Agenda item

To consider an application for a new premises licence.

 

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

 

Ms Daliah Barrett, Licensing Team Leader, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The application had been submitted by Mr Tabrez Hussain had also been nominated as the designated premises supervisor (DPS).

·         The application sought the supply of alcohol Monday to Sunday 07:00 to 23:00. The supply of alcohol would be for consumption off the premises.     

·         The application offered conditions on page 61 of the agenda papers.

 

Presentation by the applicant

 

Ms Gill Sherratt, representing the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         This was a family-run business and had been established for over 30 years.  

·         The business had been started by Mr Hussain’s father and uncle and he was now an operations director and ran it with his brother and his cousins.

·         The family started their business in 1996 with off licences and moved on to operating convenience stores. They now had 20 convenience stores operating in inner London. Six of these operated 24 hours a day.

·         The last licence granted in a cumulative impact zone to the business was in October 2025.     

·         The business was an extremely responsible professional company.

·         They operated their various premises without issues or complaints or risks to the licensing objectives.

·         The business provided lots of money to charity and had an extremely proactive relationship with all authorities including the Police, particularly by assisting them with any requests for CCTV.

·         Her organisation had represented the business for around 15 years.

·         She had considered the statement of licensing policy and conducted a risk assessment when considering the application.

·         She was aware that it was located in the Broadwater Farm residential estate.

·         The premises related to a council owned premises that had been earmarked specifically for a retail outlet.

·         The premises was being redeveloped by the Council who would be the landlord and the applicant was waiting to finalise the lease. This could only be done if the licence was granted from the hours of 07:00 to 23:00.

·         Once completed, the applicant intended to invest approximately £500,000 in creating modern facilities.

·         Convenience stores were more than just selling groceries. The premises would be a nicer store and alcohol would make about 15% of sales.

·         The Public Health representation did not hold up within the context of the Licensing Act.     

·         Public Health had provided generalised statistics regarding the area; that it was deprived and the risk alcohol presented to vulnerable groups. This, nor the Council's health and well-being strategy was disputed. However, the applicant had been working amongst residential communities for 30 years, was part of it, understood the demographic, understood the challenges that people faced and the risks that alcohol presented to health and well-being.

·         Public Health had stated that they wanted to ensure the Sub-Committee took into account health considerations in any licensing decisions, but Public Health was not a licensing objective. This decision was ratified by the Government in 2017 at their overview of the licensing system at the House      of Lords.

·         Public Health were suggesting that the Sub-Committee limit the application based on the two licensing objectives; public safety and the protection of children from harm.

·         The public safety objection was misguided because public safety was about the physical safety of people in the premises rather than having any broader or social or moral concerns.

·         In relation to the objection of the protection of children from harm, retailers could only contribute to that effort by utilising policies, procedures and equipment that they had within their control. The applicant fulfilled this need with a Challenge 25 policy, a CCTV system which would have 20 cameras.     

·         The evidence before the Sub-Committee was the track record of the business, but also that of the various other responsible authorities in licensing, none of them considered the application to raise any concerns regarding risks to the licensing objective of protecting children from harm.

·         Public Health was not asking for the application to be refused, but were focusing in on late operating hours.

·         The application requested 16 hours a day for alcohol sales, it was not clear why the last two operating hours was not able to uphold the licensing objectives.     

·         She would ask that the application be granted as sought. It was a robust application with evidence.

 

In response to questions, Ms Sherratt and Mr Tabarez Hussain, representing the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         Some minor amendments had been provided to the wording where the Police had proposed their conditions. Otherwise, she was in agreement with the conditions.     

·         She was happy to have a condition that stated the premises would not sell alcohol to those already intoxicated.

·         It was not possible for business owners to give staff widespread access to data stored by the premises. It belittled the licensing objectives as people could tamper with systems. Sometimes if Police attended the premises, the relevant person may not be present to grant access to certain requests such as CCTV. This was why a buffer of 48 hours was necessary to make sure the applicant did not breach conditions of a licence. 

·         The risks at Broadwater Farm were no different to any other application.

