer from public health raised concerns that the premises was in an area where there was a vulnerable population with drug and/or alcohol needs.

The licensing authority stated that too little had been done and it was far too late.  All conditions proposed had been detailed in the correspondence from the police and had not been put forward by the licensee. There had been a lack of responsibility

The licensee’s representative stated that things were moving forward.  The designated premises supervisor was to be changed. He stated that if the meeting in May had happened the review would not have been held. He stated that there had been a lack of communication.  Conditions proposed were agreed.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence in respect of Singhsbury’s, 29 Seven Sisters Road, N7 6AN, be revoked.

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.

This was an application to review the licence by the Licensing Authority. The application was supported by the Metropolitan Police, Trading Standards, Public Health and the Community Safety Team.

No representations were received from members of the public. The licensee made oral submissions through his representative and himself at the hearing.

The Sub-Committee considered the fact that there had been repeated breaches of the licence conditions and that despite repeated warnings been operating a special treatment business without a licence. The premises had on numerous inspections been found to have dangerous wiring, high strength alcohol and crack pipes were on display for sale. This all being within an area with a high level of drug and alcohol addiction and abuse.

The Sub-Committee considered that the licensee had failed to engage with the Council since April 2019 being the date when the council had been actively endeavouring to interact with the licensee in an attempt to remedy the problem set out above and in the papers.

The Sub-Committee concluded that there were serious management issues with the business and were of such a serious nature that the licensing objectives were being undermined with potential for serious harm to members of the public. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied with the responses of the licensee and found him not to be credible in his submissions, specifically in relation to the photographs presented by him at the hearing and the visits at the premises when high strength alcohol/legality of the stock was found.

Taking all the above mentioned factors into account the Sub-Committee concluded that revocation of the licence was the reasonable and proportionate decision in order to promote the licensing objectives.