Agenda item

ZB Retail 24, 41 Streatham Hill, London SW2 4TP (Streatham Hill)

Minutes:

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a review of a premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statutory Guidance and Sections 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 19 of the Statement of Licensing Policy as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraph 6.1 of the report on page 86 of the agenda papers.

The Licensing Officer confirmed:

 

·      This was an application to review a premises licence.

·      The review had been submitted by the Licensing team following the employment of an individual who did not have the right to work in the UK.

·      The application had initially been scheduled to be heard on 5 February 2019, but was adjourned to allow the sale of the business and the transfer of the premises licence to be completed.

·      Additional information had been provided by the new premises licence holder regarding the sale of the premises.

·      The new premises licence holder had also proposed two additional conditions in order to promote the licensing objectives.

·      No objection had been made by the Police with regard to the transfer of the premises licence or the variation of the DPS applications and these had been subsequently granted.

·      The representative for the new premises licence holder was Mr David Dadds.

·      The review was being supported by the Police.

·      Details of the application could be found from pages 89-132 of the agenda papers.

             

Presentation by the applicant

 

·      The application had been submitted subsequent to a joint visit that had been conducted with the Licensing team, Immigration and Public Protection in November 2018.

·      During the visit, an individual had been identified working at the premises who did not have the right to work in the UK.

·      The individual’s status was checked by Immigration and was liable to be removed from the UK.

·      In accordance to section 11.26 – 11.28 of the revised guidance of the Licensing Act, a review could be submitted based on the licensing objectives of crime and disorder.

·      The Licensing team had originally sought revocation of the premises licence when the application was first submitted, but they had recently been informed that the premises had transferred to a new company and that there had been a change of DPS.

·      The new premises licence holder had also offered additional conditions to be added to the premises licence.

 

Presentation by interested parties

 

PC Eldridge informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      The Police were aware of the transfer application and the change of DPS.

·      They had no reason to believe that the previous holders of the premises licence were in any way related to the new premises licence holders.

·      The Police were happy with the new arrangements, however they would like to add some additional conditions.

 

At this point in the proceedings, PC Eldridge circulated the proposed conditions to the Sub-Committee and informed that the conditions had already been circulated to all parties.

 

PC Eldridge informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      Some of the conditions proposed included the use of CCTV for the protection of children from harm, the use of an incident log, not having certain objects behind the counter such as sharp knife or any kind of obvious potential weapon, the use of the Challenge 25 scheme, the displaying of notices informing patrons to behave in a civilised manner and the presence of a personal licence holder being present at the premises at all times.

In response to questions from Members, PC Eldridge informed the Sub-Committee that:

·      She was happy with the conditions that had been proposed by the new premises licence holder.

 

Presentation by the premises licence holder

 

Mr David Dadds, Mr Ali (Director of the business at the premises) and Mr Malik (Director of the business at the premises) representing the premises licence holder, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      A good response from the Sub-Committee would be to grant the review application subject to the additional conditions proposed by the premises licence holder.

·      The Police had raised no objections regarding the transfer of premises licence or the variation of the DPS applications.

·      There was no relationship between the previous premises licence holder and the new premises licence holder.

·      The transaction that had been made between the two parties was a bona fide transaction. Evidence of the validity of the transaction had been provided.

·      In relation to the comments made by the Police, it was important to note that the relevant documents concerning the application had been sent to PC Constable on 19 February 2019.

·      The application before the Sub-Committee was not an application for a premises licence, it was an application for a review of a premises licence.

·      Therefore, it was the duty of the Sub-Committee to consider the relevant causes of concern in order to make an appropriate and proportionate decision.

·      The cause of concern in relation to the premises was that the previous owners had employed an individual who did not have the right to work in the UK.

·      The issue relating to the concern had been addressed by the two additional conditions made by the new premises licence holder.

·      The onus was on the Police to demonstrate with real evidence (which they did not have) why they should then propose the additional conditions that they have proposed and to demonstrate why they would be appropriate and proportionate.

·      He did not have any objection if the Sub-Committee wished to update the condition concerning the CCTV.

 

In response to questions from Members, Mr Dadds, Mr Ali and Mr Malik informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      They would agree to the proposed conditions 1, 2, 3 4 and 10.

·      They would not agree to proposed condition 8.

·      They would agree to proposed condition 11. This was already being implemented at the premises.

·      They would not agree to proposed conditions 5 and 8 or proposed conditions 12-17.

·      The Police needed to justify why their proposed conditions were appropriate and proportionate.

·      There was nothing to suggest that the premises had a specific issue with street drinking. The premises was not located in a controlled impact zone.

·      No evidence has been provided by the Police that the premises had any issues with street drinking.

·      In relation to proposed condition 8, this condition was already being fulfilled but there was no need to make it a formal condition.

·      Technically, the premises licence holder was the company.

·      The business had originally been advertised for sale and Mr Ali and Mr Malik brought the business.

·      The agreement of the sale of the business had taken place before the premises had been initially visited by the responsible authorities. This was why the sale had been completed in a seemingly short period of time.

·      The previous owners of the premises had retired and had wanted to do so prior to the review application having been submitted.

·      Of the two directors, only Mr Ali would be actively working at the premises.

·      Staff working at the premises had been appropriately checked and documented.

·      The Directors would like at least one personal licence holder present at the premises at all times and staff were being trained accordingly. However, this would not be offered up to the Sub-Committee as a condition.

·      CCTV would be available at the premises subject to data protection laws and regulations.

 

In response to questions from Members, PC Eldridge informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      Street drinking was not a criminal offence, it was an antisocial behaviour offence. It was therefore difficult to provide physical evidence regarding the issue.

·      It was good common sense for all parties to work in partnership.

·      Having been a Police officer the last 14 years, she could confirm that street drinking was prevalent in the area. However, as it was not a criminal offence it was difficult to provide evidence relating to the issue.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Dadds, Mr Ali and Mr Malik informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      Mr Dadds would not to detract from his point that there should be evidence to support any conditions that were proposed to be imposed on the premises licence as a result of a review hearing on the basis of the statutory guidance (section 182).

·      It was accepted in general that when applying for a new premises licence, ordinary policies and procedures would be applied. However, this was an existing premises licence with already existing conditions.

·      The only additional conditions that could be applied that were appropriate and proportionate were the ones that identified causes and concerns regarding the review application.

 

Adjournment and Decision

At 9.01pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the Legal adviser and clerk to deliberate in private. The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations from all those who spoke.

Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to grant the review application and impose conditions.

RESOLVED: To grant the review application and impose conditions.

Announcement of Decision

Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to grant the application subject to conditions and amendments.

The Sub-Committee was of the view that the application should be grant the review application and impose conditions. Full written reasons would follow in due course.

The Chair stated that of the conditions proposed by the Police, the Sub-Committee proposed to impose conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The premises licence holder had agreed to conditions 10 and 11. The Sub-Committee felt that conditions 6 and 8 were also appropriate and proportionate as they related to, and in the Sub-Committee’s determination, adequately addressed the concern or concerns which prompted the review application. 

 

Supporting documents: