Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report. Members had questions for the licensing officer.

The applicant’s addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the applicants. 

The trading standards officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had no questions for the trading standards officer.

The licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority addressed the sub-committee.  Members had no questions for the licensing responsible authority officer.

The Metropolitan Police Service representative addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the police representative.

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 11.02am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 11.27am and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Arumugam Ramasamy to vary a premises licence to be granted under s.34 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known asRose Food and Wine 65 Southwark Park Road, London SE16 3TYbe refused.

Reasons

This was an application to vary a premises licence in respect of the premises known as Rose Food and Wine, 65 Southwark Park Road, London SE16 3TY to extend the hours permitted for the off sale of alcohol until 23:45 daily, to allow the sale of alcohol from 08:00 on Sunday and to allow the sale of beers with an alcohol by volume (ABV) of up to 9% at the premises. 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who advised that although the area was quiet, towards closing, there was often a flurry of customers, who wished to buy alcohol. An extension of hours would allow the applicant to utilise that additional time for cleaning the premises. The applicant also stated that they had also been steadily losing customers to competitors due to the restrictions on beer sales as set out in their licence.  It was the applicant’s intention to sell strong beers to meet their customers’ requirements. They stated that they got many customers on a daily basis asking for these beers.  The applicant was unable to give examples of the super strength beers customers sought. 

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the officer for trading standards who objected to the application on the basis of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. As a result of issues with the previous licence holder, Condition 340 (“That no beers/ciders in single cans, bottles or multipacks with an ABV of above 6.5% will be displayed/sold or offered for sale from the premises, unless prior written permission has been obtained from a Metropolitan Police Licensing Officer from Southwark. Such permission must be kept at the premises and made available immediately on request to the relevant authorities”) had been added to the licence. They stated that it was clear that the applicant had not understood the meaning of this condition

The licensing sub-committee then heard from licensing as a responsible authority who objected to the application based on the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm licensing objectives. They stated that the premises is situated within a residential area.  They also informed the sub-committee that the hours applied for were in excess of the guidance hours in the Southwark statement of licensing policy for this type of premises. The closing times recommended in this council’s statement of licensing policy for this type of premises located in residential areas are 23:00 daily. The only aspect of the application that wasn’t opposed to was where the opening hours were specified, which would reduce the premises from a 24 hour convenience shop by eight hours. 

The licensing sub-committee finally heard from the Metropolitan Police Service who objected to the application based on the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. They advised that the premises are situated in a residential area as designated by the Southwark statement of licensing policy and premises hours were already in line with the policy.  Any extension to would take the hours beyond those recommended in the policy.

The application also sought to change the condition restricting the sale of beers and ciders from 6.5% to 9%, despite condition 340 already being on the licence.  The officer also advised the sub-committee that a night time economy visit on 4 March 2020 found the premises to be in breach of five conditions and that a Notice of Offences was issued.  The breaches related to Challenge 25 and CCTV conditions.

The licensing sub-committee were extremely concerned that despite being found in breach of the licence on 4 March 2020, the applicant continued with this variation application under the belief there would be no repercussions. The breaches are in themselves sufficient to refuse this application.

That said, through discussion, it became clear that the applicant didn’t need to remove condition 340. With the police agreement, this condition could be updated to include those super strength beers, ciders and lagers that were requested by the applicant’s customers.

Concerning the extension of hours, the sub-committee found no exceptional reasons to divert from the closing hours as set out in Southwark’s statement of licensing policy. Furthermore, the applicant’s primary reason for the extension was to carry out cleaning prior to the premises closure. The sub-committee takes the view that the cleaning could be factored in with a later closing time without an extension to the off-sales of alcohol.

Whilst this application is rejected in its entirety, it is very strongly recommended that applicant implements further training for all of its staff to ensure that there is no further breaches of the licence.

In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate.

Appeal Rights

The applicant may appeal against any decision to modify the conditions of the licence; and

Any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application who desires to contend:

a)  That the variation ought not to have been made; or

b)  That, when varying the licence, the licensing authority ought not to have modified the conditions of the licence, or ought to have modified them in a different way

may appeal against the decision.

Any appeal must be made to the Magistrates’ Court for the area in which the premises are situated. Any appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates’ Court within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.

At this point the meeting adjourned at 11.30am to 11.50am for the members briefing in relation to items 6 and 7 on the agenda.