The Licensing (2003 Act) Sub-Committee met to discuss a new premises licence application for JJ Supermarket at 539-541 Barking Road, Plaistow. The committee resolved to grant the application, with amended conditions, including reduced operating hours and a restriction on the sale of high-strength alcohol. The applicant also agreed to withdraw the late-night refreshment application.

JJ Supermarket Licence Application

The sub-committee considered a new premises licence application for JJ Supermarket, located at 539-541 Barking Road, Plaistow. The applicant, JJS London Limited, sought permission to sell alcohol (off-licence) from 7am to 11.59pm Sunday to Thursday, and from 7am to 2am on Fridays and Saturdays. The application also requested permission to provide late-night refreshment (coffee machine) between 11pm and 5am, and to open 24 hours a day.

The sub-committee resolved to grant the application with conditions, but also noted the applicant voluntarily withdrew their request to provide late night refreshments. These conditions include:

• No stout, beer, lager, cider or perry exceeding 6% ABV¹ will be stocked, exposed for sale, or sold.
• No sales of single cans or bottles of stout, beer, lager, cider, or perry.
• No sales of spirits in bottles of less than 35cl.
• Licensing training to be provided to staff at 6-month intervals by a professional organisation.
• Only 20% of the premises used for selling alcohol.
• CCTV system to record at all times when the premises is open to the public, with staff trained in its use and able to download images upon request by the police or an authorised officer of the council.
• Operating hours limited to 7am to midnight, seven days a week.
• A revised premises plan to be submitted within 14 days to accurately reflect the floor plan.
• Implementation of a 'Check 25' scheme² to prevent the sale of alcohol to people under 18 years of age.
• A register for recording all alcohol sale refusals, including attempted underage sales.

The decision was made after considering representations from the applicant, local residents, the Council Commercial Environmental Health Team, and the Licensing Enforcement Team.

Objections

The sub-committee noted that it had received nine written representations from local residents objecting to the application on the grounds of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. None of the residents attended the meeting to amplify their representations.

The Council Commercial Environmental Health Team also made a representation against the application, raising concerns about the prevention of public nuisance. [Ian McConnell], Public Protection Officer, noted the number of other premises in the area already licensed for off-sales of alcohol, and raised concerns that the applicant had not provided information on the types and strengths of alcohol to be sold. He stated that the sale of high-strength alcohol, single cans, or miniatures could attract street drinkers and increase antisocial behaviour.

The Licensing Enforcement Team also objected to the application, citing concerns about the prevention of crime and disorder, public nuisance, and public safety. [Shane Passfield], Licencing Enforcement officer, noted the area's existing issues with street drinking and antisocial behaviour, and expressed concern that the application did not demonstrate how the premises would avoid adding to these problems.

Reasons for Decision

The sub-committee stated that the applicant's response to the representations made were sufficient to allay any fears about undermining the licensing objectives. They noted the applicant's understanding of the licensing conditions and considered the offered and agreed conditions to be reasonable and proportionate for a premises inside a cumulative impact zone³.

The sub-committee was persuaded by the applicant's offer to reduce operating hours and withdraw the late-night refreshments application. They also noted the applicant's representative explained she was instructed to rectify the very little detail provided in the application or the absence of any robust conditions, hence the proposed conditions offered by the applicant which were in the main satisfactory to the panel and the responsible authorities. The applicant was asked if he understood the meaning of a 'cumulative impact zone' area and was able to provide a satisfactory response.

The panel acknowledged the objections raised by the residents but were satisfied that the conditions imposed on the premises would address their concerns.