Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The Assistant Licensing Officer presented the report and outlined the
application.
Applicant’s
Agent
Mr Aylot made the
following points on behalf of the applicant:
(i)
The toilets
referred to in condition 1 were for staff, not members of the public. Details
were not clear on the plan, but a door prevented public access.
(ii)
The Applicants
were new to the trade; the shop had been running for seven months without
encountering problems. Issues raised in the representations referred to
anti-social behaviour (ASB) and street drinking. Conditions proposed in the
application to mitigate any concerns would be more strenuous than for
neighbouring premises.
(iii)
A condition
for the application would prohibit high strength alcohol. The Applicant would
be happy to accept 5.7% for beer, lager and cider.
(iv)
Reference was
made to licence conditions for 96 Mill Road. The Applicant would accept a
similar condition not to sell high strength alcohol of over 5.7% to discourage
street drinkers (who prefer cheap high strength alcohol). It was suggested that
street drinkers might leave the area if they could not access cheap high
strength alcohol.
(v)
The
application set a benchmark for licensing conditions to hold other Mill Road
premises against. This was done as a response to the ‘Grandfather Rights’ to
address ASB concerns.
(vi)
The proposed
conditions may encourage other premises to adopt good practices through a
voluntary code/variance of conditions to address any perceived issues in Mill
Road.
(vii)
Licensing
guidance policies 239 and 240 state that individuals are responsible for their
own actions when they leave a licensed premises.
(viii)
The Applicant
has a Turkish language training manual to ensure that staff whose first
language is not English would understand their responsibilities.
(ix)
There are thirteen
outlets selling alcohol in Mill Road, so this application should not impact on
the cumulative impact zone by attracting additional street drinkers. It was
anticipated that licensing conditions would assist the Applicant to deter
street drinking.
(x)
The Applicant
operated a convenience store, and wished to add alcohol to the services
offered.
(xi)
Referred to
residents’ representations, which all had the same text. It was suggested these
were a petition in effect and raised the question who had started the ‘petition’.
It was suggested an existing trader had done so to prevent competition.
(xii)
Responded to
Police Constables Sinclair and Thomas’ statements setting out police
objections:
· The sale of cheap strong alcohol drew street
drinkers to the area, as referred to in Sergeant Norden’s witness statement.
The Applicant would discourage street drinkers through disinterest, as the
premises would not sell high strength alcohol.
· The application would not add to crime
levels as these were dropping in the area.
· Conditions should address Police concerns.
(xiii)
Conditions
that could be added to the application to assist the Police:
· Marking alcohol bottles with an ultra violet
pen to show where it was sold.
· Selling beer, lager and cider in packs of
two or more (street drinkers prefer to purchase single cans to minimise the
amount of alcohol that could be confiscated by the Police).
Member Questions
In response to
Members’ questions, Mr Aylot made the following statements:
(i)
The Turkish
language training manual would address condition 17 requirements not to sell to
inebriated or underage persons. This could be supplemented with on-line
training. The Applicant holds a Personal License that sets out training detail
requirements.
(ii)
Staff would
refuse to sell alcohol to anyone who could not produce ID on request. A
condition to explicitly require this would be acceptable to the Applicant.
(iii)
Condition 6,
which referred to ‘a behave or be banned’ policy was included in error by the
Agent. This policy was not required for off-licences (just on-licences), but
the Applicant would be happy to honour it. If the policy was adopted, people
refused sale would be banned from the premises and their details put in a
logbook. If people made amends by demonstrating good conduct after a set period
of time, they could return to the shop. This was a graduated on-licence
approach that the Applicant could adopt.
(iv)
Street
drinkers habitually buy half bottles of wine. A condition could be imposed
prohibiting the sale of half bottles of wine of 5.7% or more alcohol.
(v)
The nearest
existing premises selling alcohol in Mill Road was next door to the application
site.
(vi)
The area at
the rear of the shop was for staff only.
Other Persons -
Police
Police Constable
Sinclair made the following comments:
(i)
Disagreed that
conditions would help to address problems in the area such as street drinking.
The application would exacerbate issues by selling more alcohol. Another outlet
selling alcohol was not required in Mill Road.
(ii)
Application
conditions were inappropriate as they were lifted from on-licence premises, so
they did not cover all off-licence and cumulative impact zone requirements.
(iii)
Mill Road has
been adopted as a repeated Area Committee priority due to ASB issues arising from
it being a busy thoroughfare. Reference was made to issues raised in
representations.
(iv)
Premises
selling alcohol in Mill Road have broken conditions of their licences.
(v)
A voluntary
alcohol sale code was established some years ago, but fell into disuse through
lack of interest from traders. Police Constables Sinclair and Thomas have been
unable to re-establish the code due to continuing disinterest.
