The Chair and all present introduced themselves, and the Chair outlined the procedure for the hearing.

The Legal Advisor, when asked by the Chair, confirmed that he had not given any legal advice as yet.

The Licensing Officer was asked if they had any points to raise or were aware of any discussions that had taken place, and they confirmed they were not aware of any at this stage.

The Chair then invited the Applicant to put forward their case. The Applicant was represented by Gill Sherratt of Licensing Matters, who spoke on behalf of the Director of JS Supermarkets Limited, who was in attendance.

The Applicant  advised the Committee that the Application was for a variation to an existing Premises Licence that had never had any previous changes, and explained that the variation was for an extension of opening hours and alcohol sales until 2am on each day of the week. The Director had been trading for 2  ½ years, but had been in retail for over 20 years, and also owned another store in Carshalton. No issues had ever occurred for either store, and although the Director worked mostly at these stores, he also had a full-time manager and 4-5 part time staff.

The Applicant’s representative explained that the premises was a Sri-Lankan/Asian Convenience Store, with Alcohol sales ancilliary to its food sales, as the shop mostly sold groceries. It was noted that many Sri-Lankan/Asian people would want to continue shopping later at night, hence the reason for the application.

The Applicant’s representative explained to the Licensing Sub-Committee that all necessary policies and procedures were in place, including that

• CCTV was operational,
• training was up to date,
• all staff were trained by the Director who also had regular training (including when changes to the law took place);
• Challenge 25 was in operation, and
• there was a refusals register.

The Applicant’s representative explained to the Licensing Sub-Committee that the store did not experience any issues with street drinkers, since the shop was so specialised it did not attract them. The Applicant’s representative stated that the store had a good relationship with the Police and the local people in the area.

The Applicant’s representative explained to the Licensing Sub-Committee that the premises is in a Cumulative Impact Zone, but advised that she had spoken to the Police who had advised that the problems were mainly in the Town Centre and therefore the concern was over people being displaced or resorting to the premises.  In light of this, the Applicant’s representative had agreed and added a condition within the application that there would be no sales of beer and cider of over 6% to  discourage street drinkers.

The Location had been considered by the Applicant’s representative who advised the Licensing Sub-Committee that this had also been considered by the Police, as well as the style of business being mostly for groceries. Following a question from the Legal Advisor, the Applicant advised that alcohol sales made up 5% of sales.

The Applicant’s representative did not believe that the application, if granted, would add to the cumulative impact. The Director was a responsible manager, with a good track record, and there were no conditions on the licence at present, nor any representations to the application from any Responsible Authority. The Applicant’s representative stated that the representation received from the Councillor did not mention the Policy and referred to areas outside of the locating of the store.

The Chair invited the Committee to ask questions of the Applicant.

Councillor Pauline Cowper and Councillor Marsie Skeete asked the Applicant why they considered it necessary to open after the current time of 11pm. The Applicant responded that the point of convenience is that you can get all the products you want in one place. The Applicant stated that there is only a risk if individuals (street drinkers) went to the shop, which they did not as the shop was not selling products that attracted them. The Applicant’s representative advised that the later opening time suited individuals who were out at that time for example those who worked late.

Councillor John Sargeant referred to the premises being within the Cumulative Impact Zone and asked if the Applicant could show there would not be displacement from the surrounding areas or people resorting to the premises as it would be open much later than its competitors and other premises in the Mitcham CIZ. The Applicant’s representative responded that she could not show that, but that if they were displaced they would not be able to purchase the products they would want,.

Councillor Sargeant sought to understand how the alcohol to be provided between 11pm and 2am would be specifically for the Sri Lankan community (that works late at night and wishes to purchase alcohol on its way back from work). The Applicant’s representative responded that a whole range of alcohol was sold at the shop, including high strength alcohol, but that the high strength drinks would be removed if the licence application was granted and that there was no Sri-Lankan specific alcohol on sale; only 2 to 3 products on sale were imported from Sri-Lankan.

Councillor Sargeant asked the applicant to clarify if the police had specifically supported the application, to which the Applicant’s representative replied that there had been a number of emails between themselves and the police and that this had led to the conditions included in the application in the operating schedule. It was admitted that the Police objected to the variation to the later hours, although they had agreed conditions of a variation were granted.

Councillor Sargeant noted that there was an exemption of premium products for the 6% condition and the Applicant’s representative responded that they could not ban everything, but that the cheap drinks that street drinkers would want would not be available.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that whilst the licence was similar to ones used before, she was not sure about the exemption and advised that the emails from the police might be of use. The Licensing Officer advised that the premises itself had not caused the department any issues, and repeated that one representation had been received from a Councillor who had raised concerns within their ward. The Licensing Officer also reminded the Committee that the policy did not only cover street drinking, but also litter and urination amongst other issue, so the policy was more broad than submitted. The Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) applicable to this premises and its surrounding area included extensive evidence of the proliferation of off license premises and its consequential effect in generating street drinking and on-going drinking at home. By permitting the sale of alcohol until 2am, that would lead to drinkers resorting to the premises as a destination to buy alcohol later in the evening and early morning to continue drinking. That would result in an increase in cumulative impact, not withstanding that the applicant is a responsible operator.

The Applicant’s representative read aloud an email received from the Police which stated that with the conditions included they would “fully support the application”. It was unclear whether this was because that would be a fall back position if the application were granted, to seek to impose appropriate conditions.  The Applicant’s representative  advised the Licensing Sub-Committee that they should give weight to their interpretation of the Police position and make an evidence based decision based on Thwaites. The Applicant’s representative also made reference to the Brewdog case.

The Applicant referred to the representation submitted by Councillor Kirby and stated it was not linked to the policy referred to and therefore was not enough to justify a refusal.

The Licensing Sub-Committee withdrew into private session to make their decision at 11:02am.

The Committee reconvened at 11:47am. The Legal advisor stated that he had given advice to the Committee on the policy, the rebuttable presumption, the Thwaites case and Brewdog case.

The Chair relayed the decision of the Sub-Committee’s decision and the meeting was closed at 11:51am.

RESOLVED: That the application is refused.