·         Public Health was not a licensing objective. The risk assessment was based on protection of children from harm and crime and disorder. Various conditions were in place for those such as a Challenge 25 policy and CCTV.  The conditions had not been amended by the Police and because they were the national standard to address such issues.

·         Risk assessments were not just based on areas. Local shops serviced areas like the area where the premises was based everywhere in the country. It was important to consider the operator and the robust nature of the actual conditions.

·         Opening the premises at 07:00, but limiting alcohol sales until 10:00 would not be something the applicant could consider because the business operated 24 hours for the inner-city area and 07:00 to 23:00 for residential areas. Section 182 guidance stated that in relation to the hours for an off-licence business, the opening hours should match the hours for alcohol sales. If this did not happen, then it would cause problems with customers as they would not have the convenience of shopping in one place. If the premises could not sell alcohol for a period of hours, then the premises would have to start covering up the drinks and paying for shutters. Otherwise, the business would be liable to commit a criminal offence.

·         The position of Public Health was that the business was acceptable for 14 hours a day. Although there were schools in the area, schools were off all summer and children would be outside their homes from 15:30 and Public Health was stating that the premises was capable of protecting children from harm. It was not clear where the evidence was that that between 07:00 to 09:00 that the premises was suddenly not able to meet the licensing objectives.

·         The staff were very well trained in proxy sales and typically, anytime there had been an attempt at a proxy sale, it would be someone underage that had tried to purchase something that had been refused. Shortly after, an adult would come in to the premises and try and buy the same item. The staff were aware of the dangers around proxy sales. This was never an issue in any of the premises managed by the business.     

·         The use of shutters was legally not justified. There were seldom sales of alcohol in the morning. As part of the section 182 guidance, when a shop opened its doors, all of the products needed to be available on the shelves. It did not mean that people were going to be coming into the premises and buying ten bottles of wine. Legally, the premises was entitled to open the doors and have the alcohol available to customers. Unless there was evidence to suggest that there would be a problem to sell alcohol between 07:00 and 09:00, then the premises should not be expected to meet such a disproportionate condition.

·         Alcohol sometimes could not be put them behind the shutters due to fixture fittings or if there was an alcohol promotional fixture, it would not be operationally suitable to place a shutter.     

 

Presentation by interested parties

 

Mr Joe Garvey, representing the Public Health team, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The Public Health representation exclusively related to preventing, mitigating, targeting and tackling alcohol-related harms.     

·         Tackling alcohol is a priority for the Council. It was essential to achieving the Council’s health and wellbeing strategy aims including reducing the gap in life expectancy between the east and west of the borough and improving mental health and wellbeing.

·         Achieving the outcomes required ensuring licensing decisions took health and community safety into account.

·         The Council’s goal was to foster a culture that prevented and mitigated against alcohol-related harms.

·         The proposed premises sat within Broadwater Farm, a location of significant vulnerability surrounded by dense residential housing schools, care homes sheltered accommodation and drug and alcohol treatment services.

·         West Green was a diverse and vibrant ward which should be celebrated. It had almost 15,000 residents, 19% of which were children and young people. The ward was ethnically diverse with nearly 15% of the residents from ethnic minority backgrounds.

·         West Green was a ward that was particularly deprived. The premises occupied an area within was ranked in the top 7% of most deprived areas      nationally.

·         Evidence consistently showed that alcohol harms were more concentrated in deprived communities.

·         Local health data from 2024/25 indicated there were alcohol-related admissions and three ambulance callouts for alcohol related incidents that year in West Green.

·         The borough continued to face some of the highest alcohol-related harm levels in London.  Of particular concern for Public Health was the low rate of successful completion of alcohol treatment. The borough sat at 3.5%      successful completion, below England’s average of 34.6% and ranked as the second worst London borough in rates of completion. This emphasized the importance of preventing additional pressure on vulnerable communities from alcohol-related harms.     

