Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The meeting was restarted as there was no sound on
the live stream when the meeting initially commenced.
The Senior Technical Officer presented the
report and outlined the application.
Applicant’s representative
Mr Hopkins made the following points:
i.
He was aware the premises was in a
cumulative impact zone and the issues which arose within the area.
ii.
Had taken account of the representations
especially those made by the Police and as a result additional conditions had
been submitted to accompany the application.
iii.
Proposed amendments to the
licensable hours.
iv.
Had accepted conditions suggested
by the Police detailed in appendix 5 of PC Metcalfe’s presentation pack.
v.
A ‘challenge 25’ condition was now
included, which required proof of age when purchasing alcohol using specified
ID.
vi.
A written refusals record would be
maintained, detailing when the sale of alcohol had been refused.
vii.
Proposed a minimum alcohol content
for spirits and also that a minimum of 4 cans of lager, cider or beer to be
sold at the premises.
viii.
Proposed a condition that a
minimum of 2 staff had to be on duty, but in reality, it was likely that there
would be 4 staff members working at a time.
ix.
Proposed that specified certain
people had to be on duty when alcohol was sold.
x.
Proposed a condition that alcohol
supplied off the premises had to be in sealed containers and no alcohol could
be consumed on the premises. All alcohol containers had to contain the postcode
of the premises.
xi.
Staff would be trained for their
role on induction and would have refresher training. Staff would also receive conflict management
training.
xii.
Spirits would be displayed behind
the counter.
xiii.
All displays of alcohol would be
covered by CCTV at all times.
xiv.
Invoices for the premises purchase
of alcohol would be retained.
xv.
Management staff to discourage
people loitering or drinking outside of the premises.
xvi.
The CCTV would be monitored and
physical checks would be carried out.
xvii.
The applicant was aware of
existing problems in the locality and did not want to add to any anti-social
behaviour (ASB). He wanted to make his shop less attractive to those with
alcohol problems and this was why he had amended the licensable hours being
sought in the application to 10.00 - 23.00 and also accepted the Police
suggestion to have a minimum strength of alcohol of 5.5%.
xviii.
No small bottles of alcohol below
20cl would be sold on the premises.
xix.
Comments had been made by some of
the residents that beggars hung around the ATM machines as they would ask
people taking money out for money to buy alcohol.
xx.
The licensable hours will align
with the opening hours of the shop, so the shop would shut at 23.00 rather than
23.30 so that people returning from a night out would not be able to buy
alcohol.
xxi.
The minimum purchase was
restricted to 4 cans to deter people trying to ‘pre-load’ before a night out.
xxii.
All staff would receive approved
conflict management training, so that they had the tools to be able to deal
with aggressive people. Customers would be refused service if they were
aggressive towards staff.
xxiii.
For the first year all training
would be provided by an external competent trainer.
xxiv.
If a licence was granted today the
applicant would consider an SIA licensed door supervisor to be on duty from
19.00 - 23.00 on a Friday and a Saturday.
The applicant was an SIA licensed door supervisor and had 4 years experience
working as such on doors to nightclubs in Shoreditch East London.
xxv.
The applicant would be a
responsible licence holder he had looked at the concerns which were raised in
the representations and looked at the area and agreed a comprehensive set of
conditions.
xxvi.
Conditions on this premises would
be stronger than on premises nearby.
xxvii.
The applicant had operated the
shop for the past year and a quarter, it was a convenience store. He wanted to
make the shop a ‘one-stop shop’. He had experience working in an off-licence in
the London Borough of Camden.
xxviii.
A number of residents thought this
was a variation application for a late-night licence, but this premises has
never been licensed and had never sold alcohol.
xxix.
Referred to alcohol related crimes
figures the Police provided during 2013/14 and 2016/17 which showed that crime
had substantially reduced during this period, the police had not indicated that
the downward trend had not continued over the years to 2018/19. He assumed the
trend had gone down in Mill Road and the surrounding area from the figures the
police had provided within their submission.
xxx.
The police officer’s submission commented
that the CIZ was last reviewed in 2017, the police concluded from crime
statistics that the current initiatives were effective and having a positive
impact.
xxxi.
