Content

Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of
Westmount Corner, 112 Westmount Road, Eltham, London, SE9
1UT
 
NOTE:
The application was originally made under the name Eltham Food
& Wine but as there is already another premises with that same
name, the application is now made under the name ‘Westmount
Corner’.
 
MEETING
 
The Sub-Committee has
determined an application for a new Premises Licence under the
Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect of Westmount
Corner, 112 Westmount Road, Eltham, London, SE9 1UT (“The
Premises”). The application is to enable the supply of
alcohol between 7am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 10pm on
Sundays.
 
At the outset of the meeting,
Councillor Bird declared an interest, namely that the application
related to a premises within her ward.
 
The application attracted a
number of representations against it. Two were from individual
residents who attended, while a third was a petition. The
objections covered all four of the licensing objectives.
 
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr
Gemma Devine (Licensing Officer), who set out the application as
per the Licensing Sub-Committee Report. She also explained that two
conditions proposed by the police that had originally been agreed
by Rasu Sabesan (“the Applicant”) were reviewed by the
police after he instructed a representative, Gill Sherratt, to act
on his behalf. Following representations by her, the police agreed
they would not seek the inclusion of the two conditions on the
licence.
 
The Applicant was then given an
opportunity to set out the reasons for his application and Ms
Sherratt spoke on his behalf.
 
She stated that the proposed
hours were nothing unusual for businesses in the area, and that the
Applicant had extensive experience, some twenty years, in similar
businesses. This included ten years at a Londis in Deptford and
around ten years at the Londis a few doors down from the Premises,
where he had managed the business for Ms Sapna Patel. She said
there had never been any problems at either shop. She explained
that Ms Patel was the organiser of the petition that had been
submitted.
 
Ms Sherratt said that the
number of shops selling alcohol was not a relevant consideration
for the Sub-Committee, and that if there was excessive competition,
this would sort itself out commercially. She explained that in any
event the Applicant felt he could offer something different. He
would be applying to install a cash machine, which otherwise would
be 15 minute walk away for local residents.
 
She pointed out that the
Premises had been derelict for around ten years, and that the
Applicant had put around £60,000 of his own savings bringing
it back to life. She highlighted that this was not in a Cumulative
Impact Zone nor covered by any Public Safety Protection
Order.
 
She addressed concerns about
traffic by saying the Applicant had a delivery bay where he could
park at the side of the Premises. She explained that there was
brand new, modern CCTV and that the till had an automatic prompt
for staff should they suspect a customer was under 25 and trying to
buy alcohol.
 
Ms Sherratt emphasised that
this was very much a family business, run by the Applicant’s
wife, son and daughter and that his wife and son both hold personal
licences. They currently employ one member of staff part time but
expected others would probably be employed from the local area in
due course.
 
She said all members of staff
would undergo remote training on the sale of alcohol that would be
conducted before they could make sales of alcohol. She again
emphasised the flawless track record of the Applicant and that
there were a number of very robust conditions in place. She briefly
addressed the Sub-Committee on the two conditions discussed with
the Police and why those had rightly not been pursued by
them.
 
Ms Sherratt concluded by
addressing the petition directly, stating that it had been
organised by the owner of a rival business who the Applicant had
actually worked for, without issue, for ten years. She asked the
Sub-Committee to give the petition its due weight.
 
In terms of other resident
objections she said they were right to point out the neighbourhood
was quiet and peaceful and that there were no problems – she
said good retailers make things better, and that this was actually
a case where an empty, unlit premises was being turned into one
constantly manned and brightly lit up. The Premises in fact upheld
the licensing objectives.
 
The Chair asked why such early
hours were required when in his experience, local supermarkets
didn’t start selling until later in the morning. Ms Sherratt
responded that the reality was there might not be any sales in the
morning at all, but by not allowing sales that might create
problems, for example the need to cover up alcohol. She pointed out
it was a matter for the Applicant whether he felt he could make any
more money at this time or not, and regardless of what other
businesses did, this case had to be dealt with on its own
merits.
 
The two residents who attended
then gave their views. They highlighted their longstanding links to
the community. The large number of premises that sold alcohol in
close proximity to the Premises was pointed out (5 out of 8) and
that under the Corbett Estate regime, alcohol had originally been
banned entirely from sale at three of those shops.
 
