Skip to content

Agenda item

The Mall, 359 Upper Street, N1 0PD - New premises licence


The licensing officer reported that an additional bundle, a short video showing the shop and a longer video showing the amazon fresh system had been circulated to members. Additional conditions had also been circulated.


The Licensing Authority stated that their representation was detailed on pages 29 and 30 of the agenda.  They had not been aware that this was an Amazon store at the time of application. The additional proposed conditions that stated that a member of staff would supervise alcohol sales and that alcohol would be 10% of the retail area were welcomed. The Sub-Committee were asked to consider the process of allowing customers in the store and the supervision of Challenge 25 and drunk customers. The officer had attended another store and considered that the alcohol area had been well supervised and identification was checked.  She raised concerns regarding only one person on the exit but stated that, on the whole, she was happy with the application.


In response to a question regarding the proximity of the premises to a school it was noted that there was a primary school approximately 80 metres from the premises. The licensing authority stated that this had not been considered this when making her representation. In response to further questions, the Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was no longer an off shore company. The licensing officer stated that he was confident that police conditions were agreed before who they knew who the operator would have been. There was a concern that the police had not been given time to see the complete proposal in front of the Sub-Committee.


At 7pm the Chair requested a short adjournment for the Sub-Committee to receive legal advice. The Sub-Committee returned at 7.05pm and the legal adviser stated that, under Regulation 12 (1a) of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 the authority could adjourn an application to a future date if the Sub-Committee considered it was necessary and in the public interest.  The Chair asked the applicant to consider a possible adjournment and make submissions.


The applicant’s representative submitted that there was no need to adjourn the meeting. He stated that the application submitted in December 2020 made the nature of the store clear, giving a description on page 15 of the agenda and a plan on page 23 which detailed shelving and the proposed area for alcohol display. This had remained unchanged and further restrictions had since been offered. The police were fully aware that this was to be a grocery store and there had been no attempt to mislead. There was no involvement in an off shore company and the applicant was UK registered. The application was submitted prior to launch and the police were informed of the applicant on the 9 March. Amazon had offered further additions and restrictions and further delay would not benefit anyone.


In response to questions, the applicant’s representative did not consider that knowledge of the applicant would make any difference. It would be the operating manner and the way that sales were to be managed that would be of a concern. He considered that if the police had been concerned they could have been called on as witnesses to the Licensing Authority.  A member of the Sub-Committee stated that it was only since viewing the video of the storefront received following agenda despatch, that he had realised that this was a very different concept and did not have a checkout and security lines that they were all familiar with. He raised concerns about how customers would leave the premises.


AT 7.25pm, there was a short adjournment for the applicant’s representative to take instructions from the applicant. On return at 7.30pm the applicant’s representative stated that he had no objection for the Police and Environmental Health team to be informed about the method of customers leaving the premises to ascertain if this would make a difference to their view of the application. He stated that speed was of the essence and noted that there was a future meeting of a Sub-Committee on the 5 May.



That the application for The Mall, 359 Upper Street, N1 0PD be adjourned until the 5 May 2021 under Regulation 12 (1a) of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 as proposed by the applicant’s representative.



Supporting documents: