Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Councillor James Peters was elected as the chair.

2.1.   There was no recorded apologies for absence.

3.1  There was no declarations of interest.

4.1  The attendees noted the hearing procedure as set out in the meeting papers.

The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision, from the information presented to it within the report and presented at the hearing today, from the applicant, the Responsible Authorities and Other Persons, has determined that having regard to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:

• The prevention of crime and disorder;
• Public safety;
• Prevention of public nuisance;
• The protection of children from harm;

The application for a new premises licence has been approved in accordance with the Council’s licensing statement and paragraph 8.1 of the report, with the following amendments:-

• The opening and licensable activity (off- sales of Alcohol) hours to be from;

Monday to Sunday – 08:00 to 23:00 hours

• Condition 11 to be amended, to read:

All alcohol shall be sold in sealed containers. They shall not be opened or consumed in, or within, the immediate vicinity of the premises

• Condition 21 to be deleted

Reasons for the decision

The application has been approved, with the above amendments and additional conditions, as the Licensing Sub-Committee was satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined. 

In making this decision the Licensing Sub-Committee has taken into consideration that the Responsible Authorities (Licensing, the Metropolitan Police Service and Trading Standards) had withdrawn their representations following agreement with the applicant as to the amended hours for the sale of alcohol along with the additional conditions being imposed. It was also noted that the only remaining representations were that of a local business and a resident who resides close to the premises and works at the local business.

The concerns relating to the local business (a pub) were carefully, considered, alongside the amended application and it was felt that the impact of any pre-loading of drinks could be adequately assessed by the imposition of the onerous condition requiring the applicant to clearly and permanently mark all containers of alcohol sold from the premises, under the licence, with the trading name, address and post code of the premises. Furthermore, it was felt that any possible negative impact of the applicant’s proposed operation on their business (i.e. on the pub) could be negated by more effective management measures for their premises, should this became necessary.

The Licensing Sub-Committee also took on board the applicant’s responses to the representations made by the applicant’s agent, as to it possibly stifling another business, of a similar but somewhat different nature, from operating during reasonable hours of the day and that by refusing the application or restricting it any further would, in effect, be tantamount to protectionism for certain types of businesses, as opposed to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Having considered all the factors and arguments presented, the Licensing Sub-Committee felt that the amendments to the application would, as outlined above, adequately ensure that the licensing objectives would be promoted having considered the concerns raised within the two remaining representations. 

5.1  The Principal Licensing Officer introduced the new premises licence, as set out in the meeting papers, for Mayva News, 37 Scrutton Street, EC2A 4HU. The application was for the Supply of Alcohol (Off Premises).  The officer highlighted that representations from the Responsible Authorities (the Metropolitan Police Service and Trading Standards) had been withdrawn following agreement to amend hours for sale of alcohol to 08:00 to 23:00 daily.  The Licensing Authority had made representation based on the grounds of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Prevention of Public Nuisance and Licensing Hours.  Additional information, submitted by local residents/business objectors had been circulated prior to the meeting (see supplementary papers). Those in attendance noted that the premises was not in the SPA.

5.2  The agent spoke in support of the application giving an overview of what his client was proposing and a brief history of the premises. The agent highlighted how his client had introduced a number of measures on the premises and agreed to a number of additional conditions from Responsible Authority representations, namely conditions 22 to 24.  It was noted that the additional condition, condition 21, was to be withdrawn.  The agent explained that the premises had no prior history of contributing to the Cumulative Impact (CI) in the area and the undermining of the London Borough of Hackney’s Licensing Objectives. The agent re-iterated the number of conditions and measures his client had agreed to and to introduce anymore would be ‘overkill’ as the premises was a small shop. The agent, referring to the representations made by other person/business had no basis in evidence and were ‘purely speculative’. In response to a question from the chair of the committee, the agent confirmed that the shop had been at the site for the past two to three years.

5.3  The committee next heard from the Responsible Authority, the Licensing Authority, who on hearing that the applicant had agreed to a number of additional conditions from the Responsible Authorities (conditions 22 to 24) had withdrawn their representation.