(vi)
Tesco appealed
against a committee decision regarding a licence. Reference was made to
Magistrate’s comments that conditions would not aid the cumulative impact zone
alcohol control.
(vii)
Referred to
section 30 details in supplementary witness statement document. The police can
remove troublemakers from an area using section 30 disposal order if they cause
ASB. Section 30 was imposed in the area up to July 2010 when crime levels had
dropped sufficiently.
(viii)
The Mill Road
area has a number of crime issues, including drug and alcohol related ASB.
Police were patrolling the area to address these.
(ix)
Street
drinkers preferred cheap high strength alcohol, but would drink any alcohol
available. Alcohol would be sourced legally and illegally to satisfy
addictions.
Mr Aylot asked
the Police representatives the following questions
Q) Are objections made to licence applications
in a cumulative impact zone as a matter of course?
A) No, a judgement is made on an individual
basis. The Police generally do not object to applications by restaurants in
cumulative impact zones as they are low risk. The Police object to this
application.
Q) Have the Police visited the Application
premises in the last seven months (whilst under the responsibility of the
Applicant)?
A) No as alcohol was not sold. The Police did
not have any crime statistics concerning the Applicant’s shop.
Q) If a licence was granted, would the area
require additional police resources?
A) Yes, regular police intervention is to be
expected, as alcohol would be an attraction to street drinkers; who are the
most arrested group in Cambridge. Licence conditions were welcomed, but not
expected to help in practice.
Q) If the neighbouring premises sell alcohol,
how will this application cause more demand for police resources?
A) If alcohol were sold, ASB would be expected,
thus police resources would be required.
Q) If the Applicant sold alcohol without
causing ASB, would police resources be required?
A) The store may not require police resources,
but the area does in general. Reiterated that if alcohol were sold, ASB would
be expected, thus police resources would be required.
Q) If street drinkers prefer high strength
alcohol, and were unable to get it from the Applicant’s shop, would they steal
it or go elsewhere?
A) This was a difficult question to answer.
Historically street drinkers preferred high strength alcohol, but the current
trend favoured multipacks of lower strength alcohol.
Q) Has a licence review been undertaken of premises
selling alcohol in Mill Road if the Police have concerns?
A) No.
Q) If other premises are willing to sell
alcohol to inebriated street drinkers, will they lose interest in the
Applicant’s shop?
A) There will always be demand for alcohol from
street drinkers, and the presence of alcohol would attract them.
Q) If the licence was granted, staff trained
and conditions enforced, would current ASB expectations still arise?
A) Reiterated there will always be demand for
alcohol from street drinkers, and the presence of alcohol would attract them.
Other premises in Mill Road have conditions similar to those suggested by the
Applicant, but still have issues and Licensees have been prosecuted for selling
alcohol to inebriated street drinkers.
Q) Why have crime rates dropped in the Mill
Road area?
A) The impact of the cumulative impact zone, a
noticeable Police presence and the recession.
Q) Would marking products with an ultraviolet
pen assist the Police?
A) Details on who would do this and consistency
of marking were requested. A similar approach had been tested in Royston, but
fallen into disuse through inconsistency of approach.
The Applicant
offered to undertake ultraviolet pen marking if it were a licence condition.
Members’
Questions
Members asked for
clarity on the risk of alcohol theft and security to mitigate this. It was
confirmed that alcohol would be kept in a locked rear display counter. Two to
three staff would be present in the shop. SIA training had not been given to
staff to act as door supervisors; the Applicant would take instruction how to
address this. The Applicant could amend the sale of alcohol to 08:00 – 23:00
instead of over a 24 hour period.
Other Persons -
Residents
Mr Gawthrop made
the following comments:
(i)
Urged the
Committee to stand firm on the Mill Road cumulative impact zone.
(ii)
Residents have
complained to the Licensing Officer about the 96 Mill Road premises selling
high strength alcohol against their licensing conditions.
(iii)
Traders who do
not sell alcohol do not have problems.
(iv)
(In reference
to Mr Aylot’s petition reference) the letters of objections were resident’s and
Friends of Mill Road Cemetery representations, not “mud slinging”.
(v)
East Area
Committee raised the issues of alcohol and street life related ASB in 2011 as Councillors
were concerned.
(vi)
Mill Road area
residents were intimidated by street drinkers’ ASB. The Police were doing their
best to address issues in difficult circumstances. The application would
exacerbate the situation.
(vii)
The
application would not sell high strength strong beer, lager and cider, but
would sell other types of strong alcohol.
(viii)
Welcomed the
Applicant’s premises selling hardware but not alcohol.
Mr Dixon made the
following comments:
(i)
His home
overlooks Petersfield Green, which suffered from a number of ASB incidents.
Another outlet selling alcohol would exacerbate this.
(ii)
The cumulative
impact zone requires the Applicant to rebut inappropriate alcohol sales, this
case had not been made.
(iii)
There were
some responsible outlets selling alcohol in the cumulative impact zone, but ASB
issues still persisted.
Mr Crossley made
the following comments:
(i)
Welcomed the
Applicant’s premises selling hardware.
(ii)
Residents were
surprised that a hardware/convenience store was applying for an alcohol
licence.
(iii)
The area is a
thoroughfare affect by general ASB issues that the sale of alcohol exacerbated.
Mr Crowther
supported and reiterated the comments made by other residents.
Members’
Questions
Councillor
Rosenstiel questioned the source of the ‘petition’ letter and suggested some
responses could be discounted as they were duplicates or addressees lived too
far away. It was suggested that the source of the letter was the Nip-In.
The meeting was
adjourned 11:55 am to 12:00 pm.
Summing Up -
Applicant
Mr Aylot made the
following points:
(i)
Suggested the
application would not infringe licensing objectives or #13.33 of the old
licensing guidance. Conditions offered by the Applicant would mitigate any
issues. For example discouraging street drinkers by not selling high strength alcohol.
(ii)
General
alcohol related ASB issues in Mill Road were caused by other outlets and not
the Applicant’s responsibility.
(iii)
Referred to
police comments made in statements (listed in the Officer’s report) and in person
at the Committee. The Police were the main source of crime and disorder
statistics for the Committee, but it was also incumbent on them to provide
information that could be scrutinised.
· Police had raised no issues about the
Applicant’s premises to date.
· If the Applicant stocked low strength beer,
lager and cider then street drinkers would go to other outlets.
· Referred to Thwaite principles (legal
caselaw), which required evidence not speculation. Crime levels in the area
were falling. Representations say that people do not want another outlet
selling alcohol, but licensing conditions imposed on the Applicant would
address cumulative impact zone concerns.
· The Applicant’s shop aimed to be a general
store that also stocked alcohol.
Members’
Questions
Members questioned
how alcohol theft could be prevented. It was suggested that two to three staff
would be present in the shop to deter thefts. The Police would be called if a
disturbance occurred.
Members said the
cumulative impact zone assumes that alcohol will cause ASB issues and asked how
does the Applicant rebutted this. It was suggested that conditions offered by
the Applicant would mitigate any issues, although premises selling alcohol were
likely to attract ASB issues.
Members said the
Applicant’s shop did not sell alcohol at present, and queried how they could
evidence ASB issues would not arise. Particularly as the Mill Road area has
general ASB issues, as set out in Police reports. It was suggested that shop
staff would deter street drinkers, so they should go elsewhere. The Applicant
is an existing trader in Mill road and knows the area. The cumulative impact
zone should also help mitigate issues.
The operating
schedule would prevent irresponsible promotions and require signage to deter
ASB.
One to two staff
could be trained to SIA standards to act as door supervisors.
Members queried if
the Applicant operated a hardware or convenience store, and the types of
products sold. It was confirmed the Applicant operated a convenience store that
sold a variety of goods including hardware.
Summing Up -
Police
Police Constable
Sinclair made the following points:
(i)
Referred to
Thwaite Principles and said the Police representation provided relevant
evidence for objections.
(ii)
The
application was located in a cumulative impact zone. The sale of alcohol from
another outlet would exacerbate ASB issues for residents, and requested the
application be turned down.
Members withdrew at
12:20 pm. After making the decision they received legal advice on the wording of
the decision. Members returned at 1:15 pm.
Decision
Resolved
unanimously not to grant the licence.
Reasons for
reaching the decision are as follows:
1. The
Applicant has not, on the balance of probabilities, demonstrated why a new
premises licence would not add to the cumulative impact being experienced in
the Mill Road area.
2. The
evidence heard by the Sub-Committee, from the Police and from the interested
parties, raised concerns in relation to the licensing objectives relating to
the prevention of crime and disorder, and the prevention of public nuisance.
3. The
extra conditions offered by the Applicant during the course of the meeting, in
addition to those already offered in the Applicant’s operating schedule, were
on the balance of probabilities, unlikely to prevent an increase in the
cumulative impact experienced in the area.
4. The
Sub-Committee were not satisfied that the Applicant had given sufficient
consideration to the steps necessary to overcome the concerns raised by the
Police and interested parties.
5. Therefore
there was no rebuttal of the presumption that the application should be
refused.
Supporting documents: