Content

 
In reaching its decision, the
Licensing Sub-Committee (“LSC”) considered the
Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act
2003, the Regulations made thereunder, and the Guidance issued by
the Secretary of State under S.182 of that Act. In discharging its
functions, the LSC did so with a view to promoting the licensing
objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety,
the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children
from harm. 
 
Having considered all written
representations, evidence and oral submissions from the applicant
through their representative and the proposed licence holder in
person, and the oral evidence of two persons who had submitted
written representations to the LSC, it resolved to refuse the
grant of a premises licence for the sale and supply of alcohol for
consumption off the premises.
 
Basis
of Decision
 
The licensing sub-committee was
requested to consider the application made by AA Retail Ltd for the
grant of a premises licence in relation to 16 Herbert Road, London
SE18 3SH (‘the Applicant’). The Applicant currently
operates the business as a post office and does not hold a current
licence for any licensable activity. This application is the first
application for a premises licence at the address. The licence
sought is for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises
between 07:00 and 22:00 Mondays to Sundays.
 
The panel noted the written
application before the LSC and oral submissions for the
representative on behalf of the Applicant which said that the
existing post office intended to diversify its services so to
complement its current functions. The LSC received representations
in the hearing from the Applicant’s representative who said
the Applicant intended to partner with “One Stop” a
national chain of convenience outlets that provided a framework of
operation and oversight. The representative said this created a
“rigid format” for partner shops to operate
within.  For instance, the panel heard
that One Stop had control over the stock and delivery schedules for
each store and would be involved in overseeing the practices of the
business if a licence was granted. It was further said alcohol
sales would be one part of the business’ operation in
addition to grocery and toiletry products and that post office
services would be available at all times
the business was open.
 
The Premises Licence Holder was
described to the LSC as an experienced retail worker who had a long
history of alcohol sales in compliance with the licensing
objectives and without incident in that time. His motivation for
applying for a licence was the diversification of his existing
business.
 
The LSC noted that the proposed
conditions were agreed between the Applicant and Police who through
correspondence with one another had agreed a total package of 23
conditions. The Panel did not have any further written
representations from Responsible Authorities before it but accepted
and treated the agreed conditions as conciliation of the
Responsible Authorities to the application.
 
The panel considered the
interior and exterior photographs showing the extent of the
business, 
and had the benefit of maps and an interior plan of the
premises. The panel concluded that 16 Herbert Road is a small
premises. The Applicant proposed a suite of up to 17 cameras to
enforcing the CCTV requirements of the conditions it had agreed
with the Metropolitan Police. It proposed that these CCTV cameras
would be monitored 4 staff who would be on site throughout the
hours of licensable activity. At the hearing, the representative
for the Applicant said that employees would monitor the CCTV whilst
carrying out other tasks in the store.
 
The LSC also had regard to
three written representations from local
residents in opposition to the application and the
additional oral evidence of two of the representors at the hearing.
All three representations addressed concerns over the prevention of
public nuisance, which the panel had to have regard as one of the
four statutory licensing objectives within the Licensing Act
2003.
 
The LSC had regard to
photographs shown to it in the course of
the hearing as Appendix C to the application. Several images showed
a covered concrete porch immediately outside the primary entrance
to the address with a doorway to an open space to the right of the
property. Oral and written representations submitted that this area
had historically been the site of anti-social behaviour and public
nuisance. Moreover, the LSC heard that this behaviour
continued.    At the rear left
of the open area as it is looked at from the street, the panel
noted a “back area” to the property which was said to
be the site of rough sleeping and anti-social behaviour. This
behaviour was described as including congregations of individuals
at anti-social hours and the leaving of substantial quantities of
litter as a result. It was also said that the shop is located on a
route for local primary school children to travel to a nearby
primary school which would take them through or near to the
area.
 
16 Herbert Road is within the
Cumulative Impact Zone for Herbert Road (off Plumstead Common Road)
and so the LSC had to give regard to presence of the Cumulative
Impact Zone and therefore noted the Statutory Guidance relevant to
Cumulative Impact Zones and the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s
Statement of Licensing Policy and paragraphs 11.7 and 11.9 in
particular:
 
‘11.7 The effect of
the cumulative impact policy is that the Royal Borough will refuse
applications for new premises licences or club premises
certificates, or material variation of an existing licence or
certificate, whenever it receives relevant representations, unless
an applicant can demonstrate why the grant or variation involved
will not add to the cumulative impact
experienced.’
 