5.4  The committee next heard from other persons speaking in objection to the application. The grounds for their objections was on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance, the protection of children from harm and licensing hours. The other persons outlined their concerns about the proximity of the premises in relation to other nearby licensed premises and what they perceived to be a currently a growing trend of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) in the immediate area e.g. drunkenness, noise and public urination etc and how another licensed premises would lead to a cumulative impact in the area and would undermine the licensing objectives. The other persons explained how a rise in ASB-related incidents had had negative impact on a local public house. Another licensed premises in the area would exacerbate the situation further. The other persons highlighted a report that they had commissioned assessing the local impacts of another licence premises in the area, the report had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision from the information presented to it within the report and presented at the hearing today, from the applicant and the Responsible Authorities, it has determined that having regard to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:

• The prevention of crime and disorder;
• Public safety;
• Prevention of public nuisance;
• The protection of children from harm;

The application to vary the premises licence has been approved in accordance with the Council’s licensing statement and paragraph 8.1 of the report, with the following amendments:-

·  The opening hours of the premises, Monday to Sunday, be 08:00 hours to 02:00 hours

·  The supply of alcoholic sales, Monday to Sunday, be 09:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Reasons for the decision

The application to vary the premises licence has been approved, with the above amendments, as the Licensing Sub-Committee were satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined. 

The Licensing Sub-Committee took into consideration that the applicant, following their amended application, was simply looking to open the premises for longer and had amended the application to remove their request to have longer licensable hours, which the majority of the Responsible Authorities were content with given the existing and additional conditions. As such, the sub-committee were satisfied in approving the amended application the licensing objectives would not be unduly undermined.

6.1  The Principal Licensing Officer introduced the application which was a premises licence variation for Patel and sons, 101 Great Eastern Street EC2A 3JD. The proposed variation was for the supply of alcohol (off Premises). Committee members noted that representations had been made from the Responsible Authorities including Trading Standards, on the grounds of prevention of public nuisance, from the Police on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance, the protection of children from harm and licensing hours. The Licensing Authority had also made representations on the grounds of on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and licensing hours. The committee also noted that there had also been a written representation from other persons on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance, the protection of children from harm and licensing hours. It was noted that the premises was in the Shoreditch SPA.

6.2  The agent for the applicant began acknowledging that a previous premises licence, which permitted off sales of alcohol from 08:00

to 01:00 daily was revoked by Licensing Sub-Committee in 2016 following a review application submitted by the Licensing Authority.  The current license had been granted on 14 June 2018.  The premises recently had two inspections from Trading Standards on the 21 April 2018 and the 29 August 2019 and they had found to be no reported issues.  The agent explained that this application had been made because of a hike in rent so his client had no choice or either close the shop. The applicant had suggested a number of additional conditions including having Security Industry Authority staff on the premises and the installation of a serving hatch after a certain time.

6.3  In response to a question from the chair of the committee, the agent replied that his client had not discussed previously with the Responsible Authorities these suggested additional conditions.  The chair of the committee suggested to the responsible authorities that they wish to adjourn to consider these new additional conditions, however the Responsible Authorities took the view that an adjournment was not necessary.

6.4  A brief discussion then ensued between the agent and the senior licensing lawyer about the impact of the application on the cumulative impact (CI) in the area and the licensing objectives. The senior licensing lawyer reminded the agent that it was up to him and his client to seek legal advice and to demonstrate how the application did not contribute to the CI in the area.

6.5  The committee heard from the responsible authorities. The Licensing Authorities explained their concerns about the application on the grounds of its location in the Shoreditch SPA and therefore its impact in relation to Licensing Policy 10 (LP10).  This area had been identified as suffering from the negative cumulative impact of the concentration of licensed premises in the area. The additional three hours applied for through the application could have a negative impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

There were no Temporary Event Notices (TENs) for consideration at the

meeting.

7.1  There were no Temporary Event Notices (TENs) for consideration at the meeting.