Decisions

Following a competitive tender process, approval will be sought to award a prevention service contract.

 

 

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

 

 

PREMISES

Int Superstore 2 Ltd

91-93 Park Lane

Hornchurch

RM11 1BH

 

 

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

 

The application is for a variation to a premises licence:

 

Previous premises licence hours:

 

Alcohol off-supplies & hours premises open to the public
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Saturday	10:00	22:00
Sunday	11:00	22:00
Good Friday	08:00	22:30
Christmas Day 1	12:00	15:00
Christmas Day 2	19:00	22:30

 

Variation applied for.

 

Alcohol off-supplies
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	09:00	22:00
Good Friday, Christmas Day	08:00	22:30

 

Hours premises open to the public
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	07:00	22:00
Good Friday, Christmas Day	08:00	22:30

 

The application was also to amend the layout of the premises in accordance with the premises plans supplied.

 

SUMMARY

 

There were four representations against this application from residents in the vicinity.

 

There was one representation against this application from a ward councillor.

 

There were no representations against this application from responsible authorities.

DECISION: Application Granted in Part with modified conditions on licence.

 

The Sub-Committee have considered an application for a variation to the licence for Int Superstore Ltd situated at 91-93 Park Lane Hornchurch RM11 1BH. Representations were made by Mrs Gemma Brooks and Mrs Janet Haworth, and Councillor Judith Holt both on the grounds of all four of the licencing objectives, each of whom made oral representations to supplement their written objections. Written representations were also received from Ms Linda Marshall on the grounds of all four of the licensing objectives, Mr Graham Stone on the ground of the prevention of public nuisance.

 

The Sub-Committee must promote the licensing objectives and must have regard to the Secretary of State’s National Guidance created under S182 of the Licensing Act and the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy. 

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee decided to grant the application in part with modified conditions to be placed on the licence.

 

The Sub-Committee granted the following modification to the premises licence on the condition that the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) had received appropriate training in relation to his own social and legal obligations, and their responsibilities regarding the sale of alcohol, with particular emphasis on the meaning of the Challenge 25 scheme. For the avoidance of doubt, the variation will only be effective once the applicant has provided evidence to the Licensing Team that such training has been completed.

 

The granted hours variations are as follows:-

 

Alcohol off-supplies
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	09:00	22:00
Good Friday	08:00	22:30
Christmas Day	10:00	22:30

 

Hours premises open to the public
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	07:00	22:00
Good Friday	08:00	22:30
Christmas Day	10:00	22:30

 

The application to amend the layout of the premises in accordance with the premises plans supplied is granted.

REASONS

 

The Sub-Committee decided that the proposed variation would meet the licensing objectives provided that key steps were taken to ensure that the DPS and any staff were sufficiently trained.

 

The Sub-Committee was sympathetic with the concerns raised by the residents and Councillor Holt. However, the representations related to the sale of alcohol until 22:00; the current premises licence already permits the applicant to sell alcohol until 22:00. Therefore, the Sub-Committee did not have jurisdiction to amend the existing licence beyond the scope of this application.

 

The Licensing Committee noted that there was no evidence put forward to it in relation to the extending of times in the morning Monday to Saturday.

 

Equally, the Sub-Committee did not feel that the fact that the fact that Christmas Day is a Christian holiday was a good justification for not granting the application. The Sub-Committee did consider that times of 10:00 was a more appropriate time on Christmas Day to prevent noise and disturbance detriment to residents.

 

The Sub-Committee was concerned by the admitted lack of understanding about the Challenge 25 scheme shown by the DPS and his daughter. This is one of the conditions offered by the applicant in the operating schedule of its application, in order to promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of children from harm. The Sub-Committee consider it necessary that the applicant is fully able to comply with its condition. Therefore, it is necessary that the DPS undertakes the necessary training as set out above.

 

In order to bolster the applicant’s ability to further the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance, the Sub-Committee requires it to ensure that there is full coverage of blind spots in the shop; and that there will be CCTV cameras at the front and back of the shop.

