Minutes:
Valid representations may only address the four licensing objectives
There were seven valid representations against this application from interested parties.
There were no representations against this application from any of the responsible authorities.
Responsible Authorities
The Metropolitan Police
Public Health
The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
The Health & Safety Enforcing Authority
The Trading Standards Service
Planning Control & Enforcement
Children & Families Service
Mr M Appleby referred to his e-mail to the Council in which he raised a number of points of concern:
§ Permitting alcohol to be sold in the premises would have negative effects on the area such as the possible rise in anti-social behaviour and public nuisance caused by undesirable elements being attracted to the shop late night noise and disturbance, parking problems – in an already overburdened stretch of road – escalating and the rise in fear and apprehension in the minds of the elderly residents and concern for those with young families.
§ This was a predominantly residential area and there were already sufficient outlets selling alcohol within a reasonable distance.
§ He referred to the photographs he had included in his additional information which showed the situation regarding parking in the locality.
§ He claimed that Havering had the worst drink-related record of public disorder across Greater London and considered that the granting of another licence was contrary to the objectives for alcohol-related crime reduction stated by the Council.
§ With regard to the applicant’s efforts to prevent underage sales, and informing that he would use his “best endeavours to move on any groups of youths that congregate outside the premises”, Mr Appleby raised the issue of proxy sales – where young people pester adults to purchase for them, and that moving the youths from outside the premises would mean they ended up outside residents’ houses.
§ He also stated that he had checked with the Yellow Advertiser and had been informed that not all Wennington Road was within its distribution area, so he questioned the legitimacy of the advert.
§ Mr Appleby also queried the completion of the application itself claiming that certain aspects were either incorrect or incomplete. (The Council’s Legal Officer explained that this was an administrative issue, not a legal one, and had been responded to by a Licensing Officer, and was something which did not invalidate the application).
§ He stated that Rainham was an area within Havering where anti-social activity was worse than elsewhere in the borough and he reiterated his concerns that granting a licence would send the wrong message to residents.
§ He concluded by reference to case law provided by the Applicant’s representative and claimed that this was not relevant as the example used was an on-licensed premises already selling alcohol, seeking a variation to their hours. In this instance the sale of alcohol was a completely new venture. It was a Post Office, not a pub.
§ As to the assertion that evidence of a negative impact to the licensing objectives was required, Mr Appleby said that this was difficult when a premises didn’t currently serve alcohol, but that there was no chance for a ‘trial run’, and that once a premises had a licence, it had it for all time and there was no going back.
Mr M Kendrick informed the Sub-Committee that it was his mother who lived next-door to the Post Office and that her front door was only a couple of feet from the Post Office’s entrance. In addition, there was only a low wall separating the properties and she was concerned that it could be used as a seat for young people to use whilst drinking – or that they would congregate there and cause noise and nuisance as well as littering the area.
He re-emphasised the solitary location of the venue within a residential environment and stated that it was not as if there was a parade of shops within which the Post Office was located, but it was within a mixed community of young families and elderly residents. He was granted permission to show photographs of the proximity of the entrance to the property to the next-door cottage inhabited by his 91 year old mother and explained that whilst she was still independent and active, she – along with others in the vicinity – had very real fears for what might happen if a licence was granted.
He concluded by observing that although the Police had not made any representation, they had suggested that CCTV should be installed (more for the protection of the Applicant and his staff), but that this expense (and risk) would not be needed if there was no licence to sell alcohol.
Applicant’s response.
Mr West, on behalf of the Applicant stated that whilst he appreciated the concerns expressed by both residents – especially those of Mr Kendrick on behalf of his mother, he was conscious that he and Mr Appleby were the only ones in attendance. He added that he would address their concerns and reminded the Sub-Committee that those concerns did not really impact on the four licensing objectives – which were the only points of concern for the Sub-Committee when determining the application.
He informed those present that the Applicant had run the Post Office and convenience store for five years without any trouble or complaint, and that prior to that had been a teacher. He stated that Mr Singh was, himself, part of the local community and that his application was being made in part to put his business on a more equal footing to other establishments which sold alcohol and his desire to provide those who regularly shopped in his store with a complete choice of products. The application was merely for a small alcohol section ancillary to the goods already offered.
He said that Mr Singh was conscious of the concerns of his neighbours and was realistic in his realisation that he needed their continuing support in order to continue trading. Because he wished to continue to be seen as a good neighbour, he was prepared to add a condition that he would be responsible for ensuring that no groups of young people congregated on the shop’s forecourt. If that happened, they would be moved on. In addition, he had volunteered to provide two refuse bins to ensure that patrons of the shop (and the general public) could dispose of litter responsibly. The forecourt would be swept each evening.
Furthermore Mr West announced that his client wished to make a change to the application by reducing the closing time from 10.00pm each night to 8.00pm, thereby reducing the attraction of late-night alcohol sales and providing neighbours with nuisance-free evenings.
He argued that the objections to the application were largely based on conjecture and that neither resident (nor the other objectors who had provided written representations) had provided evidence to show that the granting of a licence would be contrary to the licensing objectives and he added that as they were not present (and so could not be questioned) their views should carry less weight in the minds of the Sub-Committee members. He argued that none of the Responsible Authorities had considered it necessary to register any concern and he suggested that references to drugs and alcohol abuse were a matter for the police, not the Licensing Authority. He also referred to paragraph 13.18 of the Guidance and asserted that the ‘need’ for licensed premises in the area should not be considered by the Sub-Committee. He stated that his client was simply asking for the opportunity to provide residents with a service which currently did not exist and that the fears which were being expressed were speculative and unreasonable.
He concluded by reminding the Sub-Committee that whether it had sympathy with the views presented or not, it had to link its decision to the evidence before it. To emphasise this, he referred to the Guidance, and to the Thwaites case to support his client’s case.
The Chairman invited the objectors to comment and Mr Appleby conceded that the reduction of hours “helped”, but that in principle, the selling of alcohol in the Post Office was wrong. He suggested that granting a licence would lead to the possibility of school-children would be enticed into trying to buy alcohol despite what the Applicant said, at which point the Legal Officer reminded those present that the Applicant was entitled to his opinion that this would not happen. Mr Appleby concluded by saying that simply because someone was not present, their views should not be discounted. He had taken time off work to attend the hearing; others might not have been able to attend for different reasons. He noted that the application proposed a Challenge 25, but reiterated his concern that this did not address the question of how the Applicant was protecting children from harm.
Mr Kendrick added that it seemed unreasonable that residents’ views counted for so little as once the licence had been granted, it was there for ever.
The Chairman observed that this was not the case. A licence now was much easier to challenge and, if necessary, be revoked and this power lay with the residents as well as the responsible authorities. He added – in response to the residents’ concerns about absent objectors views being discounted – that when the 2003 Act initially came into effect, this had been the case, but after amendments, a written objection stood on its own merits whether the objector came to hearing or not, and assured that these had been considered, and would be further considered in making their decision.
Mr West concluded by saying that his only concern about absent objectors was his inability to question them. The Chairman observed that the Sub-Committee had the same disadvantage.