The Licensing Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence for Jamaica Blue, a cafe located at 47-48 The Quadrant, Richmond. The application sought permission to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises between 10:00 and 19:00 daily, with the premises open to the public from 07:00 to 19:30. The application was opposed by local residents and organisations, including the Friends of Richmond Green and The Richmond Society, who raised concerns about the potential impact on the Richmond Town Centre Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and the four licensing objectives.

Jamaica Blue Premises Licence Application

The application for a new premises licence for Jamaica Blue, located at 47-48 The Quadrant, Richmond, was heard by the Licensing Sub-Committee. The applicant, Mital N Limited, sought permission to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises between 10:00 and 19:00 daily. The premises would be open to the public from 07:00 to 19:30.

The application was opposed by local residents and organisations, including the Friends of Richmond Green and The Richmond Society. Their primary concern was the premises' location within the Richmond Town Centre Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and the potential for the new licence to exacerbate existing issues related to crime, disorder, and public nuisance.

Arguments raised by the applicant included:

• Jamaica Blue is a food-led business, primarily serving breakfast and brunch, and is a family-friendly destination.
• Alcohol would only be served to seated customers with meals, by waiting staff.
• The proposed hours for alcohol sales are limited to the daytime and early evening, well before the typical evening peak for anti-social behaviour.
• The police had no objection to the application, having consulted with them and agreed to a comprehensive suite of conditions.
• The applicant's business record, both individually and as a franchise, is absolutely flawless with no prior licensing enforcement cases.
• The premises are not alcohol-led and aim to support daytime visitors and the ethos of a family-friendly area, aligning with exceptions outlined in the council's Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP).

Concerns raised by objectors included:

• The application did not adequately address the Richmond Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) and the evidence supporting its renewal.
• The burden of proof lies with the applicant to demonstrate that granting the licence would not negatively impact the licensing objectives, particularly in a CIZ.
• Excessive alcohol supply can lead to anti-social behaviour and crime and disorder, which are already issues in Richmond Town Centre, exacerbated by insufficient police resources.
• The proposed conditions regarding meals were not specific enough, with objectors arguing for substantial food rather than just a meal.
• Concerns were raised about the display and storage of alcohol, the potential for A-boards to cause obstruction, and the lack of specific mention of the Ask Angela scheme in staff training.
• Objectors argued that the CIP is about the cumulative impact of multiple premises serving alcohol, not just the characteristics of a single establishment.

Key discussions and decisions during the meeting included:

• Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP): A significant portion of the discussion revolved around the CIP and whether Jamaica Blue's application met the criteria for an exception. The applicant argued that as a daytime, family-friendly, food-led business, it fell within the policy's exceptions. Objectors contended that the applicant had failed to demonstrate this adequately.
• Police Objection: The absence of an objection from the Metropolitan Police was highlighted by the applicant as a significant factor, referencing the case of Thwaites v Wirral Borough Magistrates' Court¹ which suggests such an absence should be given considerable weight.
• Conditions: A number of conditions were discussed and agreed upon, including:
  • Alcohol to be served only with a meal.
  • Alcohol to be served by waiting staff to seated customers.
  • A condition that if asked by the police on major event days, alcohol service would cease.
  • A condition to prevent happy hours.
  • The applicant agreed to sell wine and Prosecco in 330ml bottles only, with no intention of producing a wine list.
• Substantial Meals: Debate occurred regarding whether a meal should be defined as substantial. The applicant argued that meal was sufficient, leaving interpretation to licensing officers, while objectors pushed for the inclusion of substantial food as a common condition elsewhere. The committee ultimately seemed to lean towards meal being sufficient, with Mr Greenough noting that substantial could lead to arguments.
• A-boards: Councillor Joyce raised concerns about A-boards causing blockages near a bus stop. Mr Baker acknowledged this as a valid point regarding advertising consent and stated an application would be needed if the client wished to continue using them. Ms Patel indicated they would be removed if permission was not granted.
• Major Event Days: Ms Patel confirmed that on major event days, extra staff would be deployed, and training would be refined to manage more intensive experiences, ensuring alcohol was only served with meals and throughput was maintained.
• Display of Alcohol: Mr Willem requested that any displayed alcohol be positioned at the far right of the counter, some distance from the front windows, to avoid it being visible to queues outside.
• Police Resources: Objectors raised concerns about insufficient police resources in Richmond to deal with low-level anti-social behaviour, arguing that the police primarily focus on crime.

The Sub-Committee then entered a closed session to consider the evidence and make a decision. The decision notice was to be communicated within five working days.