 

CONDITIONS

 

In addition to those conditions offered by the applicant in his application the Sub-Committee places the following further conditions on the Licence:-

1. Prior to the variation taking effect the DPS will receive appropriate training in relation to his own social and legal obligations, and their responsibilities regarding the sale of alcohol, with particular emphasis on the meaning of the Challenge 25 scheme.

 

2. The premises’ CCTV cameras will cover all parts of the interior of the shop and front and back exterior of the premises.

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

Any party who has made a relevant representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

 

On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may:

1.         Dismiss the appeal; or

2.         Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; or

3.         Remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; and

4.         Make an order for costs as it sees fit.

 

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

 

 

 

PREMISES

Food Alcohol Express/Select and Save

65 Park Lane

Hornchurch

RM11 1BH

 

Details of the application

 

The application for a variation to a premises licence:

 

Amendment from

 

Alcohol off-supplies
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	10:00	20:00

 

To

 

Alcohol off-supplies
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	06:00	22:00

 

The applicant wished to remove the following conditions

(added by consent at a hearing in 2019 on the initial application).

 

h. A maximum of two children shall be allowed in the premises at one time.

 

4. Alcohol:

a. There shall be no sales of bottles of spirits of less than 70cl capacity.

 

c. Beer, cider, stout and lager on sale shall not exceed 6% ABV.

 

d. There shall be no single item sales for:

i. cans of alcohol

ii. bottles of beer

iii. ready to buy bottles

 

e. Outside the permitted hours all alcohol shall be screened off from sale and display by a physical and lockable shutter to which the premises licence holder / DPS shall hold the keys.

 

7. A notice shall be displayed with a contact number and email address for the DPS or manager for local residents to register and resolve any complaints.

 

Comments and observations on the application

 

The applicant acted in accordance with regulations 25 and 26 of The Licensing Act 2003 (Premises licences and club premises certificates) Regulations 2005 relating to the advertising of the application.

SUMMARY

 

There were no representations against this application from any of the responsible authorities.

 

There were representations from two residents who live the vicinity of the premises.

 

There was also a representation from Councillor Judith Holt.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee must promote the licensing objectives and must have regard to the Secretary of State’s National Guidance created under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy. 

 

The Applicant was represented by a licensing agent who made submissions on her behalf.     

Decision:

 

The Sub-Committee have considered an application for a variation to the licence for Food Alcohol Express/Select and Save situated at 65 Park Lane, Hornchurch, RM11 1BH. Representations were made by Mrs Gemma Brooks and Mrs Janet Haworth, both on the grounds of all four of the licencing objectives, as well as Councillor Judith Holt on the grounds of public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. Mrs Brooks and Councillor Holt attended the hearing to make oral representations.

 

The Sub-Committee must promote the licensing objectives and must have regard to the Secretary of State’s National Guidance created under S182 of the Licensing Act and the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy. 

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee decided to deny the applicant’s application on this occasion.

REASONS

 

It was accepted by the Sub-Committee that the proposed variations would not promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder or the protection of children from harm. The representations on this point from local residents, that there was already an existing problem of street drinking and groups of teenagers in the area that was likely to be exacerbated if the variations were to be granted, were consistent with the local knowledge held by the members on the Sub-Committee. The fact that there were no representations from the responsible authorities was considered. However, the Sub-Committee did not agree that this meant that no issues existed.

 

The Sub-Committee was aware that these conditions had been placed on the licences with the purpose of alleviating these pressures in the area. It was of particular concern to the Sub-Committee that the applicant wished to remove these conditions.

 

There were a number of variations applied for by the applicant in relation to sales of alcohol. The applicant’s application stated that “Alcohol will form approximately 15% of the goods on sale and as it is not the intended focus of the business there is an expectation that alcohol sales will have a limited impact on the area”. No evidence was presented in relation to the economic impact that the existing conditions might have on the business. The applicant’s representative suggested that there may be no sales of alcohol at 6am in the morning, but her client should have the facility to do so. Accordingly, the applicant did not put forward a strong economic argument for granting the variation.

Extended Hours

 

The Sub-Committee decided that extending the licensing hours would not meet the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. This was because opening times of 6am and closing times of 10pm were likely to encourage street drinkers and problem drinkers to be attracted to the area. The applicant’s representative was not able to present reasons that were satisfactory to the Sub-Committee about why her client wished to be able to sell alcohol at 6am in the morning. As stated above, the Sub-Committee accepted the evidence of the residents and Councillor Holt that there were existing problems with street drinkers that would be added to if the extension of hours were granted.

A maximum of two children shall be allowed in the premises at one time.

 

The Sub-Committee considered the representations made by the applicant’s representative: that this condition was unenforceable (due to the need to ID children) and unnecessary, due to the fact that there were other conditions in place, such as till prompts and challenge 25. The Sub-Committee disagreed with the applicant’s representative in respect of the enforceability and believed that it would act as a deterrent to large groups of youths entering the shop. The sub-committee accepted the representations of the residents that there was a particular problem with groups of teens congregating in the area and asking adults to purchase alcohol for them. The Sub-Committee considers that this condition promotes the licensing objective of the protection of children from harm, as it limits the opportunity for youth theft of alcohol in the shop.

 

The sub-committee was not presented with any evidence or representations to suggest that this would be detrimental to the applicant’s business. Therefore, limited weight was given to this factor.

 

a. There shall be no sales of bottles of spirits of less than 70cl capacity.

 

The Sub-Committee considers this to be a standard condition in the Borough that is in place to discourage street drinkers and the anti-social behaviour. Therefore, granting this variation would not promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.

 

The representation that this condition limited the range of products that the applicant wished to sell was given due consideration. However, as no clear economic reason for variation was presented to the Sub-Committee, it was decided that the risk to causing problems in the area outweighed the impact on the applicant.

c. Beer, cider, stout and lager on sale shall not exceed 6% ABV. d. There shall be no single item sales for: i. cans of alcohol ii. bottles of beer iii. ready to buy bottles

 

Again, the limiting of the strength of beers etc. and the number of units that they can be sold are standard licensing conditions that are considered necessary to discourage street drinkers and anti-social behaviour.

 

The Sub-Committee finds that it is necessary to keep these conditions in place to promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder/public nuisance reasons discussed above. In the absence of evidence to show the economic impact on the applicant this is deemed to be proportionate by the Sub-Committee.

 

e. Outside the permitted hours all alcohol shall be screened off from sale and display by a physical and lockable shutter to which the premises licence holder / DPS shall hold the keys.

 

The applicant’s representative presented the argument that the applicant should be able to display all of its goods as a matter of convenience. The Sub-Committee’s understanding of the applicant’s representations argument was that the licensing hours should be extending, thus obviating the need for shutters. However, in light of the fact that the extension to the licensing hours have not been granted, the Sub-Committee considers it to be appropriate that this condition remains in place.

7. A notice shall be displayed with a contact number and email address for the DPS or manager for local residents to register and resolve any complaints.

 

The Sub-Committee did not accept the representation that this would be intrusive or a breach of data protection. There is no reason why a business and email address could not be created for this purpose. It is considered necessary to promote the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance that residents are able to present their concerns to the applicant in a private and confidential manner and that this condition is in no way onerous to the licensee.

 

Right of Appeal

 

Any party who has made a relevant representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

 

On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may:

1.         Dismiss the appeal; or

2.         Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; or

3.         Remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; and

4.         Make an order for costs as it sees fit.

 

To seek the agreement of  the Leader of the Council in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance and the s151 Officer, as delegated under the September 2019 Cabinet decision, to approve that prt of the Business Plan relating to a state aid compliant and provision of equity to the Company to develop 120 units at Quarles Campus, Harold Hill and further to this, to acquire a further 20 units (within the 120 units) for its PRS portfolio, subject to the appropriate due diligence for such a loan and injection of equity being carried out.

Approval to submit a bid to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for grant funding under the  Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund.

To award a contract to carry out works to the Town Hall

 

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

 

 

 

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

PREMISES

 

The Rising Sun PH

64-68 High Street

Hornchurch

Essex

RM12 4UW

 

 

Details of the application

 

The application was to:

 

Submit an additional plan to reflect a change in the layout of the ground floor of the premises. (This would add the bar in the rear lounge, the rear lounge, outside toilets and rear outside smoking area to the premises licence.)

