Agenda item

Application to vary a premises licence.

RECEIVED application made by Mr Ilker Karakas for the premises known as and situated at Nazli Food Centre, 44 & 44A Fore Street, Edmonton N18for variation of the Premises Licence.

 

NOTED

 

1.  The opening statement of Mark Galvayne, Principal Licensing Officer, including the following points:

a.  The application was to vary the Premises Licence as set out on page 50 of the agenda pack. Currently the shop had permission to open 24 hours a day seven days a week and for off sales of alcohol from 07:00 to 01:00 the following day. This application was to extend the sale of alcohol by two hours a day until 03:00.

b.  The application was subject to representation from the Licensing Authority.

b.  All proposed conditions set out on pages 71 / 72 were agreed by the applicant prior to publication of the agenda.

c.  As advised in paragraph 6.5 of the report, the premises was located in the Edmonton Cumulative Impact Policy Area. The application was for a full variation of a premises licence. The application was subject to a relevant representation. Therefore the Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) applied to this application.

d.  As the application included activities outside the Core Hours, the Council’s Policy was that this application was subject to the presumption against grant that was implicit in a cumulative impact policy.

e.  Confirmation that, if minded, the Licensing Sub-Committee may agree to grant in part to vary the licence to add the conditions 8 to 17.

 

2.  The statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, including the following points:

a.  She noted that the application had been amended from a request for supply of alcohol 24 hours a day to 07:00 to 03:00.

b.  The Licensing Authority still raised objection to the application as the premises was within the Edmonton CIP area. The premises was in an area which was already of concern with regard to crime and disorder and public nuisance. The hours would exceed the core hours of the CIP. The presumption in Council policy was that such applications would be refused.

c.  The premises was also in a drinking control area.

d.  There were residential properties close by, in Nuffield Close, above the premises and also blocks of flats opposite the premises. The Licensing Authority was concerned that there would be increased numbers of customers late at night and that residents could be disturbed in the early hours.

e.  In a full inspection visit on 26 April, issues remained about compliance with CCTV and raid control conditions, and the premises were given 14 days to comply. As of 14 May, the CCTV was unable to retain recordings for a minimum of 31 days, and the smoke note system was still not in place.

f.  In line with the CIP and due to failed compliance with the current licence, the Licensing Authority objected in relation to prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder.

g.  PC Fisher had confirmed it had been the intention of the Metropolitan Police Service to make representation, but due to administrative oversight this did not happen.

h.  In response to the Chairman’s query regarding current compliance, Charlotte Palmer understood from the applicant that work was being done to change the CCTV. There was an error in the system so that it had not been able to store 31 days’ footage. Officers were concerned that, given that this application was pending, and the need for the applicant to demonstrate why they should be considered an exception to the CIP, that there should be breaches of conditions was even more alarming.

i.  In response to a question from the applicant’s representative, it was confirmed that officers provided additional information to the applicant, discussed raid control, and provided the contact details of PC Fisher in respect of the raid control system as required by the Police.

 

3.  The statement of Mr Noel Samaroo, licensing consultant, on behalf of Nazli Food Centre, including the following points:

a.  When he was initially approached, the applicant wished to bring the alcohol licence into line with the existing 24 hour trading hours of the shop. After finding out the premises was in a CIP, he had advised his client that gaining a 24 hour alcohol licence was probably unheard of, and the application had been amended.

b.  In respect of the special circumstances why this licence should be granted and the premises made a special dispensation, a statement had been prepared for consideration, as set out in Annex 05, and he wished to highlight the key points.

c.  Most of the problems in the CIP area were linked to licensed premises. There were very few calls to the Police about public areas.

d.  Conversations with customers and local residents confirmed that a reduced application to 03:00 would be preferred to a 24 hour off licence.

e.  The difficulty faced by this trader was the presence of other shops just outside the borough, such as Sainsburys, which had later licences. This premises was losing customers to other premises 400 yards up the road that were outside the CIP area.

