Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee B

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: July 16, 2025

Purpose:

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.