 

And to:

 

Offer conditions in respect of the rear lounge bar and room etc.

 

 

SUMMARY

 

There was one representation against this application from a ward councillor.

 

There were no representations against this application from residents or businesses.

 

There were no representations against this application from responsible authorities

 

 

DECISION

 

 

Decision:

 

The Sub-Committee considered an application to vary a premises licence for The Rising Sunsituated at 64-68 High Street, Hornchurch, RM12 4UW. The applicant sought to vary the existing premises licence by modifying the premises plans and adding further conditions to the licence.

The Sub-Committee must promote the licensing objectives and must have regard to the Secretary of State’s National Guidance created under S182 of the Licensing Act and the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy. The premises is situated within a Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) as set out in in the Council’s policy. Where representations were received against an application in the CIZ zone, there was a rebuttable presumption to refuse the application unless the applicant could demonstrate that the granting of the variation would not add to existing problems in the area.

Where relevant representations were made, the authority must hold a hearing, having regard to the representations, and take such of the steps mentioned as follows, as it considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives;

 

(a)  to modify the conditions of the licence;

(b)  to reject the whole or part of the application

 

Representations against the application had been received from

 

-          Councillor Paul Middleton on the grounds of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder & the Prevention of Public Nuisance.

 

The application for a variation of the licence was refused

 

The premises was situated in a Cumulative Impact Zone. In considering whether to adopt such a Policy for the area, the council took the following steps as recommended by the Guidance:

 

• Gathered crime and disorder statistics, ambulance service statistics and such other relevant statistics

• Identified serious concern from a responsible authority or from residents or local businesses (or their representatives) concerning nuisance and/or disorder;

• Identified the area in which problems were arising and the boundaries of that area.

 

The statistics gathered had resulted in 64-68 High Street, Hornchurch, RM12 4UW to be part of the Cumulative Impact Zone. The members were aware of issues of crime and disorder and public nuisance the area faced as identified in the council’s statement of licensing policy. Therefore it remained imperative that there was a rebuttal presumption to not to grant the application to vary the premises licence unless the applicant could demonstrate that granting the variation would not have an adverse effect to the area and to the existing pressures the area currently faced.

 

The members noted that there were no representations from any Responsible Authorities against the application, in particular from the Police and the Council’s Environmental Health team. The members also noted that pursuant to the s182 guidance, Licensing Authorities should look to the Responsible Authorities as the main source of advice in their respective fields of work, for example the police in regard to crime and disorder. Although there were no representations by the Responsible Authorities, during the hearing, both the applicant and Cllr Middleton, relied on hearsay evidence arisen from their respective discussions with the Police. The members were aware that they could attach whatever weight they deemed fit with such evidence, however, as both parties presented hearsay evidence that directly conflicted with the other’s evidence; the members concluded not to consider any hearsay evidence presented to them. The members acknowledged they had no representations against the application and therefore no Representative Authority has an objection to the variation being granted.

 

The members turned to Cllr Middleton’s submission. The members accepted that neighbouring residents would suffer from public nuisance and would result in the undermining of licensing objection of prevention of public nuisance. The members were told by Cllr Middleton that allowing patrons to enter and exit the premises from the rear of the premises, allowing residents to smoke at the rear of the premises and providing toilet facilities in the rear of the premises would cause noise pollution to residents in the early hours of the morning, especially as sound travelled further late night and in the early hours of the morning. Other submissions made by Cllr Middleton were not considered, as the hearing was an opportunity for parties to expand on their written submissions made.

 

Turning to the applicant, the members noted that applicant had experience of the night-time economy for over 15 years. The members also noted that the applicant sought the variation to offer a venue for group booking parties such as Birthday parties, Christmas Parties, Funeral Wakes etc., predominantly targeting families and work place parties. The members accepted that no representative authorities have made representation against the application and no residents had directly made representations against the application. The members further appreciated that in addition to the conditions offered by the applicant in the application form, the applicant stated they would agree to a condition limiting the capacity to 90 customers only in order to alleviate concerns that the members may have. However, the members were not satisfied the applicant rebutted the presumption to allow the variation as the conditions offered did not address the issues of public nuisance.

