Hounslow Council


Agenda item

75 Salisbury Road, Hounslow

Application for the grant of a premises licence.

Decision:

LICENSING ACT 2003

 

Section 34 - 36

 

Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to determine an application for a premises licence

 

PREMISES: 75 Salisbury Road, Hounslow, TW4 7NW

 

 

TO:    Pahitharan Selvarajah

 

 

TAKE NOTICE:

 

THAT following a hearing before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub

Committee (the Licensing Panel)

 

ON 07 March 2017

 

HOUNSLOW COUNCIL, as the Licensing Authority for the premises

 

RESOLVED:

 

·That the application for the grant of a premises licence in relation to the supply of alcohol off the premises be REJECTED.

 

 

                                   

REASONS:

 

The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the relevant information including:

 

·       written and oral representations by all the parties

·       the Licensing Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to promote licensing objectives

·       the guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act

·       Hounslow Council’s Licensing Policy

·       the Human Rights Act 1998

 

 

This was an application for the grant of a new premises licence under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of 75 Salisbury Road, Hounslow. The application was submitted by Mr Pahitharan Selvarajah and was to permit the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises from Monday to Sunday between the hours of 10:00 and 22:00. The hours the premises are open to the public was 07:00 to 22:00 Monday to Sunday.

 

 

The Panel noted that the premises were located within the Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) zone.

 

Representations were received from two responsible authorities (the Metropolitan Police and the Licensing Enforcement Officer) in relation to the fact that the premises were situated in the Borough’s Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) zone and there were 35 representations from local residents in the form of a petition expressing concern that the grant of a licence would possibly result in an increase in crime & disorder and public nuisance.

 

Council Licensing Enforcement Officer Keiran Hinchliffe advised that all applications submitted for premises within the CIP carried a presumption of refusal if any objections were received. In such cases it was down to the applicant to address concerns that the licensing objectives would not be promoted by the grant of the licence. The premises were situated in the CIP zone and Hounslow West ward accounted for 37 “decannings” in the last financial year, 9.5% of the total across the Borough. The premises were situated in a parade of shops within a highly residential area and there was an issue with street drinkers and the associated public nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB), such as littering and public urination. Mr Hinchliffe acknowledged that the operating schedule was well produced but did not believe that it sufficiently addressed the concerns specific to the area of the CIP zone and so he urged the Panel to reject the application.

 

PC Steve Pellowe, Metropolitan Police Licensing Officer for Hounslow, advised that there were already two licensed premises in the same parade of shops as the applicant’s premises, plus a third within half a mile. The police were objecting to the application on the grounds of the crime & disorder and public nuisance licensing objectives. Hounslow West accounted for a high proportion of decannings and alcohol related incidents within the Borough and the police firmly believed that the high number of licensed premises for off sales were a factor in local levels of public nuisance and ASB and that an additional outlet would add to the problem. He was experienced in policing the area and knew first hand of major issues with youths and street drinkers who caused serious nuisance and intimidated local residents and shoppers. He recommended that the application be rejected.

 

A local resident who had signed the petition attended the hearing and spoke on behalf of the petitioners, urging the Panel to reject the application as they felt that it would add to crime & disorder and public nuisance.

 

Licensing Agent Mr Robert Jordan advised that the premises were unlikely to add to existing problems. No alcohol over 6% abv would be sold (he accepted that the operating schedule had offered to restrict sales to 6.5% but wished to amend this to 6% in line with the Council’s policy), the premises were fully covered by CCTV cameras and there would be no sales of single cans. He felt that the operating schedule took the street drinking issue into account, as the sale of single cans of high strength beer, lager and cider was known to be a major factor. He believed that other shops in the area did sell single cans. There had been no reported crimes in Salisbury Road for the last six months of 2016 (the most recent times for which figures were available, which PC Pellowe confirmed. Mr Jordan rebutted the allegation regarding drink driving in the police representation as his client had not been charged with an offence. He acknowledged that his client had sold alcohol to a minor four years previously but that had been an isolated mistake that he had learned from. Staff would be well trained in the four licensing objectives, what to look for regarding identification, the consequences of sales of prohibited items to under 18s, proxy sales, not serving drunks or street drinkers and not selling alcohol to the same person more than once a day. Stock would only be purchased from legitimate wholesalers, who would be required to be registered with HMRC from April 2017 by law.

 

He asked the panel to grant the application.

 

Having fully considered the written and oral representations from the Applicant and objectors the Panel discussed the matter and decided to reject the application.

 

The Panel noted that under the Cumulative Impact Policy there is a presumption that applications for new premises licences would be refused if relevant representations are received. To rebut this presumption, the Applicant must address the issues raised in the CIP and demonstrate that the operation of the premises would not add to cumulative impact. The Panel felt that the Applicant did not demonstrate that a premises licence, if granted, would not add to the cumulative impact or that it would not add to the existing anti-social behaviour problems in the area. The Panel were not satisfied that the grant of the premises licence would promote the four licensing objectives and so decided to reject the application.

 

The Panel noted that the burden was upon the Applicant to put forward an Operating Schedule which addressed the Cumulative Impact Policy, and to make assertions that they would not add to cumulative impact. The Panel noted that although efforts had been made by the Applicant to address the Cumulative Impact Policy in his Operating Schedule it did not provide sufficient assurance that the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.

 

The Panel took the offered conditions into consideration but were not of the view that these conditions would be sufficient to demonstrate that the operation of the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.  The Panel felt that the conditions would not be sufficient to address the concerns with this particular area which the Panel viewed to be a “hot-spot” for alcohol related incidents.  In addition, the Panel took particular note of the statistics for the high level of de-cannings by police in the immediate area and that the premises were in Zone 1 of the CIP zone, which suffered much higher levels of alcohol related crime, nuisance and ASB than the average for the borough.  Furthermore, the Panel felt that the evidence suggested that there was a problem of anti-social behaviour, alcohol related crime and disorder and public nuisance at all time of the day and night and therefore the fact that the Applicant was only requesting a licence until 10.00pm did not allay the Panel’s concerns. Hence, the Panel felt that the addition of another licensed premises would exacerbate the existing problems in the area and would add to the cumulative impact. 

 

Furthermore, the Panel felt that that the Applicant was unable to adequately demonstrate to the Panel’s satisfaction that their application would not add to the cumulative impact. The Panel took into consideration that the premises were located within the CIP zone and in furthermore in an area that was particularly problematic. 

 

Right to Appeal

 

Any party aggrieved with the decision of the Licensing Panel on one or more grounds set out in schedule 5 of Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the magistrates’ court within 21 days of notification of this decision.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: