Agenda item

The licensing officer introduced all parties. He stated that there were no additional documents submitted.

The Police reported that the applicant had applied to sell alcohol 7 days a week inside the premises up until 1am and from 1am-3am though a hatch. The Police stated that Finsbury Park was saturated with venues offering late night refreshments. There was an onus on the applicant to demonstrate the premises would not impact on the cumulative impact zone and the applicant had not done this other than to mention inhouse training.

The Police stated that when the premises was run by the previous owners, there had been issues. The applicant had applied for TENS to demonstrate there would be no problems. However, the applicant had disregarded police advise to use these in March, April and May and instead used them in January and February which were quiet times. The applicant had now run out of TENS so there was no way to test their ability to serve alcohol until the times that had been requested.

The Licensing Authority stated that their representation was as stated in Appendix 1. The applicant using up the TENS at the quietist time of the year meant there was no means of judging them. The area was saturated with off-licences. The applicant had not outlined how the premises would be operated and managed beyond 11pm and the applicant had not been in contact with the Licensing Authority. There was also concern that selling alcohol from the hatch could cause street drinking.

The applicant’s representative stated that the premises was not in a cumulative impact zone and that he had submitted documents which stated that they were aware of concerns. He also stated that there were already posters about street drinkers in the shop and staff would inform them they would not be served. Any drunkenness would not be tolerated.

The applicant’s representative stated that when the applicant took over the premises he did not know anything about the previous owners. The conditions on the licence were more stringent than for other off licences. Single cans of alcohol or strong alcohol above 6.5% were not permitted to be sold, unlike in other premises in the area. The applicant’s representative stated that these products aided street drinking.

The applicant stated that the premises previously had a 24-hour licence. He had changed the double-glazed door and at night only two people were permitted in the shop at a time. The more experienced staff were put on the till and checked ID. Two members of staff had personal licences and three more were in the process of obtaining them. There were several notices in the shop relating to unacceptable behaviour. CCTV cameras would show the public entering the shop.

The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant did not realise that the TENS should have been staggered. The shop and area were always busy and customers had themselves asked that the premises stay open until later. The hatch would be used from 1am until 3am for safety reasons.

A member observed that the licence holder not knowing about TENs showed a lack of knowledge.

In response to a member’s question about how the application would promote the licensing policy, the applicant’s representative stated that high strength alcohol and single cans would not be sold; there was 24 hour CCTV retained for 31 days; Challenge 25 was followed; log registers were kept for at least 12 months and there was a refusals book and an incident book behind the counter. Training records could also be checked.

A member asked why the licence had been revoked under the previous owners. The applicant stated he was unaware of the history. His understanding was that the licence he had taken on was a 24 hour licence but he later found out it was only until 11pm. The member raised concern that an experienced licence holder would not check the licence with the Licensing Authority or through their legal representative when taking on the licence. The applicant stated that since they had discovered the licence was until 11pm, these licensing hours had been followed.

In summary, the Police stated that it was concerning that a licence holder with 12 years’ experience had taken on a licence without knowing the previous history and had made a basic error in exceeding the limit of TENS. The Police also questioned the effectiveness of signs inside the premises on intoxicated people outside the premises. The Police were concerned that there was nothing in the application about impacts of the requested variation to the licence. The Police stated he had no confidence in the applicant.

In summary, the Licensing Authority confirmed that the premises was not in a cumulative impact zone; the representation had been made in relation to Licensing Policy 4 in that the proposal would add to the cumulative impact of off-licences in the area. In addition, taking on a licence without checking it with the Licensing Authority or via a solicitor’s search showed a naivety about licensing law, regulations and procedures.

In summary, the applicant’s representative stated that there was not naivety as it was the same licence but with the name changed; the premises was not in a cumulative impact zone; the annexed conditions were important as they were more stringent than the conditions placed on other shops. The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant would reduce the hours sought to 1am if this was more feasible and that the applicant was running the premises well. He further stated that the applicant had applied for three or four TENS but he did not know how many days each one was for. This showed naivety but was done in good faith.  The applicant’s representative stated that the 24 hour licence was the one displayed in the shop at the time the applicant took it over. He also advised that the posters in the shop were facing customers, both inside and outside of the shop.

RESOLVED:

That a premises licence variation in respect of JE Fine Foods, 187 Blackstock Road, London, N5 2LL be refused.

