Licensing Sub- Committee - Meetings, agendas and minutes

. London Borough of Hammersmith & FulhamLicensing Sub-CommitteeMinutesMonday 21 November 2011PRESENTCommittee members: Councillors Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler (Chairman), Daryl Brownand Matt ThorleyOther Councillors: Councillor Belinda DonovanResponsible Authorities: Police Sergeant Stuart RatcliffeInterested Parties: Chris NoonanApplicant: Ken MacLeay, solicitor, Joshua Simons, agent, Mohammed Sayed, applicant,and Taufeeq Mohammed, prospective DPSOfficers: Janette Mullins, Legal Adviser, Adrian Overton, Licensing Officer, and OwenRees, Committee Coordinator1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCEThere were none2. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTThere were no declarations of interest.3. NISA, 65-69 SHEPHERDS BUSH GREEN, LONDON, W12 8PL (APPLICATIONNUMBER: 2011/01551/LAPRThe Sub-Committee received and considered an application for a new premiseslicence at Nisa, 65-69 Shepherds Bush Green, London, W12 8PL.Main Points Of EvidenceLicensing OfficerAdrian Overton, Licensing Officer, introduced the application, which had beensubmitted by the applicant’s agent on the 22 nd September 2011. He added that______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will berecorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.

Councillor Belinda Donovan had been asked to represent the Granville ResidentsAssociation, who had made a valid representation, at the hearing.Responsible AuthoritiesKen MacLeay, for the applicant, said that the applicant wished to amend theirapplication, reducing the hours of operation applied for to 11am to 10pm, andwould add a condition to restrict sales of alcohol to wines and spirits only.Police Sergeant Stuart Ratcliffe, Licensing Sergeant for the London Borough ofHammersmith and Fulham, set out the reasons for the Police objections. He saidthat the objection had been made to promote the prevention of crime and disorderand the prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives. He said that heconsidered the application to be of critical impact on the area in which thepremises were located, and said that he believed that paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 and 8.7of the Council’s Statement Of Licensing Policy should be considered as applyingas a consequence.He said that the premises were located on Shepherds Bush Green, an area whichwas a crime hotspot in the borough and had been so for some time. ShepherdsBush Green ward was a key area within the borough, and had a wide range ofissues, including a football ground and a large night economy. As a consequence,it had a 24 strong Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT), the largest in London. Thelocation of the premises fell within the area defined by the Council’s CumulativeImpact Policy.He said that the CIP had been introduced due to the volume of alcohol-relateddisorder: this was the SNT’s major focus. In addition to a large night-timeeconomy, the area suffered severe problems as a result of street drinking. Thenumber of alcohol related seizures made was extremely high, and 40 alcoholrelated arrests, on serious charges had been made in the three months prior to thehearing. 4 Anti-Social Behaviour Orders had been issued in August 2011 againststreet drinkers in the area.PS Ratcliffe stated that addressing street drinking was a high priority for the police,but the measures used were essentially reactive to an existing problem. He saidthat the area was saturated with licensed premises, with 53 off-licensed premisesin Shepherds Bush Green ward, and that he considered that adding to that densitywould increase the problems in the area.He said that the application did not sufficiently address the reality of operating inthe CCTV area. He said that CCTV did not in itself address the problemsexperienced in the area; large-scale operators with state-of-the-art systemscontinued to suffer high volumes of thefts, as the thieves were driven by addiction.He said that previous reviews of premises in the near vicinity had not had the effectdesired, and that he believed that a refusal to increase the licensed provision in thearea should be at the forefront of dealing with the problems described in hisevidence. He then described an account given to him by one of the SNTconstables of their activity that day, which had included 3 alcohol seizures, and 2alcohol related incidents.______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will berecorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.

He said that the problems experienced were directly related to the saturation in thearea and asked the Sub-Committee to refuse the application on those grounds.Councillor Thorley asked if a breakdown of the seizures was available. PS Ratcliffesaid that it was not. He added that seizures were difficult for police to carry out,and that drinkers were reluctant to give details of the source of the alcohol, and thetype of alcohol seized could only be abstracted from individual reports.Interested PartiesChris Noonan, representing the Greenside Residents Association, said that he hadsurveyed the number of premises in the area with “on” licences in 1986, when hearrived in the area, and found 26; there were now more than 70, not including offlicenceswhich had also increased in number greatly.He said that as a member of the ward Safer Neighbourhoods panel, drink relatedanti-social behaviour had been set as a key priority since its inception. He said thatthe area experienced problems with people coming from the pubs in the area, andwith street drinking during the day, including public urination. He said that largevolumes of empty cans and bottles were discarded on the street and into gardens;these included wine bottles as well as beer and cider cans and bottles. He saidthat another licensed premises would undermine the attempts made, through theintroduction of the CIP, to combat the issue. He said that while the premises wouldargue that a licence was necessary for its viability; this was not good grounds togrant the licence.The Chairman asked if the problems in the area were equally bad during daytime.Mr Noonan said that they were, with alcoholic drinkers often drinking from earlymorning and retiring to sleep by midnight.Councillor Belinda Donovan said that the problems described by Mr Noonan andPS Ratcliffe were typical of her experience, and, in her role as Cabinet Assistantfor Crime, typical of the accounts she received from local Neighbourhood Watchgroups and Residents Associations. She read a statement on behalf of CarolineDavis, which set out Ms. Davis’ objections to the application.The Chairman asked whether the introduction of the CIP had been welcomed byresidents. Councillor Donovan said that it had been widely welcomed.ApplicantKen MacLeay said that the applicant had only been served with the full text of thepolice objection on the day of the hearing, and had only been able to amend theirapplication following that. The applicant understood the exceptional circumstancesof the CIP and made a number of proposals with that in mind.Mr MacLeay said that he had represented one of the premises affected by theseries of reviews conducted in 2009. He noted that a majority of alcohol seizedwas beers and cider, showing that the actions taken at those reviews, whichbanned the sale of strong beers and strong ciders, were appropriate.______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will berecorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.

