Agenda item

To consider an application for a new premises licence.

Daliah Barrett, Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a new premises licence for Pep Corner, 2 High Road, N22.  Representations had been made by the Metropolitan Police, the Licensing Authority and Public Health, due to ongoing concerns relating to Anti-Social Behaviour in and around the premises.  Police had visited the premises in 2015, and found that the premises licence had not been transferred to the new owner, and alcohol sales were continuing.  Police also found evidence of sales of counterfeit tobacco.  The owner then applied for a transfer of the premises licence, which was refused, and so the premises was sold to the current applicant, Mr Narinder Singh Chopra.  Representations had also been made by local residents.

PC Mark Greaves, outlined his representation against the application.  He referred to his written representation as set out at pages 27-30 of the agenda pack.  The area surrounding the premises had a history of serious crime, violence and disorder, and was well known for antisocial behaviour and street drinking.  A specialist operation had been set up to combat these issues, with police patrolling Ducketts Common and surrounding streets.  PC Greaves referred to a statement made by PC Gareth Powell, which made reference to the removal of the premises licence, and a reduction in antisocial behaviour and street drinking.  PC Greaves accepted that this was a new owner and that the previous issues were not linked to him, however it was his opinion that in order to control the issues in the area it would be appropriate for the licence to included a number of conditions around CCTV, and for the hours relating to the sale of alcohol be changed to 0700-2100 Monday to Sunday.

Monica Ukandu, Public Health, outlined her representation against the application as set out in pages 34-38 of the agenda pack.  The area surrounding the premises had a high volume of alcohol related incidents, and it was considered that the provision of alcohol by these premises would exacerbate the issues already experienced in the area.  Public Health were of the opinion that the application should be refused, however, if the Committee were minded to approve the application, a number of conditions had been put forward for inclusion on the licence.

SurendraPanchal, Applicant Representative, presented the application for a new premises licence.  The Applicant, Narinder Singh Chopra had taken over the premises on 2 June, and all previous members of staff had stopped working for the premises by 9 June following a handover.  Mr Chopra had many years experience of running an off licence, and would be providing a training manual to all members of staff detailing how the premises should be run in order to promote the licensing objectives.  Mr Panchal advised the Committee that Mr Chopra was happy to accept all of the conditions put forward, and suggested that he could reduce the trading hours to midnight if the Committee were minded to grant the application.

In response to questions from the Committee, PC Greaves explained that at the time of submitting his representation, he was told that there would be no change to the existing staff at the premises, and he accepted that this was no longer the case.  PC Greaves also raised his concern that Mr Chopra lived in Southall, and may not be able to be at the premises at all times.

In response to PC Greaves, Mr Chopra advised that he and two of his family members would be running the premises, and that two people would be present at all times.  He would ensure that all staff were trained as personal licence holders.

All parties summed up and the Committee adjourned to consider the application.

RESOLVED

The Committee carefully considered the application for a new premises licence, the representations made by the Metropolitan Police, the Licensing Authority, Public Health, the representations made by the Applicant and his representative, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Licensing Act 2003 s182 guidance.

Having heard the parties’ evidence, the Committee resolved to grant the application as follows:

Supply of alcohol

Monday to Sunday              0700 to 2200

Opening hours of the premises

Monday to Sunday              0700 to 2200

Supply of alcohol for consumption OFF the premises

The Committee added the following conditions as requested by the Metropolitan Police and Public Health:

-           A digital CCTV system to be installed in the premises.

-           Cameras must be sited to observe the entrance doors from the inside.

-           Cameras on the entrances must capture full frame shots of the heads and shoulders of all people entering the premises i.e. capable of identification.

-           Cameras must be sited to cover all areas to which the public have access including any outside smoking areas.

-           Provide a linked record of the date, time of any image.

-           Provide good quality images - colour during opening times.

-           Have a monitor to review images and recorded quality.

-           Be regularly maintained to ensure continuous quality of image capture and retention.

-           Member of staff trained in operating CCTV at venue during times open to the public.

-           Digital images must be kept for 31 days. The equipment must have a suitable export method, e.g. CD/DVD writer so that Police can make an evidential copy of the data they require. Copies must be available within a reasonable time to Police on request.

-           All staff to be trained in recognising signs of drunkenness, how to refuse service and the premises duty of care.  Documented records of training completed shall be kept for each member of staff.  Training shall be regularly refreshed and at no greater than 6 monthly intervals. Training records shall be made available for inspection upon request by a police officer or an authorised officer of the council.

-           Signage to be prominently displayed indicating that it is an offence to sell alcohol to anyone who is drunk.

-           There shall be no self-service of spirits on the premises.  Ciders, lagers and beers are to be positioned at the back of the premises, and not in direct sight upon entry.

-           No super-strength beer, lager or ciders of 6.5% ABV and above shall be sold at the premises.

-           There shall be no promotional sales of alcohol at the premises where alcohol is sold at a price lower than that at which the same or similar alcoholic drinks are sold, or usually sold, on the premises.

-           Staff shall note any refusals to sell to young people in a refusals log.  The refusals log shall be checked and signed monthly by the Designated Premises Supervisor.  The refusals log shall be made available for inspection upon request by the licensing team, police or trading standards.

-           Staff shall be trained on relevant matters including the conditions on the premises licence; age restricted products; and the operation of the CCTV system and how to deal with visits from authorised officers.  The licensee shall keep records of training and instructions given to staff, detailing the areas covered, and make them available for inspection upon request by authorised officers.  Staff shall sign to confirm that they have received and understood the training.

The Committee noted that the premises is located in an area of particular concern in relation to crime and disorder, public safety and the protection of children from harm.  As a result the committee decided that it would be appropriate to limit the hours to 2200hrs in order mitigate the potential impact of late opening hours and associated alcohol related anti social behaviour. The committee felt that shorter hours would promote the licensing objectives.

The Committee wished to recommend that two staff should be present at the premises after 1900hrs, in order to uphold the safety of the applicant and his staff and suggested that Applicant keep the security of the premises under review.

The Committee approached its deliberations with an open mind and only took its decision after having heard all the parties’ representations. The committee considered that the decision was appropriate and proportionate.