 

The only means of entrance and exit to the premises is from the rear of the premises, on to a residential area, as opposed from the High street. The members felt that having up to 90 patrons, leaving a party in the early hours of the morning, whether all 90 patrons left the venue at the same time or a staggered exit, would cause noise nuisance to the neighbouring residents. The members considered that SIA staff would be employed to direct patrons out and away from the premises; however, the members believed it was extremely likely that the SIA staff would not be able to prevent noise nuisance emanating from the the patrons following the conclusion of the party, in the early hours of the morning. The members find it very credible that this would cause noise pollution to the nearby residents, as residential buildings neighboured the premises and were situated on the route from the rear of the premises to the high street. The members considered conditions such as notices at the exit of the building, reminding customers to respect residents and imposing a condition of regular observations in the vicinity of the premises by staff, however they found no condition could be imposed to prevent public nuisance due to the unusual exit route from the premises. The members were extremely conscious that for the patrons to access public transport, the patrons would to need walk through residential streets to make their way to the High street.

 

The members also felt that the area directly to the rear of the premises was a quiet and not well lit service road. The members were concerned for the safety of the patrons. Appendix 7 of the Council’s statement of licensing policy stated that violent crime in Havering occurred disproportionately during the 10pm-2am; the hours where patrons would be exiting the premises. The heat map in the appendix, covering the area directly around the premises, gave evidence that there was a high intensity of reported crime. The members recognised the statement of licensing policy was published in 2016 and was under review, however, the members still attached weight to the heat map in the policy, as the policy was still in effect and were concerned that the rear of the premises and surrounding areas would act as a magnet for patrons to congregate after a party. Further, appendix 7 stated that a third of incidents (crime/anti-social behaviour) were recorded as taking place on the street (where the premises lay) whilst a further 40% took place within on-licence premises. The members were aware this data was not directly attributed to any establishment, but the heat map did show issues directly around the premises.

 

The members did reconcile that beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises were matters for the personal responsibility of individuals under the law and that an individual who engaged in anti-social behaviour was accountable in their own right. However residents were very likely to suffer from noise nuisance and alcohol fuelled related crime directly as a result of the premises entrance and exit route and as a result of patrons using rear toilets and smoking areas so therefore on balance the variation would undermine the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.

 

Further, the members accepted Cllr Middleton’s representations of his visits to the area and found his findings regarding noise nuisance from revellers corresponded with their own local knowledge of these issues in their own personal experience. The members applied the case of Thwaite’s and had challenged their own anxieties of public nuisance and crime and disorder, due to there being no objections from any responsible authorities, however still endorsed some weight to their local knowledge as the guidance was that drawing on local knowledge, was an important feature of the Act’s approach in determining applications.

 

The members overriding concern was that applicant had failed to demonstrate an understanding of what a Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ). Upon question the applicant of their understanding of a CIZ, the applicant initially provided no response. An explanation was then provided but the applicant was unable to identify what a CIZ is, why a CIZ existed and failed to demonstrate how the variation would not add to the current the challenges the area faced. The s182 guidance stated where specific policies applied in the area, applicants were also expected to demonstrate an understanding of how the policy impacted on their application; any measures they would take to mitigate the impact; and why they considered the application should be an exception to the policy. The members took the view that the applicant could not promote the licensing objectives without understanding what Cumulative Impact the current challenges the area was facing. The members found that the applicant was not familiar with the council’s statement licensing policy, which was crucial for any applicant when attempting to rebut the presumption against granting a variation as it identified the challenges the area was facing. The members appreciated that the applicant had proposed a number of conditions, as part of the application, however the members took the view that the applicant cannot not truly understand the relevance of conditions offered when not being familiar with the statement of licensing policy and more vitally, why the CIZ was established for.  Therefore, the only step to promote the licensing objectives was to reject the application in full.

 

Right of Appeal

 

Any party who has made a relevant representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

 

On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may:

1.         Dismiss the appeal; or

2.         Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; or

3.         Remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; and

4.         Make an order for costs as it sees fit.

 

 

 

Richard Cursons

Clerk to the Sub-Committee