f.  This application was nothing to do with gaining trade, but was to help the owner survive by not losing trade. An extra two hours to sell alcohol would greatly help this trader.

g.  The Police had never been called to the premises. The shop had never failed a test purchase. Most of its customers were local, including many from the nearby flats. There were no complaints, and no representations from local residents.

h.  He hoped the sub-committee would take the view that there would be no negative impact on any of the licensing objectives if the application was granted.

i.  Concern in respect of noise had been mentioned, but it should be borne in mind that this shop opened for 24 hours, and had been trading this way for six or seven years with no negative impact on disturbance or noise nuisance.

j.  He had spoken with the Licensing Authority officers in respect of extra conditions and upgrading conditions. The applicant was more than happy to agree all proposed conditions and had put forward two conditions of their own. The applicant had already signed up to the voluntary agreement in respect of sales of super strength lager and was already part of the scheme.

k.  Cans or bottles left lying around could help to identify problem premises if it was clear where they originated. This applicant had advised they were happy to print their price labels so that the origin could be identified.

l.  He gave assurance that issues around compliance with conditions were being put right, and gave an explanation of the issues. Because this hearing was pending, the CCTV had been upgraded to film 24 hours rather than during licensed hours only, but the disk then got filled up, so the system had to be changed to ensure 24 hour filming was enabled. In respect of the smoke note system, they had one, but it was broken, and they had tried to get another, but had found it very difficult to find a supplier. The advice of the Police had been sought and they had provided a telephone number and it was hoped to source one soon.

 

4.  The representatives of Nazli Food Centre responded to questions as follows:

a.  In response to Members’ questions about what would be done to comply with condition 14, it was advised that they did not get customers congregating outside this shop, but if they did, one of their employees would ask people to move away. There was no reason for people to be congregating outside. There would also be CCTV cameras there.

b.  The number of employees was confirmed. There were a minimum of two at any one time, but in the evenings there were between three and five male employees in the premises, carrying out re-stocking and other jobs.

c.  Members asked about current sale of alcohol and stopping sales at 01:00. It was advised that at 01:00 shutters were pulled down and the alcohol locked behind them. No alcohol was sold after 01:00.

d.  It was confirmed that since the business had been in operation, since 2010, there had been no incidents or problems after licensing hours. 

e.  In response to the Chairman’s highlighting of information provided that this was a general store with a maximum of 20% of its sales being of alcohol, and questioning the reasons for the application, it was confirmed that this was a general store, but sale of alcohol provided large margins and was a vitally important part of its turnover. People went away because they could not buy alcohol at 02:00 and customers were being lost because they did not offer alcohol sales for long enough hours. Once a customer had been lost, it was hard to get them back.

f.  In response to the Chairman’s queries about strength of conditions in support of current and of extended hours, it was advised that there was no crime and disorder associated with this store. Consideration had been given to a locked door policy and buzzer entry, but was not felt appropriate, given that this was a general store. There was also consideration of SIA door supervisors, but that would be inappropriate for this business which had staff on site anyway. In the original application there were lots of conditions to support longer hours, and it was agreed that the proposed additional conditions were very sensible. Employees would also be encouraged to gain a certificate for safer retailing.

g.  In response to the Chairman’s request for details of proactive mitigation measures to promote the licensing objectives, it was reiterated that the premises was trading 24 hours, but that in the daytime, different products made up a greater percentage of sales and alcohol was sold more as an evening product. It was emphasized that the applicant was happy to comply with everything the Licensing Authority asked for, including staff numbers and cameras outside with footage available to the Police, and both covert and highly visible CCTV cameras. It was difficult to suggest what more could be done. Problems had never arisen at the premises. If anything had been missed, he was sure the Licensing Authority would advise accordingly. If necessary, the trader would agree to still cover the alcohol during later hours so it was not visible, but could be sold, or to install electric door shutters to give control over which customers could be admitted.

h.  In response to Members’ queries about the importance of sale of alcohol at the shop, and how much the trader was losing by not being able to sell alcohol after 01:00, it was advised that it had a huge impact. If they were not able to buy alcohol there, customers would go to other stores, and would make their other purchases elsewhere also.

i. The Licensing Authority representative cautioned that seeing staff unlocking alcohol to sell during the later hours may lead other customers to make complaints which would have to be investigated. Keeping the alcohol where only staff could access it would be preferable. She asked for details on how a closed door policy operated, and it was advised that electronic doors were controlled by a button next to the counter to let customers in and out and that this system worked well in other boroughs.