If crime continued to reduce as
the evidence suggested, an operator should be given a chance especially in the
current climate.
xxxii.
In summary, there was a
responsible operator with relevant experience, he had responded to the concerns
raised in the representations by proposing conditions. He accepted the conditions which had been
proposed by the police and also proposed additional conditions. The licensing
objectives would be addressed and there would be no negative impact. The rebuttable
presumption to refuse the application had been overcome and asked that the
licence was issued.
Member Questions
Mr Hopkins and the Applicant made the following
statements in response to Members’ questions:
i.
He referred to condition 15 at
appendix 5 of the police report, which limited the display area to a maximum of
10% of the area of the premises. There
were also other conditions which assisted and meant that alcohol had to be a
strength of 5.5% and there was a minimum sale of 4 bottles / cans. Spirits had to be located behind the counter.
ii.
Referred to conditions 2 - 6
contained in appendix 5 of the police officer’s submission which detailed the
CCTV requirements the police wanted and that the applicant had accepted.
iii.
The applicant had the latest CCTV
software; there were 14 cameras in the store, this would always be monitored by
staff at the till and would also be watched by 3 other people.
PC Metcalfe made
the following points:
i.
The application was in the CIZ and
the representation was in relation to the licensing objectives: prevention of
crime and disorder, nuisance and public safety.
ii.
The applicant had not sought
pre-application advice however she had received email correspondence following
the submission of the application on 25 May and a response from the police was
provided on the 28 May 2020.
iii.
The whole length of Mill Road was
included within one of the council’s CIZ and referred to the Petersfield
section in appendix 1 of the police officer’s representation.
iv.
Mill Road was divided between
Petersfield and Romsey wards and the wards were separated by the railway line.
It was a major thoroughfare for people getting into Cambridge.
v.
There were continued problems in
the area particularly alcohol related ASB, alcohol related crime and public
nuisance.
vi.
The area continued to attract
individuals who lead a street life existence many of whom were vulnerable and
had alcohol/ drug problems and who led a chaotic lifestyle and would be drawn
to another alcohol retail outlet. These people could present significant
challenges for staff and other customers and are often ready to use violence or
aggression when challenged or refused service.
vii.
Other alcohol related issues in
Cambridge included people on route to an evening out in the city centre who
might be looking to ‘pre-load’ on alcohol prior to reaching their city centre
destination. These customers wouldn’t be purchasing alcohol to drink in their
own homes but would be consuming the alcohol on the street, adding to the
on-street consumption. Additionally on the return journey they might be
intoxicated seeking food or further alcohol to consume on their route home. An
additional off licence would be a magnet to these people who may present
difficulties for staff due to their drunkenness.
viii.
There were 44 licenced premises on
Mill Road, made up of premises which had on licences, off licences and both
licences. 26 of these premises were along the Petersfield section of Mill Road
and this represented 42% of the 61 licenced premises which were in the Petersfield
Ward. Another general off-licence permitting the sale of alcohol for
consumption off the premises would only add to and exacerbate the existing
problems on Mill Road. This was not only
an unnecessary addition to Mill Road and Petersfield Ward but was unhelpful in
an alcohol sensitive area, merely adding to the cumulative impact.
ix.
The CIZ was last reviewed in 2017
and the report submitted by the police concluded that the reduction in
incidences of alcohol related crime are considered partly due to the robust
policing in the area and licences issued through the use of the CIZ having the
desired effect.
x.
More recent figures 1/3/19-1/3/20
showed the police recorded 26 street-based incidents along the Petersfield side
of Mill Road involving an alcohol marker. Incidents are dependent upon being
tagged with an alcohol marker, which was not always reliably the case.
xi.
The area was covered by the city
council’s Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), which was valid for another 2
years and affirmed the belief the area suffered from ASB and alcohol related
crime. The areas covered by the PSPO are Petersfield Green, Mill Road cemetery
and the front garden of Ditchburn Place. The PSPO prohibits people from
consuming alcohol or having an open container of alcohol in their possession.
xii.
