Agenda item

To consider an application for a new licence to allow licensable activity namely, the sale of alcohol at the retail unit. The premises holds an existing licence for 642 Lordship Lane but the application before the LSC is for a new licence seeking to incorporate an additional shop unit at 660 Lordship Lane, N22.

Licensing Officer

The Licensing Officer introduced the application which had been submitted by Mr Huseyin Sesen for a new licence to allow licensable activity namely, the sale of alcohol at the retail unit. The premises holds an existing licence for 642 Lordship Lane but the application before the LSC was for a new licence seeking to incorporate an additional shop unit.

Representations against the application had been received from residents, the local ward councillors, as well as Public Health and Licensing Authority Responsible Authorities.

Following a question from the Committee regarding page 51, the Licensing Officer confirmed that the restriction of the ‘sale of strong beer/lager and cider’ should be 6.5%, and not 5.5% as erroneously stated in that email.

Ward councillors

Councillor Peter Mitchell spoke on behalf of the ward councillors. The ward councillors received a number of complaints relating to the area in which the premises was located along Lordship Lane. It was highlighted that complaints included:

• Groups of men hanging around drinking and/or smoking, particularly around betting shops. It was noted the premises in the application was next door to a betting shop.
• Street drinkers made Lordship Lane an unpleasant area for locals.

Councillor Mitchell stated the Council should be supporting The Friends of Chapman’s Green and claimed local residents did not feel safe in Chapman’s Green, due to the congregation of gangs of men drinking, smoking, littering and urinating in the Green. The Councillor claimed that premises, such as the one in question, with 24 hour operating licenses exacerbated the problems which included 18 harassments being reported to the Metropolitan Police in July 2019 alone.

The Committee were reminded by the Councillor that Haringey Council policy stated that where any residential area was adversely affected by drinking, there was an assumption that premises in that area would have supply of alcohol limited to between 8am to 11pm Sunday to Thursday, and between 8am to 12am on Friday and Saturday.

Following a question by the Committee, the Licensing Officer noted that Lordship Lane to Chapman’s Green had issues with street drinking. An action plan had been put in place address the issue of street drinking along Lordship Lane but the Licensing Officer noted that Chapman’s Green was not included in any street drinking zone. The issue of drinking in Chapman’s Green was an issue that had come to light following that action plan being created, but it was being addressed.

Following a question by the Committee, Councillor Mitchell confirmed that the ward councillor’s objection was to the application for 24 hour supply of alcohol. He noted that summer was a particularly difficult time for residents around Chapman’s Green with drinking in the park at its worse during that period, due to the park rangers not being able to close the Green.

In response to a question on the absence of any representations from the Metropolitan Police, Councillor Mitchell noted disappointment that they had not made any submissions to the Committee. He noted that a recent walkabout with senior council officers included the Metropolitan Police and there was a collective effort to address the antisocial behaviour issues in Chapman’s Green and around Lordship Lane. He also noted that the option of looking at increasing police operations in the area, such as through a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) was being explored.

Public Health RA

The representative for Public Health referred the Committee to the written submissions at pages 53 to 57. It was highlighted that Public Health’s principal concerns were:

• The particular area had a high concentration of similar premises and the granting of this application would likely increase therefore risk of antisocial behaviour in the area.
• The particular area contained a number of schools and children centres within a small radius. In the mornings and afternoons, there was a risk that children  could see antisocial behaviour from those men congregating in the area, buying and then drinking alcohol on the street surrounding the premises. This worked against the Council’s Borough Plan which sought children to have the best start in life.
• There was a high number of ambulance call outs in the area, creating a challenging atmosphere for residents.
• The sale of high strength alcohol increased the ease of availability of the most harmful alcohol products, usually at a cheap price.
• The Borough Plan stated the importance of protecting and improving green space and parks. This was difficult to achieve in areas such as Chapman’s Green where there were concerns over groups of men drinking in that space. It also meant that others in the community were not able to use that space as they felt intimidated.

Public Health noted that if the Committee were to grant the application, it would like to see the conditions suggested at page 56 imposed on the Premises License.

Applicant

The Applicant was represented by Mr Stephen McCaffrey, Barrister.

Mr McCaffrey noted the application was being sought due to the increase in size at the premises meant that it had to be approved by the Licensing Committee. He stressed the premises already had 24-hour supply of alcohol on its premises license and had never previously had a review of its license.  If the Committee did not approve the application, then the premises would still have the 24-hour supply of alcohol on the existing premises license.

Mr McCaffrey submitted the witness statement of the License Holder (contained in the supplementary pack) demonstrated a genuine willingness to address the issues that had been raised in the course of the application. Whilst Mr McCaffrey acknowledged the valid concerns raised by local residents and the RA’s, he submitted there was an absence of any direct link between those concerns and the premises. He noted the only change that was taking place was the expansion of the premises, which was addressed by just one of the representations submitted.

