Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

 

The agent for the applicant addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the agent for the applicant. Members also had questions for the designated premises supervisor.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10.40am as the members wished to ask questions of the applicant directly.  The meeting reconvened at 10.47am.

 

Members asked questions of the applicant. The legal representative for a local resident objecting to the application also had questions, which the chair allowed.

 

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

 

The trading standards officer then addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the trading standards officer.

 

The licensing responsible authority officer addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the licensing responsible authority officer.

 

The legal representative for a local resident objecting to the application addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the legal representative.

 

All parties were given up to five minutes for summing up.

 

The meeting adjourned at 1.10pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 1.40pm and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by Hunish Sembhi for a premises licence to be granted under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Cruson Local Food, 26 Camberwell Church Street, London SE5 8QU be refused.

 

Reasons

 

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant’s representative who advised that the application was made by MM Cruson Local Food Limited.  Mrs Sahar Allahgul was the sole director, who was unable to attend the hearing due to IT issues.  The representative advised that the applicant was available on the telephone via the designated premises supervisor (DPS), Alex Maxwell, who was present at the meeting and able to speak on her behalf, having bought a 25% share of the business.  This however, had not been registered at Companies House to date

 

The representative for the applicant advised that the premises was a small convenience store and it was the applicant’s intention to sell a small amount of alcohol, being no more than 25% of the shelf space.  Through the application process the hours for off-sales had been amended to 11:00 to 22:00 and 23 conditions had been proposed, to be added to the licence.  It was felt that the concerns raised by the police in terms of the problem drinkers in the vicinity was addressed by the reduced hours, which fell within the recommended hours in Southwark’s statement of licensing policy.  Additionally, there would be no sales of beers, ciders and lagers exceeding 6.5% ABV and no miniature bottles of liquor would be sold.

 

Regarding the concerns raised by trading standards, it was proposed that a personal licence holder would be on the premises at all times, a Challenge 25 scheme would be operated and training records would be maintained.

 

It was also felt that the suite of conditions went a long way to address the licensing as a responsible authority’s concerns.  The applicant was unable to address the other persons’ representations as these were very general in nature.

 

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the representative from the Metropolitan Police Service who objected to the application due to the premises being situated in the Camberwell cumulative impact Area (CIA).  The officer referred to the case of Westminster City Council v Middlesex Crown Court, which confirmed that the application could be refused solely on the basis that the area was already saturated with licensed premises.  With that in mind, Camberwell was subject to considerable problems with alcohol misuse including a large problem with street drinking. Kings College hospital and the Maudsley Hospital were situated in the area and have Alcohol treatment centres within both, attracting alcohol dependent people to the area. There were 12 off licences in the immediate vicinity of Camberwell Green. The Metropolitan Police Service objected to the granting of the licence in full and did not see any reason for further licenced premises to be needed in the area, as any further premises selling alcohol will only add to the cumulative impact, attract alcohol dependent people and add to the local crime and disorder.

 

The officer from trading standards also objected to the application under the protection of children from harm and the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objectives.  They further objected on the basis that the premises was located within the Camberwell CIA.

 

The officer also referred to a visit to the premises on 31 July 2020 with the night time economy team. When asked who was in charged, officers were told that it was a man called Waheed.  The lady behind the sales counter stated that she lived above the shop and said that she had been asked to look after the shop as the family running it were busy with family matters.  She knew nothing about age verification or any other matters relating to under age sales, when the premises was open and selling tobacco. 

 

The officer also referred to a quantity of non duty paid herbal shisha for sale and a couple of counterfeit in ear, wireless Bose headphones were also offered for sale. A man, who said that he was a shop assistant at the premises, came into the premises and said he had bought the headphones from a man who had called at the shop selling a variety of similar items.

 

It was also established that the director of MM Cruson Local Food Limited, Mrs Sahar Allahgul was married to Mr Waheed Allahgul, who was a designated premises supervisor of a premises on Southwark Park Road, London SE16 3TP, that was reviewed in 2014 and had its premises licence revoked for amongst other things, selling counterfeit vodka.  It was trading standards’ contention that Waheed Allahgul was the person in control of the operation.

 

The licensing sub-committee then heard from licensing as a responsible authority whose representation was based on the Southwark statement of licensing policy 2019 – 2021 and related to the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives.  The officer also made reference to the premises being situated in the

Camberwell CIA as defined within the Southwark statement of licensing policy 2019 – 2021 and that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption that this application is likely to add to the existing cumulative impact and should therefore be refused.

 

The solicitor for local resident A then addressed the licensing sub-committee.  He stated that there were six off-licences within 100 metres of the front door of the premises and then referred to the data produced by Southwark’s public health team and the statement produced by PC McKay regarding the street/problem drinkers in the Camberwell area. 

 

Whilst each application should be should be judged on its own merits, the applicant had failed to address the CIA and had not rebutted the presumption against granting a licence in such a designated area. Furthermore, the Home Office Revised Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 provided that on a review of a premises licence involving counterfeit or non-duty items, revocation should be considered in the first instance.  The sub-committee were urged to refuse the application.

 

The licensing sub-committee considered the written representations of the three other persons who were not present at the hearing. 

 

The licensing sub-committee considered the application very carefully all of the written and oral representations before it.  When considering the application, it was reminded that each application needed to be considered on its own merits. On this occasion, the sub-committee found the objections raised by both the responsible authorities and the other persons compelling. 

 

The sub-committees were concerned that prior to the hearing, the premises had been inspected (on 31 July 2020) and had non duty paid herbal shisha for sale addition to counterfeit earphones the owner was not present and left the resident from above the shop to run the shop, who had no knowledge of age restrictive products.

 

The application had been made by MM Cruson Local Food Limited, whose sole director was Mrs Sahar Allagul. It was claimed that the DPS, Alex Maxwell had bought a 25% share in the business, but there was no record of this at Companies House. It was the DPS who had submitted the application. Neither Mrs Sahar Allahgul or Mr Alex Maxwell accepted responsibility for the items seized on 31 July 2020. 

 

The sub-committee accepted that in premises selling counterfeit/non-duty paid items, it should consider revocation in the first instance.  The sub-committee were also sceptical of Mrs Allahgul’s husband being involved in the management of the premises.  Ultimately, the sub-committee were not confident in the ability of either the director of MM Cruson Local Food Ltd or the DPS  to properly manage a licensed premises. 

 

The applicant also failed to address the presumption to refuse the licence, despite the premises being located in a CIA. With six other off-licences within 100 metres of the premises, this sub-committee are of the view that an additional licence premises with off sales would just be an additional premises available to the problem drinkers of Camberwell.  The sub-committee agreed with the decision in Westminster City Council v Middlesex Crown Court, that a premises licence could be granted, solely on the grounds that a premises licence was in a CIA.  On this basis, this licensing sub-committee refused this premises licence application.

 

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:

 

a)  To impose conditions on the licence

b)  To exclude a licensable activity or refuse to specify a person as premises supervisor.

 

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

 

a)  The  licence ought not to be been granted; or

b)  That on granting the licence, the licensing authority ought to have imposed different or additional conditions to 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.