Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that there had been no further submissions from the applicant.

The licensing authority stated that the premises was in an area that was saturated with off licence premises and had a large number of vulnerable residents.  The conditions proposed were the minimum conditions they would expect. There was no proposal that the premises would offer specialist goods and the application should be refused unless the applicant could demonstrate that the premises would not add to the cumulative impact in the area.

The applicant’s representative stated that he had consulted with the noise team and the police and conditions had been agreed with these responsible authorities.  Conditions agreed were detailed in the report and they included conditions about CCTV and deterring street drinking such as no sale of miniatures, single cans or high strength beers. He stated that the applicant had been living in the area for five or six years. The premises at 91-93 Seven Sisters Road used to be a textile shop but had closed in March. The family had 15 years’ experience. Hours were to be reduced to 9am to 9pm. The applicant would robustly promote the licensing objectives in the cumulative impact area.

In response to questions, it was noted that the application had been made by a manager in the company. In response to questions asking the applicant whether he understood the cumulative impact area, and to explain the cumulative impact area and how the premises fit into any of the exceptions, the applicant stated that he was aware this was a high crime area. He would work with the police and try his best. His family had 15 years’ experience. He was not asking for long hours. He stated that to deter street drinkers they would not sell strong beers or single cans. He would train his staff, he would obtain his personal licence and get full training from his representative. He said he would challenge those that looked to be under 25 and would write in the refusal book. He had CCTV if the police needed evidence. The applicant’s representative stated that he had consulted with the police and the noise team but had not communicated with the Licensing Authority.

In summary, the licensing authority stated that conditions were mainly standard conditions with the exception of the condition relating to the selling of single cans. It seemed a very large shop and the recommendation of refusal remained the same.

The applicant’s representative stated that there were a large amount of conditions which offered complete control of the premises. The applicant knew the licensing objectives. The shop was divided into two shops, one textile shop and one off licence. Training was being offered to all staff so that they understood the licensing objectives. If there were breaches of the licence they could be reviewed.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of J and T Food and Wine, 91 Seven Sisters Road, N7 6BU, be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This meeting was held under regulations made under the Coronavirus Act 2020 and it was facilitated by Zoom.

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 Finsbury Park/Holloway Road 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 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.

No local resident objections had been received.  Conditions had been agreed with the police and the noise team. There was a representations made by the licensing authority.

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

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the licensing authority that the premises were in a very high risk area with vulnerable residents with drug and alcohol issues. The licensing authority was of the view that the operating schedule offered only the minimum conditions that the licensing authority would expect for an off licence and only the standard police conditions. The applicant was not offering specialist goods and was not limiting the alcohol offering. The premises was in walking distance of ‘Better Lives’, a drug and alcohol treatment/recovery service. The licensing authority was of the view that the application should be refused unless the applicant was able to demonstrate that the premises were not going to add to the cumulative impact in a saturated and high risk area.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant that he owned shop numbers 91 – 93 and that no 93 would remain a textile shop and that 91 would be the off licence. The applicant had lived in the area for 5 or 6 years and his family have been in the off licence trade for 15 years. The Sub-Committee heard evidence that conditions had been agreed to stop street drinkers such as conditions in relation to high strength beer and cider and the selling of spirit miniatures. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was prepared to change the hours sought to 9am to 9pm.  The Sub-Committee heard evidence that the applicant was aware that the premises were in a high crime area and he would work with the police. The applicant stated that all his staff would be trained and security would be his priority.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a full understanding of the implications of the premises being in a cumulative impact area and had failed to show how he would ensure that his premises would not add to that cumulative impact. The applicant had not indicated what percentage of the premises would be dedicated to the sale of alcohol and had not shown that the premises fell within the exceptions set out on page 20 of Islington’s licensing policy.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the high standards of management required. The applicant had failed to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of best practice and the Sub-Committee was particularly concerned that there had been no engagement with the licensing authority following their representation. The Sub-Committee took into account Licensing policies 7 and 8 regarding standards of management.