The premises was situated between
the entrance between Mill Road cemetery and Petersfield Green which was shown
on appendix 4 of the officer’s submission.
xiii.
Control could not be exercised
over customers once they had left the premises.
xiv.
The special policy regarding CIZ
created a rebuttable presumption, that applications likely to add to the
existing cumulative impact would normally be refused if relevant representation
were received regarding the cumulative impact unless the applicant could
demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved would not add to the
cumulative impact already experienced.
xv.
The police did not believe the
application submitted addressed the rebuttable presumption sufficiently for the
premises licence to be granted and therefore objected in the strongest terms
against the application.
xvi.
Asked if the application was
granted that the conditions detailed in appendix 5 to the police officer’s submission
were imposed.
xvii.
Noted the additional conditions
proposed by the applicant but continued to object to the application.
Member Questions
DS Mazur made the following statements in response
to Members’ questions:
i.
The police continued to receive calls for response
during the COVID-19 lockdown, relating to the street homeless community and the
street community who would normally be associated with street drinking in Mill
Road. Calls varied from COVID-19 assistance to those not complying with social
distancing measures, to street based ASB and alcohol misuse which would have
been received prior to lockdown.
ii.
There was some reduction due to housing measures
the city council put in place during lockdown but they continued to see
incidents of alcohol related ASB on Mill Road throughout.
iii.
The additional conditions submitted by the
applicant were noted but they did not believe the measures would be sufficient
to stop the premises having a negative impact. This would be an additional
alcohol sale outlet. Once the alcohol
had been sold and the customer had left the premises, they had no control over
how the alcohol was consumed or the behaviour of the individuals. The position
remained the same that the police objected to the application.
Other Persons
Mr Balfe made the following comments:
i.
Mr Hopkins quoted from the police
representation and Mr Balfe asked that the second part of the paragraph was
quoted which stated that the ‘previously identified hotspots, alcohol related
crime and incidents continued to be hotspots in Cambridge City and therefore it
was recommended that the current community impact areas remained in place’.
ii.
Noted that the applicant did not
seek pre-application advice from the police which was recommended on the city
council’s website.
iii.
Noted that a premises application
was turned down in 2012.
iv.
There was a CIZ zone.
v.
No-one in the community had
written in to support the application.
All 77 representations against the application were individual responses
they were not a single standard representation which had been signed and
returned by a lot of people.
vi.
There was no shortage of places to
buy alcohol on Mill Road there was an overabundance of them.
vii.
All the representations asked the
Licensing Sub Committee not to grant the premises licence.
DS Mazur made the following statements in response
to Members’ questions:
i.
Had revisited the record of incidents (scanning)
undertaken prior to preparing her written statement and gave the Sub Committee an
overview given that the information had been checked during the Sub Committee
hearing. There was no specific time of day when alcohol related ASB occurred.
Incidents with an alcohol tag or involving street drinkers occurred all hours
throughout the day. Examples were provided.
ii.
Did not believe having extra security provision at
the premises on a Friday and Saturday would have a positive impact, it would
need to be a permanent presence. There
was no set time window when the additional security presence would have an
impact.
Mr Gawthrop made
the following comments:
i.
A lot had been said about the impact of the
proposed application on Mill Road itself regarding alcohol related
problems. Mill Road had been a hot spot
for alcohol related issues for a number of years. This had been discussed regularly at the City
Council’s East Area Committee.
ii.
He wanted to raise awareness of the impact of
excessive alcohol on residents on the surrounding streets off Mill Road.
iii.
Residents had to suffer a lot of late-night noise
and vandalism.
iv.
He could look out of his windows and see people
intoxicated which could be distressing and dangerous.
v.
When residents had challenged people causing ASB,
these people had attempted to kick in residents’ doors.
vi.
Having a minimum amount of alcohol which had to be
purchased was not a deterrent. Street
drinkers had the funds to be able to purchase alcohol in packs of 4.
vii.
The strength of local feeling was self-evident.
viii.
Asked that the application was refused.
DS Mazur made the
following statements:
i.
