Councillor Jeff Hanna was appointed to the Chair

No Apologies for absence were received

No declarations of Pecuniary Interest were received

Mr Vasilev gave the statement of application, highlighting his ten years’ experience, how he understands the issues involved in holding a premises licence, how he had agreed a number of conditions with the Metropolitan Police, and how street drinkers would not be attracted to the premises due to the alcohol for sale being below 5.5% ABV.  There would be posters on display for Challenge 21, and that his two members of staff were experienced and would have training.

In response to questions relating to Cllr Kirby’s email, Debra Silvester responded that the area was not a special policy area and Mr Vasilev assured the Panel that he would keep the immediate area around his premises litter free.  Mr Vasilev also commented that some neighbours had told him that drug taking happened behind the shop, so he had closed the area off.  Mr Vasilev said there was no appreciable street drinking or alcohol related debris in the area in response to a member’s question.

The applicant did not want to add anything further in summary.

During the closed session, Guy Bishop gave advice relating to the Licensing Act 2003 particularly referring to paragraph 9.43, decision making and the Thwaites case.

The decision of the sub-committee,  was to not grant the licence.

The Licensing Sub-Committee provided the following reasons in deciding to refuse this premises licence application:

• There were serious concerns over crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour in the postcode as listed in the Metropolitan Police written representation (page 31 of the agenda pack). The Licensing Sub-Committee had to consider the representation from the Metropolitan Police, showing that there was significant crime and disorder issues in the area around the premises which cited that there were 33 crime reports for this area for the period 21^st May 2014 to 21^st May 2015 alone, involving 8 theft related offences, 5 burglaries, 2 robberies, 3 public order offences, 1 racially aggravated public order offence, 6 assaults, 5 criminal damage offences, 1 racially aggravated harassment allegation, and 2 drug related offences.

• Licensing Sub-Committee was concerned with the Applicant’s response to questions, which indicated a lack of knowledge of the problems in this area.

• There was evidence from the Ward Councillor of alcohol related problems in the area involving street drinking and drinking debris.

• The Licensing Sub-Committee had noted the cumulative impact of another off licence in this area that had reached saturation point with the licensed outlets in the area.

From this evidence, it was the Licensing Sub-Committee’s view that the granting of this application would exacerbate existing problems in the area and would not promote the licensing objectives.

No negotiation had taken place.

The applicant presented details of his business, and how it takes orders from residents and businesses for food over the phone.  The business lists the address, phone number, name and order details for each person and then the order is delivered to their address.  There is no access to the business premises for children or members of the public and CCTV is installed.  The applicant also explained that he wanted to sell alcohol, as many customers asked for this, and some custom was lost because they could not provide it.  It was his intention to only sell alcohol with food.

Following questions from Sgt Sparham, and a brief adjournment for checking by the licensing officer, it transpired that the applicant did not have the requisite licence for delivering food.  It was accepted that this was an ‘honest’ error and came from confusion after visits/dialogue with Environmental Health. 

Guy Bishop explained that the application, as applied for, was not for late night refreshment, and that food could only be sold to 11pm.

In response to questions about the delivery drivers, the applicant said that the drivers were trained in Health and Safety, underage training for identification and which types of identification were appropriate and how to record challenges.  The applicant also explained that around 80% of orders were paid for by card, the rest in cash.  The applicant stated there would be a maximum of four drivers at any one time, and usually only two.  Drivers were trained and retrained at six monthly intervals, and there was a plan of training.  The drivers understood that suitable forms of ID were valid passports, driving licences or European ID cards.  Every driver carried a challenge log book, which was checked, and if there had been no entries for a period of around two weeks, the Designated Premises Supervisor would provide further training for the driver.  The business currently took the last orders at 1.30am, with delivery ending at 2am.  The application ran to 3am to cover any delays at the end of the service period.  The vehicles used were motorbikes and cars and drivers were paid hourly, so were not under any pressure to accept orders if they were in any doubt about a customer’s age.

In response to questions about possible conditions, the applicant stated that they wanted to continue to take some cash on delivery orders, and that they would like to be able to sell beer, wine and some spirits to give customers more choice.

Sgt Peter Sparham expressed concern over driver safety and safety around the premises.  Carrying cash makes the drivers vulnerable to confrontation and therefore that paying at the point of ordering was safe and responsible for the drivers.

Sgt Sparham reiterated that sales could not go beyond 11pm and that the applicant needed to get the late night refreshment license sorted out.

The panel went into closed session at 4pm.

The legal officer gave general advice relating to proportionality and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.