·         Within just one mile of the premises, there were 19 infant and primary schools, five secondary schools or colleges one sheltered housing scheme and eight residential or care homes. The Grove, Haringey's flagship specialist drug and alcohol misuse service, was located within a half a mile radius. This meant that individuals in recovery or seeking help would be regularly exposed to a new outlet selling alcohol directly along their route or in their residential area.

·         There was a local need for the premises. There were currently no off-licences within a 250 metre radius of the location.

·         There was good argument to suggest the premises would benefit the local community.

·         The leading concern was the availability of alcohol in an area of high population density and deprivation, with vulnerable communities in close proximity.     

·         Broadwood Farm was transitioning from an area of high crime and gang activity, high levels of people with mental health conditions, social stigma      and historic trauma to an area where the major regeneration initiatives had focused on health, well-being safety community safety, social cohesion, better housing and environment.

·         Having alcohol sold early in the morning would go some way in      undermining all the ongoing work to make Broadwater Farm a better, healthier community.

·         Given the risks identified, particularly relating to those in treatment he would ask the Sub-Committee to consider the measures that would help mitigate potential harm and would like the Sub-Committee to consider restricting the of alcohol sales between 09:00 and 23:00.

 

 

In response to questions, Mr Garvey informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         Alcohol risks were more concentrated in areas of high deprivation. The proposed amendments to hours would help mitigate against the commercial      determinacy of health with quite a proportionate, easily implementable licensing condition that had a very negligible impact on the premises.

·         There was not a spike during the hours of 07:00 to 09:00 of people using drug and alcohol treatment service.     

·         He would request the Sub-Committee and the applicant to consider restricting the alcohol sales given the area of high deprivation and likely alcohol related harms experienced within the community.

 

 

To summarise, Ms Sherrat stated that the applicant did consider the issues raised. The applicant was a retailer who had a flawless track record working with local charities, giving money to the kinds of charities that probably would benefit the work in the area. The premises needed to open at 07:00 as it was part of what they did. The applicant was not asking for a 24-hour licence which they could, but recognised the area the premises was located. There was no evidence being presented about proxy sales during the school run and the Sub-Committee had heard that there had been no spike on impact on the rehabilitation services. The Sub-Committee only needed to look at its own statement of licensing policy to see that public safety was not about health, but physical safety. In relation to protecting children from harm, the policies, procedures and track record of the applicant was flawless. The Police hardly changed the conditions proposed because they met the national standard. There were three responsible authorities whose specific job was to protect children from harm and all of them were of the view that the application was acceptable.

 

To summarise, Mr. Garvey stated that the borough faced some of the highest alcohol related harms in London and this was felt even more acutely in Broadwater Farm, an area of significant deprivation and in the highest density of deprivation across the country. His leading concern was not with the premises itself, but more the availability of alcohol in an area of high population density, deprivation and with vulnerable communities in close proximity, pertinently to The Grove. Given the risks identified particularly to those in treatment, he would ask the Sub-Committee to      consider measures that would help mitigate potential harm. In particular, to       restrict the sale alcohol between 07:00 and 23:00.

 

Adjournment and Decision

 

At 8:57pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the Legal adviser and clerk to deliberate in private. The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations from all those who spoke. Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to grant the application subject to conditions and amendments.

 

RESOLVED: To grant the application subject to conditions and amendments.

 

The Licensing Sub Committee carefully considered the application for a Premises License at, NISA, MOSELLE RETAIL UNIT, BROADWATER FARM, TOTTENHAM, LONDON, N17 6HE (BRUCE CASTLE / WEST GREEN)  In considering the application, the Committee took account of the London Borough of Haringey’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Act 2003 section 182 Guidance, the report pack, and the applicant’s and objector’s representations.  Having considered the application and heard from all the parties, the Committee decided to GRANT the application subject to the conditions below: 

 

Sale of Alcohol:  Monday to Sunday 0700 to 2300 hours 

 

Supply of alcohol OFF the premises.  Hours open to Public:  Monday to Sunday 0700 to 2300 hours. 