Her experience of policing in Mill Road and the
surrounding area was commensurate with Mr Gawthrop’s comments. This area was a
current priority with her team given the issues which were being reported not
just on Mill Road but in the surrounding streets regarding drug and alcohol ASB
which involved street homeless or those with an otherwise street lifestyle.
Mr Hopkins made
the following statements:
i.
With reference to the comments made by Mr Gawthrop,
the measures proposed by the applicant had been used in one of the worst areas
in East London (Newham) and it did work.
It could not stop everyone buying alcohol and this wasn’t what was being
suggested however these measures were used by the Metropolitan Police and
worked well.
ii.
Noted comments referring to ASB late at night which
no-one disputed happened. The revised
hours proposed meant that the premises would be closed by 23.00, so they would
not be selling alcohol late at night.
PC Metcalfe made
the following statements:
i.
In her experience people who lived on the streets
and had a street life existence did have funds and could earn a lot of money
from street begging, they could club resources together to buy alcohol and
share the alcohol out.
Mr Gawthrop made
the following statement in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The worst areas associated with alcohol issues were
by the Salvation Army community centre and then right down to Petersfield,
there were problems on the street but there were also problems in the cemetery.
Acknowledged that the cemetery was subject to a PSPO but it was extremely
difficult for the police to monitor as it was 10 acres but a large amount of
drinking and drug taking took place in the cemetery. It was self-evident that
the drink which was consumed in the cemetery came exclusively from Mill Road.
ii.
There used to be a shop in Norfolk Street which sold
alcohol but this had since closed. The premises had had a restriction put on
its licence because it sold alcohol to people who used to consume alcohol in the
cemetery.
Councillor Davey
addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor for the area:
i.
He questioned what could be done
to make Mill Road better. The premises
licence application did not enhance Mill Road and did not meet the licensing
objectives. The application did not make
the space safer and it would increase public nuisance. He asked the committee
to refuse the application.
ii.
There was a cumulative impact on
Mill Road.
iii.
He had heard the mitigation put
forward by the applicant however there were already 26 licensed premises in
Peterfield. Another licensed premise
open for 13 hours would by its very nature add to the existing problem. It
therefore added to the cumulative impact of alcohol consumption, no matter what
the mitigation that would be an impact.
iv.
To have licensed doormen outside
the premises for particular hours on a Friday and Saturday night would not
mitigate the issues. He referred to
comments made by DS Mazur that drinking took place throughout the day.
v.
He noted that 77 residents had
submitted objections, the application was not what the community wanted.
vi.
He noted that Mr Hopkins said that
the application was a local application for local people but noted that 77
people had written in to object to the application.
vii.
The public health issue that he had
received most complaints about within the last 2 months was street drinking on
Mill Road. He had been in daily contact with DS Mazur for the past week
regarding street drinking.
viii.
Asked the Committee to refuse the
application on the grounds that it did not enhance public safety, it would create
further public nuisance and would likely create further crime and disorder.
Councillor
Davey made the following statement in response to Members’ questions:
i.
He did not want to take members
away from consideration of licensing issues by the concerns regarding street
drinking and non-compliance with social distancing. He was working with County Councillor Jones
to look at how they could make Mill Road better.
Summing Up
Mr Hopkins made the
following points:
i.
Referred to comments made by DS
Mazur regarding alcohol related ASB at 8.35am. Alcohol could not be bought from
the applicant at that time as the premises would not be open until 10.00.
ii.
Highlighted that the comments made
by Lord Balfe regarding a 2012 application were not relevant to his client, as his
client had only taken over the shop in 2019.
Ds Mazur made the
following points:
i.
The illustration of an incident early
in the morning was mainly to give context to the scale of the problem and the
fact that it cannot be easily confined to specific hours of the day or night and
to provide some illustration of the impact on policing resources and the impact
on the daily lives of those who lived in and around Mill Road.
Members withdrew at 11:46 am. Whilst retired, and having
made their decision, Members received legal advice on the wording of the
decision.
Decision
The Sub Committee resolved not to grant the licence.
Reasons for
reaching the decision were as follows:
Supporting documents: