Agenda item

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

 

The applicant and their legal representative addressed the sub-committee  Members had questions for the applicant and their legal representative.

 

The sub-committee heard from local residents objecting to the application.  Members had questions for the local residents.

 

The sub-committee noted the written representations of the local residents who were not in attendance.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 1.30pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 2.22pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by Thirukumar Selvaratnam to vary the premises licence granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as A T Newsagents, 86 Brandon Street, London SE17 1ND to be granted under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 as follows:

 

 

Activity	Hours
The sale by retail of alcohol (off sales only)	Monday to Sunday  08:00 to 00:00
Provision of Late Night Refreshments	Monday to Sunday  23:00 to 00:00
Opening Hours	Monday to Sunday 06:00 to 00:00

 

Conditions

 

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to relevant mandatory conditions, existing conditions of the premises licence and those derived from the operation schedule, the conditions agreed with the Metropolitan Police Service during consultation prior to the submission of the application and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

 

1)  That a contact telephone number for the management of the premises shall be clearly displayed at the premises.

 

2)  That the premises will endeavour not to use single use plastics wherever possible.

 

3)  That the applicant shall make a litter bin available outside of the premises.

 

4)  That at least one litter pick is carried out per day in the vicinity of the area, the last which will take place when the premises closes.

 

Reasons

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer. He outlined the discrepancies in the supporting documents provided by the applicant’s legal representative. He confirmed that no representations were made by the responsible authorities. The licensing officer confirmed there were four objectors.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant’s legal representative who acknowledged the discrepancy in the supporting documents and advised that the opening hours applied for was as written in the application form, a time of 06:00 to 00:00 (the following day) daily.

 

They explained that A T Newsagents is to be a convenience store. They provided a breakdown of the business stating that sales consisted of 80% groceries, 10% tobacco and 10% alcohol. He opined that the alcohol floor space equated to 5% of the business.

 

They addressed the main concerns of the objectors, crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour in a nearby park to the premises, Nursery Row Park. They said that those who participate in anti-social behaviour in the park would be looking to buy cheap alcohol which they would not be able to get at the premises. He proposed that a condition requiring the applicant to provide a contact number to residents could be included on the licence to help alleviate the concerns of the objectors.

 

They explained that prior to submitting the application, it was put forward to the Metropolitan Police Service for their consideration. The police had requested that the application to include specific conditions in the operating schedule which the applicant complied with.

 

They stated that as the Metropolitan Police Service have not made a representation regarding the application they must be content with the licence being granted with the conditions applied for and in accordance with section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (April 2018) para 9.12, the licensing sub-committee should interpret this as there being no concern on crime and disorder from the Metropolitan Police Service. Similarly, the lack of a representation from the Environmental Health team should be interpreted as there being no real concern on the licensing objective of public nuisance. They stated that granting the premises licence would not undermine the promotion of the licensing objectives.

 

The applicant informed the licensing sub-committee that he had been running a business for nine years. He explained his procedure when dealing with intoxicated customers who were looking to purchase alcohol. He would refuse these sales and explain why they could not be served. If they refused to leave the premises he would call the police. 

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the objectors. The majority of the objectors resided near Nursery Row Park and observed anti-social behaviour in the park at night such as: violence, abuse, litter and drug and alcohol misuse. One objector resided in the neighbouring property to the premises. The objectors were mainly concerned that if another premises was allowed to operate and serve alcohol late at night it would further the anti-social behaviour in the park.

 

The members asked the objectors if they believed any or the perpetrators of the anti-social behaviours were buying alcohol from the premises. The objectors suggested that perpetrators were not currently but that they would start buying from the premises if the licence was granted until 00:00. One of the objectors (Other Person F) expressed that there was a serious litter problem in the area particularly broken glass bottles. They stated that many of these bottles were Nigerian Guinness. As of the date of the licensing sub-committee, the premises did not have a licence to sell Nigerian Guinness and the applicant explained that he did not have the intention to sell this product in the near future.

 

The applicant’s legal representative suggested that a condition could be included to refuse to serve anyone causing anti-social behaviour in the area.

 

The chair of the licensing sub-committee reminded the objectors that they could ask for the license to be reviewed if they felt that the premises was not being managed in accordance with its conditions.

 

The licensing sub-committee were referred to R (on application of Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral Magistrates’ Court and Others (2008) EWHC 838 (Admin) in which the Honourable Mrs Justice Black said at para 63: “The fact that the police did not oppose the hours sought on this basis should have weighed very heavily on them whereas, in fact, they appear to have dismissed the police view because it did not agree with their own”.

 

The licensing sub-committee were mindful of the concerns raised regarding anti-social behaviours within Nursery Row Park and had compassion for the residents. They were also aware that nationwide there had been a rise in anti-social behaviour and an increase in parties since the national government lockdown ended in June 2021. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the concerns raised here were caused by the premises or that the responsible authorities as experts in their fields shared the same concerns. Furthermore, there had been no complaints regarding the premises since the licence was granted in 2012.

 

The licensing sub-committee formed the view that the objections put, had been allayed by the applicant including the conditions suggested by the Metropolitan Police Service, the lack of representations by the other responsible authorities and that the hours applied for the licensable activities were in accordance with Southwark statement of licensing policy 2021 - 2026.

 

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 in all the circumstances.

 

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.  That 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.