Content

4.1  The Licensing Team
Leader introduced the application from Palash
Chandra to  vary a premises
licence to authorise the supply of alcohol off the premises 24
hours daily Monday to Sunday under section 34 of the Licensing Act
2003.
 
4.2  The Applicant,
Palash Chandra made submissions in support of the
Application, highlighting that there was customer demand
for later hours at the premises.
 
4.3  The Chair asked for
clarification as follow:
 
· 
What plans were in
place for a 24 hour operation;
· 
The operating hours
went beyond the hours in planning permission;
· 
The nature of the shop
- customer/ alcohol split.
 
4.4  The applicant
confirmed that additional staff would be recruited and
the
appropriate planning permission was in place. The premises
sold daily
provisions and alcohol.
 
4.5  The Principal
Licensing Officer made submissions against the
application, highlighting the following:
 
· 
There were concerns
that the additional hours could lead to public nuisance in the area
with the Licensing Objectives bring undermined;
· 
That there was no
representations from Planning;
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.6  Councillor Ian
Rathbone made submission against the application,
highlighting the following:
 
· 
That there were no
other premises on the street;
· 
The street was family
friendly;
· 
The area was
residential and there was agreement with the Council that there be
no licensed premises after midnight;
· 
Granting the licence
would encourage others to apply for a licence;
· 
A resident with
children had expressed concerns about the licence;
· 
There was an issue
with planning permission at the premises;
 
4.7  Councillor Lynne
Troughton made submissions against the application,
highlighting the following;
 
 
 
· 
The area was
residential;
· 
There had been an
increase in licensed premises in the area;
· 
A policy of
restricting opening hours was in existence;
· 
There would be a
negative impact on other residents in the area;
· 
The granting of the
licence would make it difficult for the Council to refuse other
such applications;
· 
Granting the licence
could lead to anti-social behaviour in the area;
 
4.8  The Chair asked how
the applicant would mitigate the concerns
 
expressed about the application. 
 
4.9  Councillor Suso
Runge asked for clarification in regard to customers
after 11pm and what parking was available in the vicinity
of the premises.
 
4.9  The applicant
submitted that there was customer demand after 11pm and that most
of the customers walk to the premises and do not require parking
bays. 
 
The decision
 
The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision
from the information presented to it within the report and at the
hearing today has determined that having regard to the promotion of
all the licensing objectives:
 
The prevention of crime and disorder;
Public safety;
Prevention of public nuisance;
The protection of children from harm;
 
the application to vary a premises licence has been refused
in accordance with Licensing Policies LP1, LP2, LP3 and LP4 within
the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.
 
Reasons for the decision
 
The Licensing Sub-Committee, having heard from the
Responsible Authorities (the Licensing Authority and the
Metropolitan Police Service (“the Police”) believed
that granting this application is likely to result in the licensing
objectives being undermined and will have an impact on the
area. 
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration that there were
objections raised by Other Persons (the local ward councillor and
the residents association) on the grounds of the four licensing
objectives. The Sub-committee took into consideration the
objections raised by the Police and the Licensing Authority on the
grounds of public nuisance and crime and disorder.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration the concerns of
the Police who did not support this application due the impact it
would have on street drinking which would lead to unregulated
drinking late at night, and anti-social behaviour. The Police made
representations that the premises is located on a busy road which
has ?a number of retail outlets ?and the premises is in a
residential area.? The Sub-committee took into account that the
excessive hours being sought by the Applicant would increase
anti-social behaviour and will have an impact on local residents?.
The Sub-committee noted that the extension of hours would mean that
people would have more access to alcohol for longer hours late at
night.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration representations
made that the Applicant did not consider the local residents when
making this application. The Sub-committee took into consideration
that the Police and the Licensing Authority agreed that the hours
applied for 24 hours each day were excessive and beyond Core hours
(LP4).
 
The Sub-committee heard the Applicant’s
representations that they sell groceries,
and they wanted to sell alcohol 24 hours a day following
demands from customers to open later and to sell alcohol and
groceries.
 
The Sub-committee did not feel that the Applicant
understood the requirements of the application for an alcohol
licence, and he would not be able to prevent public nuisance and
crime and disorder in the residential area. The Sub-committee felt
that the premises was more of an off-licence than a grocery store,
and that there were not strong mitigating factors to support why
they should be granted a licence in a quiet residential
area.
 
The Sub-committee carefully considered the representations
made by the Applicant, the Metropolitan Police Service and the
Licensing Authority. The Sub-committee was not convinced that the
Applicant’s proposed conditions would be
operational.
Therefore, the Sub-committee decided to refuse the
application to vary the premises licence for off sales 24 hours
each day 7 days a week which is contrary to the Council’s
Licensing Policy and specifically Policy LP4 (“Off sales of
alcohol”).
 
The Sub-committee also felt that by not granting this
variation application it would prevent anti-social behaviour, in
terms of more people coming into the area, consuming alcohol, and
staying in the area for longer which would contribute to increasing
public nuisance, and crime and disorder in the area.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration when refusing
this application that each case is considered on its merits. The
Sub-committee believed that the licensing objectives could not be
promoted by granting this variation application, and as such
believed it was appropriate to refuse the application in its
entirety.