The licensing officer stated that there was no further information to be added to that contained within the report.
The licensing authority stated that she was satisfied with the conditions put forward in the papers.
The applicant’s representative stated that the written submission was detailed on pages 55 – 65 of the report. All 32 conditions had been agreed as detailed at pages 166-169 of the report. Photographs of the storefront were also included in the report, a statement from Amazon and evidence from an expert witness who had visited two other Amazon stores and had stated that the grant of the licence was unlikely to add to the cumulative impact. The store would be situated in a fine building, alcohol would be displayed in no more of 10% of the floor area and restricted to the area hatched in red on the plan detailed at page 39. Planning consent had been granted. Planning and Licensing were separate regimes although regard could be given to their view. The grant of the licence was unlikely to add to the cumulative impact and this application fell within the recognised exceptions. There would be a small display area and would allow customers to purchase alcohol to have with their dinner. Hours were restricted to framework hours. All customers would be registered through technology, the alcohol display was always supervised allowing age verification to the alcohol area which would be a major deterrent to troublesome drinkers. The premises were not alcohol led and had an alcohol display area of no more than 10%, customers would already be in the area and should the application be refused, a licence could go to a less regulated applicant. The premises did not sell tobacco or super strength alcohol and would therefore be unattractive to a problem drinker. Hours were limited to 11pm and the exception was engaged. There were 32 proposed conditions. The police and environmental health had not objected. The licensing authority did not call for refusal. Objections were from interested parties and the ward councillor.
In response to questions, it was noted the alcohol range was generally laid out similarly to Tesco/Sainsbury stores. If they wished to display more alcohol they would need to apply for a licence variation. There would be a minimum of three members of staff on duty. The expert witness stated that customers would need an account. The alcohol was in a separate area which was supervised by a member of staff and was in a very controlled environment upholding the licensing objective, the protection of children from harm. Anyone could download the app for free with a registered credit/debit card. All members of staff had to pass a Challenge 25 exam online and this was followed by practical training on site.
1) That the application for a new premises licence in respect of The Mall, 359 Upper Street, N1 be granted:-
a) To allow the sale of alcohol, off supplies only, Monday to Sunday from 8am until 11pm.
b) The premises to be open to the public, Monday to Sunday from 7am to 11pm.
2) Conditions detailed on pages 166 - 169 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence.
REASONS FOR DECISION
This meeting 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 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 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.
Objections were received from seven local residents and one ward councillor. Objections from the police and the noise team had been withdrawn following the acceptance of proposed conditions by the applicant. At the hearing the Licensing Authority submitted that it was satisfied with the conditions put forward.
The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought for the sale of alcohol were within the framework hours specified in licensing policy 6.
The Sub-Committee noted the submissions from residents and the ward councillor and was satisfied that the applicant had addressed the concerns raised.
The Sub-Committee was satisfied that there would be no negative cumulative impact on the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee noted that the proposed licence fell within one of the possible exceptions to the Angel and Upper Street cumulative impact policy in that the premises would not be alcohol led and the operation was consistent with framework hours. The Sub-Committee also noted the measures proposed by the applicant that would deter street drinkers from attending the premises and would protect children through the use of Challenge 25 and the security arrangements within the alcohol area of the premises. The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied in accordance with licensing policy 4 that the application should be treated as an exception to the cumulative impact policy for off sales.
The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of the licence with the agreed conditions would promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the operating schedule demonstrated high standards of management and that the proposed use, with the extensive conditions agreed, meant that the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.
The Sub-Committee was satisfied that granting the premises licence was proportionate and appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives.