Agenda item

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered the Application for a Premises Licence at 21-22 Central Parade, New Addington, CRO 0JB and the representations received as contained in the report of the Corporate Director, Sustainable Communities, Regeneration & Economic Recovery,  as well as the supplementary information provided.

The Sub-Committee also considered the representations made on behalf of the Applicant, an objector and a Ward Councillor during the hearing. The Sub-Committee noted that although some of the objectors were not present at the hearing, they had the benefit of the written representations as part of the report and published information.

The Sub-Committee, having reference to the licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council Licensing Policy, RESOLVED to GRANT the application subject to the imposition of the conditions detailed in Appendix A2 agreed with the police and subject to the conditions set out in the operating schedule submitted by the Applicant in Appendix A1, on the basis that the Sub-Committee were satisfied that it would be appropriate to promote the licensing objectives to do so.

The reasons of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are situated on Central Parade in a lengthy parade of shops with residential premises above the shops. The Sub-Committee heard that there were a number of off-license premises in close proximity to the proposed premises on the parade– one of the parties making representations indicated that half the shops on the parade sold alcohol, another indicated that there were 9 such shops, whilst the another indicated that there were 10 in the parade of over 50 commercial premises, which included a McColls, a Co-op, an Iceland, a Food and Wine convenience store and several takeaway premises

2. The Sub-Committee noted that the location of the premises was within one of the areas in which the Cumulative Impact policy adopted by the Councilis in place, which applies in respect of off licences and shops and supermarkets selling alcohol for consumption off the premises. The Cumulative impact policy was introduced due to high levels of alcohol related crime and alcohol related hospital admissions in areas where it is clear that the density of shops selling alcohol for consumption off the premises is significantly higher than in other parts of the borough. The Council policy indicates that reducing availability, affordability and attractiveness are some of the most effective ways to reduce alcohol-harm and related crime.

3. The effect of the Cumulative impact policy is that where relevant representations are received on any new applications for a premises licence to sell alcohol off the premises,  there will be a presumption under the special policy that the application will be refused. The Cumulative Impact Policy is intended to be strict, and will only be overridden in genuinely exceptional circumstances. However, the Licensing Sub-Committee was clear that it considered each matter on its own merits and did not apply this policy inflexibly. It will always consider the individual circumstances of each application; even where an application is made for a proposal that is apparently contrary to policy.

4. The Sub-committee were clear that the cumulative impact policy could not be used as a blanket ban on any premises seeking to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises in the area. Each application must be considered on its merits and in light of the representations received. In addition, the cumulative impact policy must be considered in context and against other policy aims which form part of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub-Committee were also clear that they had to have regard to the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 in exercising their functions.

5. The Statutory guidance sets out that a cumulative impact area does not change the fundamental way that licensing decisions are made. It is therefore open to the licensing authority to grant an application in a cumulative impact area where it considers it is appropriate and where the applicant has demonstrated in their operating schedule that they would not be adding to the cumulative impact.  Cumulative impact polices must not impose quotas based on either the number of premises or the capacity of those premises. This is because quotas indirectly have the effect of predetermining the outcome of any application and would have no regard to the individual characteristics of the premises concerned.

6. The premises is proposed to be a Turkish supermarket which supplies what the Applicant terms “ethnic” goods which people from Turkey, the middle east and surrounds would normally purchase, and which are not readily available in the surrounding stores. The Applicant indicated that they were not seeking to sell cheap alcohol but to ensure that they catered to their proposed customers. The premises is a large one with a butchery and bakery as part of the offering. The Applicant’s operating schedule also included a number of measures which were designed to reduce the attractiveness and accessibility of alcohol, some of which are detailed below in paragraphs 9 and 10. This indicates to the Sub-Committee the Applicant’s awareness of, and willingness to operate in a manner which does not add to the cumulative impact in the area.

7. In considering Cumulative Impact, the Statement of Licensing Policy indicates that the Council will recognise that the diversity of premises selling alcohol, serving food and providing entertainment covers a wide range of contrasting styles and characteristics and will have full regard to those differences and the differing impact these will have on the local community.

8. The representations detail existing issues with alcohol reliant individuals, youth congregating and harassing people to buy alcohol on their behalf, anti-social behaviour in the area and the concern being expressed that with each premises selling alcohol the risk of crime and disorder increases. Views were also expressed that there was no need for an additional outlet which was permitted to sell alcohol or that the Applicant ought to consider selling products which were of more benefit to the community than alcohol. In the first instance, the Sub-Committee were clear that matters of commercial need or lack thereof, were not relevant considerations for the sub-committee to take into account. This premise is set out in both the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance. Whilst the Sub-Committee were sympathetic to the concerns about anti-social behaviour of this nature in the area, the representations before the sub-committee did not relate to what this specific premises was or was not proposing to do and how it was proposed to operate, rather they expressed the general view that any premises would exacerbate the issues without considering the proposals, the measures to be put in place and manner in which the premises was proposed to be run. The Sub-Committee were however clear that they had to consider the individual circumstances of this premises in light of the Council’s policy and the statutory guidance.

9. In respect of Crime and Disorder, the Sub-Committee noted the recommendation in the Statutory Guidance that the Licensing Authority should look to the police as the main source of advice on crime and disorder. In this regard, the Sub-Committee had before it a set of conditions which the Applicant had discussed with and agreed with the Police with a view to supporting the licensing objectives. These include such matters as the following:

·       “No more than 10% of the total shop floor space shall be given for the sale of alcohol”;

·       “All spirits on sale will be kept behind the cigarette/kiosk counter”;

·       “There shall be no sale of beer, larger or cider with an ABV content above 6% save for premium products/artisan products which have been agreed with the police”;

·       “ There shall be no self-service of spirits except for spirit mixtures with an ABV content below 6%.”

10. In addition, the Applicant has included the following as part of their operating schedule which the sub-committee considered pertinent to the representations made:

·       “All alcoholic drinks which are displayed shall be in sight of the till”;

·       “There shall be a minimum of three personal license holders present on the premises at all times”;

·       “ There shall be no advertisements for alcohol in the shop window” and

·       “There shall be no display boards or other advertising for alcohol showing on the shop floor”.

11. Having regard to the proposed conditions set out in the operating schedule in Appendix A1 and as agreed with the Police in Appendix A2, and having regard to the nature of the proposed business the Sub-committee is of the view that the proposed conditions would support the licensing objectives at this premises and not exacerbate cumulative impact issues and was of the view that the proposals in some instances go substantially beyond what might be expected of a premises license holder in other circumstances – for example the provision in the operating schedule that three personal license holders being on the premises at all times. As such, and in all the circumstances of this matter, the Sub-Committee considered that it was appropriate that the application be granted despite being in a cumulative impact area.

12. In respect of prevention of public nuisance objective, the Sub-Committee noted the importance of focussing on the effect of the licensable activities at the specific premises on persons living and working (including those carrying on business) in the area around the premises which may be disproportionate and unreasonable, as is suggested by the Statutory Guidance. In this regard the Sub-Committee considered the concerns raised relating to anti-social behaviour arising in the area due to drunkenness and the associated harms but noted that these did not relate to the specific premises but to the area in general and did not consider, with the proposals before the sub-committee, that this premises would exacerbate the existing issues.

13. The Sub-Committee were also aware and had reference to the Statutory Guidance which provides that, beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises, these are matters for the personal responsibility of individuals under the law. An individual who engages in antisocial behaviour is accountable in their own right. In addition, the offered conditions in the operating schedule and agreed with the police sought to address such issues as they apply at the premises and within the control of the premises license holder.

14. The Sub-Committee wished to thank all participants for the manner in which they engaged with and supported the hearing in providing information to allow the Sub-Committee’s consideration.