Agenda item

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

 

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

 

The sub-committee noted the written representation from the other person objecting to the application.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10.56am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 11.16am and the chair advised the attendees of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by Tesco Stores Limited for a premises licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known asTesco Express, 29-35 Lordship Lane, London SE22 8EWbe granted as follows:

 

Supply of Alcohol (off Sales)	Monday to Sunday from 06:00 to 00:00
Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)	Monday to Sunday from 23:00 to 00:00
Opening hours	Monday to Sunday from 06:00 to 00:00

 

Conditions

 

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to relevant mandatory conditions, conditions derived from the operating schedule highlighted in Parts I J, K, L, and M of the application form and the conditions agreed with the Metropolitan Police Service.

 

Conditions agreed with the Metropolitan Police Service:

 

1.  That a CCTV systemshall beinstalled andmaintained infull workingorder. TheCCTV systemwill recordfootage of evidentialquality inall lightingconditions andshould be ableto capture aclear facialimage of allpersons that enter the premises. Public areas will be covered by the CCTV system including the entrance and exit of the premises.

 

 

 

2.  That all CCTVfootage shallbe keptfor aperiod ofthirty-one (31)days andshall bemade availableto police andauthorised council officers, subject to GDPR.

 

3.  That at least one member of staff should be on duty at all times at the premises is open for licensable activities is trained in the use ofthe CCTV and able to view and download images to a removable device on request of policeand authorised councilofficers, subject to GDPR.

 

4.  That clearly legiblesignage shallbe prominentlydisplayed where itcan easilybe seenand readby customers advising tothe effect that CCTV isin operation at the premises. The signageshall be kept free from obstructions at all times.

 

5.  That all relevant staff shallbe trainedin agerestricted sales. Trainingrecords shall bekept at thepremises and beupdated twicea yearand bemade availableto policeand authorisedcouncil officers,subject toGDPR. The training records shall include thetrainee's name and the date(s) oftraining.

 

6.  That a recordof allstaff authorisedto sell alcoholat thepremises shallbe keptat thepremises andwill be madeavailable to policeand authorisedcouncil officers,subject to GDPR,immediately onrequest.

 

7.  That no beers/ciders withan alcoholby volume(ABV) of above7.5% shall bedisplayed, sold or offeredfor sale at the premises withthe exception of premium or craft products.

 

8.  That alcohol shall notbe storedor displayed lessthan two (2)meters awayfrom thepremises entranceunless stored behind the staff counter.

 

9.  That a notice shall bedisplayed ina prominent positionat theexit ofthe premises,asking customersto respect nearby residents and toleave quietly.

 

10.  That a challenge25 scheme shall be operatedat the premises and staffwill be trained to requestID from a customerwho looks under25 years old, and who is attempting topurchase ortake receiptof alcohol, providesvalid photographicidentification proving that thecustomer isat least18 yearsold. Valid photographic identificationis composed ofa photodriving licence, passport, UKarmed services photoID card, any Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) or any ageverification card accredited by the Home Office or Secretary of State.

 

 

11.  That all staffinvolved inthe saleof alcoholshall betrained inthe preventionof salesof alcoholto underage persons (includingthe prevention of 'proxysales') and thechallenge 25 scheme.

 

12.  That clearly legiblesigns shall be prominently displayedwhere they can easily be seen and read by customers stating tothe effect that a challenge25 policy is in operation at thepremises, that customers maybe asked to provide proofof ageand statingwhat theacceptable formsof proofof ageare. Such signageshall be displayedat all entrances, points of sale and inall areas where alcohol is displayed for sale.

 

13.  That an incident logshall be kept atthe premises to record details ofany of thefollowing occurrences atthe premises:

 

a)  Instancesof anti-socialor disorderlybehaviour

b)  Calls to thepolice orother emergencyservices.

c)  Any malfunction inrespect ofthe CCTVsystem

d)  Crimes reported bycustomers, or observedby staffat the premises.

 

Theincident log shallbe madeavailable for inspection bythe police andauthorised council officerson request.

 

14.  That all off salesshall bemade insealed containersfor consumptionaway fromthe premises.

 

Reasons

 

The licensing sub-committee convened to consider an application for a new premises licence in respect of the premises known as Tesco Express, 29-35 Lordship Lane, London SE22 8EW.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer who outlined the nature of the application.  The officer confirmed that the premises was not located within a CIA and that the hours applied for, were consistent with Southwark’s statement of licensing policy 2021-2026. 