Mr McCaffrey acknowledged there was a concern that expanding the premises meant there would be more alcohol on sale but informed the Committee that the primary intention for the expansion was to include a butcher and a bakery at the premises.

Mr McCaffrey challenged the suggestion that there was a link between the premises and antisocial behaviour in Chapman’s Green. He accepted that there were local issues but these would not be addressed by restricting the supply of alcohol  from the premises. He highlighted that no submissions had been made by the Metropolitan Police.

Mr McCaffrey closed by reminding the Committee the License holder had committed no previous breaches and was open to co-operating on issues raised, as demonstrated by the witness statement. He invited the Committee to support the License Holder and to approve this application, noting that the imposition of any new conditions on the premises would be disproportionate, given there had been no previous concerns and no previous review of the premises license.

In response to questions from the Committee, the following was noted:

• Due to the size of the floor plan expanding, Mr McCaffrey stated the law required a new application needed to be approved by the Licensing Committee.
• Mr McCaffrey claimed it was unfair to blame the premises for wider issues in the area.
• The Licensing Officer informed that all businesses in the area had been written to highlighting the concerns about street drinking. The businesses were reminded of the requirement to retail alcohol responsibly and that their premises license would be reviewed if they failed to retail alcohol responsibly.
• The Licensing Officer confirmed that there was one other premises within a 500m radius which was also able to supply alcohol 24/7.

Closing submissions were provided by:

Ward Councillors - Councillor Mitchell emphasised the ongoing issue of street drinking, antisocial behaviour, litter and urination in public from street drinkers.

The Chair thanked all parties for their participation and informed that a decision would be circulated within 5 working days.

DECISION

The Committee carefully considered the application for a new premises licence in respect of 4 Mevsim Limited, 640-642 Lordship Lane, London N22 5JH.

In considering the application  the Committee took into account the London Borough of Haringey’s Licensing Policy 2016-2021, the Licensing Act  2003, The Licensing Act 2003 section 182 Guidance, the contents  of the report pack, the representations made by residents, Cllr Mitchell and the ward councillors, representations by  Public Health and the Licensing Authority  and the representations made by and/or on behalf of the applicant in person and via his legal representative.

Having heard from all of the parties the Committee decided to grant the application with the additional conditions as set out below:

Supply of Alcohol

Monday to Sunday  06.00 to 00.00

The conditions set out in the operating schedule to be added to the licence in addition to the following conditions:

1. There  be no stock or supply of beer, larger or ciders above 6.5% ABV at the premises
2. There be no sale of single cans or bottles of beer, larger or cider from the premises
3. Outside of the hours authorised for the sale of alcohol, all alcohol within the trading area is to be secured behind locked grills/screens or secured behind locked cabinet doors.

Reasons

The Committee accepted the evidence from Public Health, the residents and Ward Councillors that the premises is in a mainly  residential area where there is a problem with street drinking in the near vicinity and in Chapman’s Green in particular. The evidence of high incidents of drinking related anti-social  behaviour (ASB)  and  crime which is affecting residents was not disputed.

The Committee felt it safe to assume that the alcohol is being purchased locally by street drinkers therefore all premises in the area selling alcohol,  particularly those selling it for consumption off the premises,  are contributing to the issues in the area,  including the applicant’s premises at 642 Lordship Lane which currently has a 24 hour licence for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises.

The Committee is entitled to have regard to Haringey’s Statement of Licensing Policy 2016 – 2021 when considering new applications. In accordance with  that policy and in light of the current problems in the area  the Committee concluded that granting this licence for the sale of alcohol for 24 hours would undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and crime and disorder.

Although Haringey’s  Statement of Licensing Policy 2016-2021  presumes that the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol would be from 8 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday and from 8 a.m. to 11.30 Sunday to Thursday,  the Committee agreed to extend  those hours slightly to 6 a.m. to midnight every day in recognition that the premise is operating 24 hours as a supermarket.

The Committee did not consider that the expansion of the premises would lead to more alcohol being  sold  and is not  imposing conditions that require the licence holder to manage behaviour once beyond the premises. However,  it is satisfied that to grant a licence that enables  the premises to sell high strength beers in single cans in an area where street drinking is  a significant problem would undermine the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance. The additional conditions above are therefore  considered appropriate and proportionate.

Appeal Rights 

This decision is open to appeal to the Magistrates Court within the period of 21 days beginning on the day upon which the appellant is  notified  of the decision. This  decision does not take effect until the end of the appeal period or, in the event that an appeal has been lodged,  until the appeal is dispensed with.