 

5.  The summary statement of the Principal Licensing Officer confirming that unless the applicant had demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Licensing Sub-Committee that the application should be an exception to the policy, the application was subject to the presumption against grant that was implicit in a cumulative impact policy, and the Licensing Sub-Committee should refuse those parts of the application that would extend alcohol sale hours.

 

RESOLVED that

 

1.  In accordance with the principles of Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee retired, with the legal representative and committee administrator, to consider the application further and then the meeting reconvened in public.

 

2. The Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED IN PART as follows :

 

(i)           Hours the premises are open to the public : Sunday to Saturday from 00:00 to 00:00.

(ii)          Supply of alcohol (off supplies only) : Sunday to Saturday from 07:00 to 01:00 the following day.

 

Conditions (in accordance with Annex 06 to the LSC Report):

 

(i)               Conditions 1 to 17, which were agreed by the applicant before the hearing.

 

3. The Chairman made the following statement:

 

“Having both read the written submissions from all parties, and listened to oral representations at the hearing itself from the Applicant, the Applicant’s representative, and also the Licensing Authority, the Licensing Sub-Committee (LSC) has given careful consideration to this application to vary the licence to allow activities outside the core hours of the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy.

 

In this case, we were asked to consider extending the hours for the supply of alcohol (off sales) from the present 01.00 – which is already beyond the core hours – to 03.00. In so doing, the sub-committee welcomed the agreement of all parties to see strengthened conditions attached to the licence; and in particular welcomed those additional conditions that had been provided by the Applicant.

 

We further welcomed the honesty and integrity of the Applicant, and understood the best intentions and commercial motivations that guided the application to vary. And we acknowledged that the Applicant had already retracted from an initial submission to seek permission to sell alcohol 24 hours a day from what, in its own submission is by definition a general store in which alcohol sales constitutes no more than 20% of its trade.

 

However, the Licensing Sub Committee was mindful of the fact that the premises operates in the Edmonton CIP area. We were also further concerned that there have been issues even with the current conditions of the licence, not all of which – as evidenced by the Licensing Authority – had been fully complied with, including ongoing problems with the CCTV system and its ability to function satisfactorily.

 

In its submission, the Applicant had contended that the existing licence has extensive conditions that already support a later licence. However, and despite those conditions now being strengthened, the sub-committee was not persuaded, from the operating schedule, the Applicant’s written and oral submissions nor from the answers to its questions, that the Applicant has in place, or properly considered sufficient or appropriate additional steps to ensure that there is no negative impact on any of the licensing objectives.

 

The Council’s licensing policy is that this Application is subject to the presumption against a grant that is implicit in the Cumulative Impact Policy (sec 9.22). In addition, and adhering to the policy Guidance (8.36), the sub-committee was not persuaded that the Applicant offered or demonstrated sufficient proactive mitigation measures to persuade it to consider this application to extend the hours for alcohol sales outside of the core hours permitted in the CIP and be an exception to the Edmonton CIP. The LSC noted that the current hours are already in excess of those hours.

 

In conclusion, the Licensing Sub-Committee was not sufficiently satisfied that that there would be no negative cumulative impact on any of the licensing objectives; and therefore its resolution to grant the application to vary the licence in part is limited solely to the extent that those conditions requested by the licensing authority (and agreed by the Applicant on 6^th Mar 2014), and those conditions proposed by the licence holder also on 6^th Mar 2014 now be attached to the licence.”