 

The officer went on to state that the only objecting responsible authority, the Metropolitan Police Service, had conciliated after the applicant had agreed to abide by a number of conditions put forward by the police.

 

The officer explained that she had attempted on several occasions to contact the remaining objector “other person”, to explain the conditions of conciliation.  She stated she had spoken with the objector once, where they confirmed that they wished to maintain their representations, but had not been able to establish contact with them since that call. 

 

The licensing officer explained, Poundland previously held a premises licence at the premises before it was surrendered.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from three of the applicant’s representatives who addressed various aspects of the workings of the store and the organisation as a whole and how compliance with the licensing objectives would be achieved. 

 

It was stated that most of the Tesco stores in the area have licenses until midnight or 23:00. One of the representatives stated the store would have around 20 colleagues and four managers, meaning that there would always be somebody with managerial responsibility in the store during opening hours. In terms of recruitment, the roles would be offered to staff from existing stores within the area to ensure there were enough experienced people working within the new store. Vacant roles would be advertised in the normal way. All staff would be on site, four weeks before the store opens.

The representative went on to say, the company is a good neighbour locally and would happily join any resident or local groups in the community with the aim of dealing quickly with issues, which may arise.

 

When asked by a committee member about the issues raised by the other person in their representations, it was stated that no specific issues had been raised by the police concerning local stores run by the organisation. 

 

The representative  went on to mention that the organisation has good relations with statutory authorities and that they sat on a number of industry groups/committees that look at how alcohol is sold within the industry, with the aim of setting best practice and good standards for the industry. 

 

In terms of underaged drinking, they stated that the organisation actively looked at diversionary activities such as football and training partnerships such as hairdressing to divert young people away from drinking.  They stated, a think 25 policy operates in all stores where prompts are given at point of sale effectively freezing the checkout until a decision is made about whether alcohol could be sold during that particular transaction.  Only ID approved by the Home Office is accepted as proof of age.   

 

They outlined the training given to staff and said that it included how to deal with somebody who may be attempting to purchase alcohol while they are drunk, how to spot them and how managers support staff in that situation.  They said there is a policy of “you say no, we say no”; meaning, if a colleague makes a decision about not wanting to sell alcohol to somebody then managers will not undermine that decision. They confirmed there are strong policies around not selling alcohol to anyone that is drunk.

 

In relation to expected increases in incidences of theft, they stated, that the company works closely with the police to ensure that repeat offenders are prosecuted.  That the store employs security staff who have body cameras.  They mentioned that it was difficult to respond specifically to the objector’s representation in this regard, as it lacked sufficient detail.

 

In answer to the chair’s questions, one of the representatives mentioned that the main part of the business is groceries, with alcohol sales being a small but important part within the model. The company thrived to be a good neighbour, not contributing to anti-social behaviour in the area.  It was confirmed, the delivery of alcohol is consolidated within the grocery deliveries and there were no issues around planning.

 

In relation to noise and rubbish collection, they stated that the London vehicles are electric and do not rely on diesel. They went on to say that the refrigeration systems worked even if the truck has its engine turned off.  Rubbish is collected in store and stored in bags and cages which is picked up on returning deliveries and is taken to the depot to be sorted and recycled.  All cages have rubber wheels to reduce noise. 

 

It was confirmed that there are no restrictions around planning for delivery times and as a matter of routine, deliveries were very rarely made after 8:00 in the evening.

 

In summing up, it was stated that the organisation has worked hard to reduce the plastic packaging generally and, plastics were not used for alcoholic products.  The company remained committed to reducing the use of plastics throughout.

 

As the other person did not attend the meeting, upon hearing from the applicants, the licensing sub-committee retired to consider the application, representations and all the conditions put forward by the Metropolitan Police Service.

 

The members of the licensing sub-committee were impressed with the application.  It felt the training and policies adopted by the organisation promoted the licensing objectives.  They were also impressed with the measures put in place to prevent noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour.

 

Upon considering the objections and conditions agreed; the licensing sub-committee were persuaded that the objections raised could be allayed by the conditions adopted through the conciliation process and Tesco’s own policies

 

In reaching this decision the licensing sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations, its equality duties 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.