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 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 operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

No local resident objections had been received.  Representations had been made by the Licensing Authority and Police.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were not within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Police that the applicant had applied to sell alcohol inside the premises up until 1am and from 1am-3am though a hatch. The police stated that Finsbury Park was saturated with venues offering late night refreshments. There was an onus on the applicant to demonstrate the premises would not impact on the cumulative impact zone and the applicant had not done this other than to mention inhouse training.

The Sub-Committee heard further evidence from the Police that when the premises was run by the previous owners, there had been issues. The applicant had applied for TENS to demonstrate there would be no problems. However, the applicant had disregarded police advise to use these in March, April and May and instead used them in January and February which were quiet times. The applicant had now run out of TENS.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Licensing Authority that their representation was as stated in Appendix 1. The applicant using up the TENS at the quietist time of the year meant there was no means of judging them. The area was saturated with off-licences. The applicant had not outlined how the premises would be operated and managed beyond 11pm and the applicant had not been in contact with the Licensing Authority. There was also concern that selling alcohol from the hatch could cause street drinking.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant’s representative. He stated that the premises was not in a cumulative impact zone and that he had submitted documents which stated that they were aware of concerns. He also stated that there were already posters about street drinkers in the shop and staff would inform them they would not be served. Any drunkenness would not be tolerated.

The applicant’s representative stated that when the applicant took over the premises he did not know anything about the previous owners. The conditions on the licence were more stringent than for other off licences. Single cans of alcohol or strong alcohol above 6.5% were not permitted to be sold, unlike in other premises in the area. The applicant’s representative stated that these products aided street drinking. The applicant stated that the premises previously had a 24 hour licence. He had changed the double glazed door and at night only two people were permitted in the shop at a time. The more experienced staff were put on the till and checked ID. Two members of staff had personal licences and three more were in the process of obtaining them. There were several notices in the shop relating to unacceptable behaviour. CCTV cameras would show the public entering the shop. The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant did not realise that the TENS should have been staggered. The shop and area were always busy and customers had themselves asked that the premises stay open until later. The hatch would be used from 1am until 3am for safety.

A member observed that the licence holder not knowing about TENs showed a lack of knowledge.

In response to a member’s question about how the application would promote the licensing policy, the applicant’s representative stated that high strength alcohol and single cans would not be sold; there was 24 hour CCTV retained for 31 days; Challenge 25 was followed; log registers were kept for at least 12 months and there was a refusals book and an incident book behind the counter. Training records could also be checked.

A member asked why the licence had been revoked under the previous owners. The applicant stated he was unaware of the history. His understanding was that the licence he had taken on was a 24 hour licence but he later found out it was only until 11pm. The member raised concern that an experienced licence holder would not check the licence with the Licensing Authority or through their legal representative when taking on the licence. The applicant stated that since they had discovered the licence was until 11pm, these licensing hours had been followed.

In summary, the Police stated that it was concerning that a licence holder with 12 years’ experience had taken on a licence without knowing the previous history and had made a basic error in exceeding the limit of TENS. The Police also questioned the effectiveness of signs inside the premises on intoxicated people outside the premises. The Police were concerned that there was nothing in the application about impacts of the requested variation to the licence. The Police stated he had no confidence in the applicant.

In summary, the Licensing Authority confirmed that the premises was not in a cumulative impact zone; the representation had been made in relation to Licensing Policy 4 in that the proposal would add to the cumulative impact of off-licences in the area. In addition, taking on a licence without checking it with the Licensing Authority or via a solicitor’s search showed a naivety about licensing law, regulations and procedures.

In summary, the applicant’s representative stated that there was not naivety as it was the same licence but with the name changed; the premises was not in a cumulative impact zone; the annexed conditions were important as they were more stringent than the conditions placed on other shops. The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant would reduce the hours sought to 1am if this was more feasible and that the applicant was running the premises well. He further stated that the applicant had applied for three or four TENS but he did not know how many days each one was for. This showed naivety but was done in good faith.  The applicant’s representative stated that the 24 hour licence was the one displayed in the shop at the time the applicant took it over. He also advised that the posters in the shop were facing customers, both inside and outside of the shop.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the granting of the variation would not promote the licensing objectives. The hours sought were not within the hours specified in licensing policy 6. The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 4 dealing with cumulative impact and noted the area already had a significant number of licensed premises The Sub-Committee considered that, in their application, the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption that further licensing applications which were likely to add to the existing cumulative impact would not be granted.