’11.9 The Royal Borough recognises that within different
cumulative impact zones different types of licensed premises
mutually benefit from each other’s existence, attracting
large groups of people. This in turn may increase the possibility
of crime and disorder and public nuisance, thus impacting on the
promotion of the licensing objectives. For this reason, special
consideration will be given to all classes of licensed premises
within the cumulative impact zones.’
 
Written representations before
the LSC were considered by the panel to be relevant to the effect
of granting an additional licence on the cumulative impact of
alcohol related crime and disorder in the Herbert Road area. One
representor was a local resident from Herbert
road and two further representors were individuals involved
in a longstanding business in the Herbert Road area. The content of
these representations addressed the intersecting elements of
several licensing objectives in the likely effect of the grant of a
licence on the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the
prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm
and so the LSC had to have due regard to them as relevant
representations.
 
The LSC concluded that the
location of the Applicant’s business was immediately adjacent
to a known site of public nuisance and at risk of public disorder.
This was not a reflection upon the Applicant who had a positive
record of compliance. However, the Applicant did not seek to
challenge the truth of representations that there were historic
issues and present challenges of anti-social behaviour at the site
at the hearing.
 
The LSC found it was a reality
that the open space next to the premises was used for congregation
with ramifications for public disorder and nuisance in the local
area.
 
The panel believed the presence
of an additional licensed premises in such proximity to existing
disorder and public nuisance meant a high degree of risk that
levels of disorder or nuisance would be increased to by the greater
availability of alcohol in the area and the tendency for gatherings
to form where alcohol was available.
 
Several other licensed premises
were understood by the LSC to operate in the Herbert Road
area:  At the time of the hearing, it
understood the area to have seven premises licensed for the sale of
alcohol for consumption off the premises and three additional
licensed premises for consumption on site. The high number of
premises where alcohol could already be bought created an existing
risk of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and public nuisance
that would likely be exacerbated by the presence of a further
licensed premises.
 
Where a licence for the sale of
alcohol off the premises is applied for within a Cumulative Impact
Zone the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s Statement of Licensing
Policy creates a positive burden for the Applicant to discharge by
demonstrating to the LSC that the grant of a licence will not add
to the cumulative impact experienced.
 
The LSC considered whether the
proposed licence conditions would mitigate the risk so that the
grant of the licence would not contribute behaviours contrary to
the licensing objectives occurring. It found that the proposed
licence conditions were a comprehensive and extensive package of
conditions that demonstrated that the Applicant was prepared to
take steps to make his business as safe as it could be. It is of
note that he has agreed to the additional CCTV systems proposed by
the Metropolitan Police, and undertook
at the hearing through his representative to accept specific
conditions about the period at which cleaning of the curtilage in
the controllable vicinity of the premises would happen.
 
However, the LSC concluded that
it was not possible to impose workable conditions which would
mitigate the probable cumulative impact of a grant of a
licence.  The panel noted the
Applicant’s established relationship with the community as a
local businessman operating in the area for some years. However,
the LSC believe the likely risk of disorder is not within the
premises but outside at the open area to the side of the property.
As the Applicant’s representative herself submitted, the
Applicant could not safely intervene to prevent any disorder in the
open space and no condition could require him to do so. It
considered that the addition of CCTV would not in itself be a
sufficient deterrent to reduce the risk of anti-social behaviour or
public disorder or nuisance in the area. The intimate proximity
between a known site of anti-social behaviour and public disorder
and the Applicant’s business meant it was not suitable for
the grant of a premises licence for the sale of alcohol off the
premises. The LSC thought it was likely that those purchasing
alcohol in the premises could be tempted to use the open space to
consume their alcohol purchases and that crime, public disorder or
public nuisance would be a probable consequence.
 
In consequence the LSC
determined to refuse the grant of the application on this occasion.
It believes the grant of a licence would be inconsistent with the
authority’s duty under Section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003
and Section 5A(1) of the same because of
the unfortunate presence of persistent anti-social behaviour in the
close vicinity of the Applicant’s business within the Herbert
Road Cumulative Impact Zone.
 
Any party aggrieved by this
decision may appeal to the magistrates’ court within 21
days.