The grant of the application
was objected to on the basis that the community was already well
served with shops selling alcohol and allowing another would put in
jeopardy the quite and peaceful nature of the area.
 
Concerns were also raised with
traffic, in particular at the junction the Premises was situated
at. The dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour of some motorists was
highlighted, and the problems that an additional delivery van might
cause. The safety of children crossing the road was also raised.
Councillor Bird expressed her support for anxiety over road
safety.
 
Ms Sherratt was given an
opportunity to respond, where she pointed out that the Premises
probably had far more stringent conditions then neighbouring
businesses and that any kind of business, regardless of whether
they sold alcohol or not, would be a magnet for customers wanting
to park nearby. Any problems that might arise from that were the
responsibility of police and traffic management. The Premises
Licence decision should be dealt with separately from concerns
about members of the public behaving poorly when it came to their
driving.
 
The Sub-Committee then retired
to consider their decision.

 
 
DECISION
 
The Sub-Committee were mindful
that the only representations they could consider under the
Licensing Act 2003 are those which are relevant to the licensing
objectives:

i.             
Prevention of Crime & Disorder

ii.           
Prevention of Public Nuisance

iii.          
Public Safety

iv.          
Protection of Children from Harm.
 
Further, the Sub-Committee were
aware of both the Statutory Guidance under the Licensing Act 2003,
and the Council’s Licensing Policy.
 
The Sub-Committee had read the
papers and listened carefully to the oral submissions of those
attending, noting the various representations made for and
against.
 
Although the Sub-Committee were
live to the fact that the Premises was one of what appeared to be a
large number of similar businesses all within a very small area,
which had licences to sell alcohol, they were aware that this was
no basis on which to refuse an application. They were also of the
view that any business operating out of the Premises, licensed or
not, would attract customers who needed to park, and that concerns
over road safety could not fairly be linked to the success or
failure or the application for a Premises Licence.
 
The Sub-Committee noted the
Applicant’s track record and renovation of the Premises. The
Sub-Committee welcomed the fact he had brought back to life a
previously unused commercial property.
 
The Sub-Committee did consider
carefully whether the proposed hours should be amended to reflect
the hours of other comparable licenced premises. The Sub-Committee
noted that the hours were not in fact the same across the three
shops identified and in any event objections to the application
were not linked to the proposed hours of licensable
activities.
 
The Sub-Committee did note the
objections and concerns of residents, but on balance felt that the
strict conditions imposed were appropriate to uphold the licensing
objectives.
 
Accordingly, the Sub Committee
unanimously resolved that the Application for a New Premises
Licence in respect of Westmount Corner, 112 Westmount Road, Eltham,
London, SE9 1UTbe GRANTED subject to the following
conditions:
 
Supply of Alcohol
(Off the premises) and opening hours of the
premises:
-     
Monday to Saturday from 7:00 hours until 23:00
hours;
-     
Sunday from 8:00 hours until 22:00 hours.
 
1.   
The Premises Licence Holder shall install and
operate a CCTV system at the premises, capable of providing
coverage of all entry points and areas to which customers have
access in any lighting conditions.
2.   
The CCTV system shall continuously record whilst the
premises are open to members of the public and shall be capable of
providing clear images and frontal identification of
customers.
3.   
All CCTV recordings shall be retained for a minimum
of thirty-one (31) days and shall be correctly date- and
time-stamped; sufficient data storage shall be available to
facilitate this.
4.   
CCTV recordings shall be made available within
forty-eight (48) hours upon receipt of a request by the Police and
/ or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority (as defined
by Section 13 of the Licensing Act 2003), and recordings provided
in an easily downloadable format.
5.   
A member of staff shall be present on the premises
whilst they are open who is capable of operating the CCTV system
and able to facilitate viewing of CCTV footage upon the demand by
the Police and / or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing
Authority (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act
2003).
6.   
The Premises Licence Holder shall perform regular
maintenance of the CCTV system in accordance with the
manufacturer’s guidelines and timeframe as a minimum. All
CCTV cameras shall be cleaned and clear of obstructions and
signage, including displays and promotional materials.
7.   
The premises shall perform a test of the CCTV every
seven (7) days. This shall include, but not be limited to,
confirmation of playback of 31-day old recordings. The testing of
the system shall be recorded in a log with the time and date of the
test, and name of the staff member completing it, and shall be made
available to the Police and / or an Authorised Officer of the
Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003)
upon request. The log shall also include the details of the regular
maintenance requirement detailed in Condition 6.
8.   
In the event of failure or faults with the CCTV
which compromise its ability to record clear usable images,
real-time playback, or provide recordings in an easily downloadable
format, all licensable activity shall cease forthwith. Details of
the system fault shall be recorded in writing and maintained for a
minimum of twelve (12) months at the premises.
9.   
An Incident and Refusals Record, kept in written
form, shall be maintained at the premises and made available on
request to the Police or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing
Authority (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003). The
Incident and Refusals Record shall record:
 