He said that the applicant had drafted a series of proposed conditions designed toallow it to operate in the CIP without causing an adverse impact. He submittedthese to the Sub-Committee stating that they had been drafted before the applicanthad had the opportunity to view PS Radcliffe’s statement and should beconsidered as amended where they conflicted with the proposed condition on thetypes of alcohol to be sold.Mohammed Sayed, applicant, said that he was in agreement with the proposedconditions. He confirmed that NISA was a brand, and that the premises were heldunder a 10 year lease with a considerable sum spent on refurbishment. He saidthat the premises did not intend to target street drinkers, but felt that alcohol wasan important part of its offer to convenience shoppers. He confirmed that thepremises were willing to add a condition restricting the sale of alcohol to reducedhours on QPR match days, a condition requiring a personal licence holder to be onsite at the premises at all times alcohol was for sale and a condition requiringalcohol for sale to be kept in locked cabinets.Mr Sayed said that he did not drink himself, and deplored anti-social behaviour. Hesaid that wine sales were customer driven, and customers would not visit a shopthat was unable to meet their needs in that regard. He said that the premisesintended to sell alcohol responsibly, and would implement Challenge 21 in additionto those conditions already put forward.He said that, in addition, Nisa operated a scheme under which a proportion of eachstore’s sales were given to a charity. He suggested that this could be given to acharity nominated by local residents groups with the aim of alleviating some of theconcerns identified.Taufeeq Mohammed, nominated Designated Premises Supervisor, described hisbackground which included 11 years of retail experience, at 3 shops. He said thathe had achieved the Level 2 certificate as part of his training, though this would behis first experience of selling alcohol.The Chairman asked what size the premises were. Mr Mohammed replied thatthey were 15 hundred square foot, with10% of sales expected from alcohol. Hesaid that given the premises’ proximity to bus stops being able to sell wine tocustomers purchasing a basket of food was important.Councillor Brown asked whether wine would be sold as part of a cheap promotion,and whether wine with an especially low price would be sold. Ken MacLeay saidthat while there would be promotions, the price point would be at a higher levelthan that attractive to street drinkers.Councillor Brown asked about the positioning of the lockable cabinets given thatthe premises had been refurbished. Mr MacLeay said that the premises wereprepared to offer the condition as it was in place in another similar premisesnearby, at the request of the Police. It was therefore felt appropriate to offer it as acondition. In response to concerns expressed by the Chairman that this couldplace staff at risk, Mr MacLeay said while the applicant recognised those concerns,______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will berecorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.

a similar practice was in place at another premises in the area, as part of theiraction plan.In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr MacLeay confirmed that thepremises would be open 24 hours, but the applied for hours for the sale of alcoholbetween 11am-10pm.Summing UpPS Ratcliffe said that, with regards to the nearby premises, they were alreadylicensed, and this made a key difference to the way the application should betreated, given the changes made as a result of the CIP and the situation in thearea as a whole. He said that as the premises did not currently have a licence, hewas in a position to object to the further saturation of the area. He said that thearea was a difficult one to operate in, especially for a DPS with no previouspractical experience.As for the amendments to the application, he said that the figures given for alcoholseizures did not give a breakdown between types of alcohol seized, and that streetdrinkers were undiscriminating; he said that the amendment of hours would nothave a significant effect. He concluded that the term “wino” was often used todescribe the kind of individuals who caused the problems described, and showedthat not serving beer and alcohol wouldMr Noonan reiterated that he did not believe economic grounds should be takeninto consideration, and noted that the main group using convenience shoppingwere single young men and women. He said that he also believed the locking up ofan area to be impractical, and that the premises would need to have promotions tobe competitive.Councillor Donovan said that the reviews had had a positive effect in the areaundertaken had had an effect, but those premises were some distance away fromthe premises site applied for.Mr MacLeay said that this reinforced his argument that the premises could operatewithin the CIP, if appropriate conditions were in place, without increasing theproblems currently experienced. He said that while he was aware of thepresumption for refusal, it was open to the Sub-Committee to decide that if themost stringent conditions were applied, the premises could operate; he citedMovida vs. Westminster City Council which showed that licences could be grantedwhere exceptional circumstances applied. He said that the type of alcohol that thepremises would sell was not targeted at street drinkers, and that the package ofconditions meant that exceptional circumstances applied to the application.He added that the level of experience of the DPS was not relevant under the termsof the Licensing Act.The Sub-Committee retied at 8.31pm, returning at 8.54pm.RESOLVED THAT______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will berecorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.

After careful consideration, the Sub-Committee unanimously decided that in light ofthe verbal and written evidence, it was both necessary and proportionate to refusethe applicationMeeting started: 7pmMeeting ended: 8.55pmChairmanContact officer:Owen ReesCommittee Co-ordinatorGovernance and Scrutiny: 020 8753 2088E-mail: owen.rees@lbhf.gov.uk______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will berecorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.