 

CONDITIONS:  The Committee requires the Applicant to adhere to the Conditions proposed by the Applicant at pages 60- 62 and 85-86 of the Committee papers, relating to Robust CCTV, Dispersal, Staff Training particularly in relation to the prevention of proxy sales and sale of alcohol to intoxicated individuals and Incident Management policies and in addition to a condition that litter will be dealt with so that the area immediately outside the premises is kept clean and free from litter. 

 

The conditions are as follows: 

 

1. CCTV shall be installed, operated, and maintained, to function all times that the premises is open for licensable activities. Said CCTV will comply with the following criteria: 

2.  (a) The premises will ensure that the system is checked on a regular basis to ensure that the system is working properly and that the date and time are correct.  (b) There will be a camera on the entrance to the premises, to capture a clear image of anyone entering.  (c) The system will provide coverage of the interior of the premises accessible to the public: (d) The system will record in real time and recordings will be date and time stamped:  (e) At all times during operating hours, there will be at least 1 member of staff on the premises who can operate the system sufficiently to allow Police or authorised Council officers other authorised officers of the Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13 of the Licensing Act 2003) to view footage on request (subject to the Data Protection Act 2018).  (f) Recordings will be kept for a minimum of 31 days and downloaded footage will be provided to the police or other authorised officers of the Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13 of the Licensing Act 2003) on request (subject to the Data Protection Act 2018) within 24 hours of any request.  (g) Signage stating that CCTV is in operation will be clearly and prominently displayed at the premises.

3. Staff will be trained in alcohol sales and regular refresher training (every 6 months) will also be undertaken. Training records will be made available for inspection within 48 hours of request by the Police or other relevant officers of a responsible authority.  4. All spirits are to be kept behind the till/counter. 

5. All emergency exits shall be always kept free from obstruction. 

6. The premises license holder shall ensure that the area immediately outside the premises is kept clean and free from litter at all material times to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority. 

7. Premises will not sell alcohol to those who are already intoxicated. 

8. Prominent, clear and legible notices shall be displayed at all public exits from the premises requesting customers respect the needs of residents and leave the premises area quietly. These notices shall be positioned at eye level and in a location where those leaving the premises can read them. 

9. Delivery drivers/ riders shall be given clear instructions to use their vehicles in a responsible manner so as not to cause a nuisance to any residents or generally outside the license premises; not to leave engines running when the vehicles are parked; and not to obstruct the highway. 

10. The premises licence holder shall ensure that the area immediately outside the premises is kept clean and free from litter at all material times to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority. 

11. Waste will be disposed of responsibly to prevent odour, and collection times will be scheduled to minimize disruption. 

12. The premises will operate the 'Challenge 25' proof of age scheme.  (a) All staff will be fully trained in its operation and record of this be kept on site and made available to police or an authorised officer.  (b) Only suitable forms of photographic identification, such as passport or UK driving licence, or a holographic marked PASS scheme cards, will be accepted and any other ID approved by the Home Office.  (c) Premises will ensure staff is trained in how to identify and prevent the ‘proxy’ sale of alcohol to minors. 

13. A written or electronic record of refused sales shall be kept on the premises and completed when necessary. This record shall be made available to Police and/or the Local Authority upon request and shall be kept for at least one year from the date of the last entry.

 

 

REASONS:  The committee gave serious consideration to the submissions by the Applicant and to the concerns raised by Public Health at the Hearing. Whilst sympathetic to the objectors it was noted that the Applicant, and its agent, addressed all the concerns raised robustly and had sought to agree conditions with the Metropolitan Police in advance of the Hearing.  In particular the Committee took into account what the Applicants agent stated in relation to paragraph 10.15 of the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licencing Act 2003 (February 2026). This provides that:  ‘Shops, stores and supermarkets should normally be free to provide sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises at any times when the retail outlet is open for shopping unless there are good reasons, based on the licensing objectives, for restricting those hours.’  In light of the above, it was deemed that a grant of the application with the above conditions balanced the interest of the applicant, the residents and the licencing objectives. 

 

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 apparent is notified of the decision. This decision does not take effect until the end of the appeal. Or, in the event that an appeal has been lodged, until their appeal is dispensed with.