Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that two residents had made representations but were not in attendance. The applicant had sent an email with a supporting statement.

The Licensing Authority stated that she had nothing to add to her representation on pages 34 and 35 of the agenda.  She thought it was up to the Sub-Committee to ask what involvement the previous licence holder had with the licence.  The previous licence had been reviewed and revoked and the Sub-Committee needed to ensure that the licence holder had no involvement in the business.  Any conditions that the police may wish to add to the licence, should it be granted, were supported.

The Police stated that the applicant had engaged when the application had been submitted.  The applicant had explained the situation and proposed a number of conditions. She had accepted a condition that the previous licence holder would not be involved with the business. He considered that the Sub-Committee should arrive at a decision after speaking to the applicant.

The Trading Standards officer stated that business rates were still being paid by the previous licensee and the same employees were still working in the premises. Officers attended the premises on the 9 March 2022 and found one of the employees with one packet of illicit tobacco on his person. She considered that there had been no changes since the appeal, she was not satisfied that the business had changed hands and objected to the application on these grounds.

In response to questions, it was noted that the previous revocation had occurred due to a number of issues including, poor management around the sale of high strength alcohol near a drug and drink dependency unit, drug paraphernalia had been discovered next to sweets and there was also an illegal special treatment nail bar in the rear room. The designated premises supervisor was never on the premises. The lease was currently held in the name of the previous licence holder.

The applicant stated that she was a Director in 2016 but following differences of opinion she resigned in 2017. She then had less involvement and as she was separating from her husband she would want this business to be her sole source of income. She would only take over the business if she had an alcohol licence. She would not want to be linked with the previous licence holder and she had new ideas for the management of the business and was aware of how she would help the community. She would change the staff if necessary. She would retrain staff every six months and would train staff as she had been trained at her previous job in Asda. She had accepted all police conditions.  She would not sell miniatures or high strength alcohol. She would be running the premises with her sister who would also be a designated premises supervisor. She wanted to run things differently. She understood the issues around drugs and the special treatment licence. She would be there five days a week.

In response to questions, the applicant said she had been looking for new staff and would change them if necessary. She would not want any issues and if there were any problems she would call the police. The Sub-Committee raised concerns that the staff had not already been changed and that she was still heavily linked with the previous licence holder. Everything was still in the name of the previous licence holder. The applicant stated that she would have to pay twice if everything was transferred into her name and then if she did not get an alcohol licence she would have to transfer it back into his name as she would not want the premises if she did not get the licence. She said that her solicitor had the paperwork if they needed it. Her solicitor could have attended the meeting but had told her the price that she would charge to attend and so the applicant had decided to send a supporting email instead. She stated that she would like to be judged as a brand new applicant. She knew management processes and would have a refusal log book.  She would run it in the same way as she had been trained.

In summary, the Licensing Authority said that it was not for them to get involved in personal circumstances but to ensure that premises were properly run and operated in order to promote the licensing objectives.  The police had put in a representation as the application had not been clear but would not be certain whether it was advisable to issue a licence until lease paperwork had been transferred.  The trading standards officer stated that she still did not have much confidence in how the business would be run and knew that it was the same employees in the premises when she had visited on the 9 March 2022.

The applicant stated that the business was still in the name of the previous licence holder. She had met with the police in April. She wanted the business as she needed a source of income. If she had the licence she would run the business the way she would want to run it as the sole owner.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of A-Z Nidz Ltd, 29 Seven Sisters Road be refused.

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.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Holloway Road and Finsbury Park 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 operating 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 operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

Two local resident objections had been received.  There had been representations made by the police, trading standards and the licensing authority.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the responsible authorities about the applicant’s connection to the previous licence holder and the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was previously a Director of Singhsburys Superstores Ltd and there was still a strong link between the applicant and the previous licence holder.  The Sub-Committee noted that the lease of the premises was still held by the previous licence holder and they were still responsible for payment of business rates. The staff employed at the premises prior to the revocation of the licence, were still working at the premises. The Sub-Committee noted trading standards concerns that a packet of illicit tobacco was found on the premises after the revocation and that the applicant proposed to retain the same members of staff.

The Sub-Committee noted concerns raised by residents regarding street drinking and anti-social behaviour associated with drug dealing in the vicinity of the premises which had substantially reduced since the premises ceased selling alcohol.  The Sub-Committee also noted the proximity of the premises to an alcohol treatment centre on Seven Sisters Road.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant that she was separating from the Director of Singhsburys Superstores Ltd and wanted the premises as her sole source of income but only on the basis that the premises had a licence to sell alcohol. The applicant submitted that the conditions suggested by the police were agreed and that she would fully train the staff at the premises. The applicant stated that if the current members of staff didn’t work in accordance with her training she would get rid of them. The applicant requested that the Sub-Committee should see her as independent from the current business.

The Sub-Committee also considered licensing policies 8, 14 and 29.  The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated a commitment to the necessary high standards of management.  The applicant had previously been involved in the management of the premises and had not taken any steps to deal with recent breaches even though she has expressed an interest in taking over the business. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was prepared to retain the members of staff in the face of their previous behaviour and the concerns raised by trading standards.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to refuse the grant of the premises licence. The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the premises would have no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.  The applicant had not satisfied the Sub-Committee regarding future arrangements for the business and that its future operation would change.