a)   
Any complaints received in connection with the
licensable activity permitted at the premises. 
b)  
Any refusal to sell alcohol at the premises,
including the date and time of the refusal, why the sale was
refused, and the name of the staff member refusing it.
c)   
Any removal of individuals from the premises,
including the date and time of the removal, why the individual was
removed, and the name of the staff member removing the
individual.
d)  
Any incidents of crime, disorder, or nuisance at the
premises.
e)  
Any faults with the CCTV system.
f)    
Any visit to the premises by a Responsible Authority
in connection with the licensable activity permitted at the
premises.
 
10.No high-strength
beers, lagers, ciders, and spirit mixers with an ABV of 6.5% and
above shall be stocked or sold at the premises, with the exception
of imported, premium and craft beers with the written consent of
Royal Borough of Greenwich Licensing and Greenwich Police
Licensing. 
11.All alcohol on
display shall be in full view of the cashier / staff member on duty
at all times and shall not be obscured by displays or
shelving.
12.There shall be no
self-service of spirits, save for spirit mixtures of less than 6.5%
ABV. 
13.During the hours
of operation of the premises, the Premises Licence Holder shall
ensure that sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent
litter or waste arising from customers in the area immediately
outside the premises, and that this area shall be swept and or
washed, and litter and sweepings collected from the frontage of the
premises to the kerbside (Eltham Park Gardens and Westmount Road),
the premises licence holder, DPS or named individual shall ensure
by way of regular daily checks that the area is kept clear of
litter and similar detritus. A written record of the litter checks
shall be maintained at the premises and signed by the premises
licence holder, DPS or shop manager at the end of each day the
premises is open to the public, to confirm the checks have taken
place.
14.The premises
shall discourage customers from gathering outside the premises and
environs so as to reduce the potential for noise and anti-social
behaviour with the prominent display of signage in the premises
advising customers not to congregate outside.
15.All staff engaged
in the sale of alcohol shall receive suitable training at the start
of their employment, and thereafter refresher training every six
(6) months, in relation to the proof of age “Challenge
25” scheme. The following forms of identification are
acceptable: photo driving licence; passport; Proof of Age Standards
Scheme (PASS) card; military ID; and any other locally or
nationally approved form of identification.
16.Notices and
posters shall be prominently displayed inside the premises stating
that a “Challenge 25” policy is in force. The posters
shall include “It’s A Crime!” or equivalent, to
deter proxy sales on behalf of those under-18.
17.All staff shall
be provided with recognised customer welfare and vulnerability
training from an appropriately qualified trainer, details of which
must be documented (e.g. “WAVE”, “Ask
Angela”, and/or equivalent). The Premises Licence Holder
and/or the Designated Premises Supervisor shall sign-up to the
Royal Borough of Greenwich Women’s Charter or its equivalent,
and display certification of this prominently at the premises. Such
display shall include any “WAVE” etc.
certification.
18.All sales of
alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be in sealed
containers and shall not be consumed on the premises and signage
will be displayed to this effect.
19.A telephone
number for the premises shall be displayed that is visible from the
exterior of the building if contact needs to be made with the staff
to deal with any issue that might arise from the licensable
activity.
 
 
This
is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee.
 
The
Applicant and any person who has made a relevant representation may
appeal the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee by written
notification to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of
receipt of the decision notice and reasons.