Agenda item

Sidney Rose Mini Market, Ground Floor, 34-36 Maddox Street, W1

16/13896/LIPV

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee heard representations from Mr Shukla, the Applicant.  Mr Shukla stated that the concept behind the application was to extend the trading hours to take advantage of customers using the Night Tube.  Mr Shukla believed there was a demand in the area for the purchase of alcohol, particularly from hotel residents.  It was intended to deliver items to customers with the orders being either online or via telephone.  If customers were nearby the delivery would be via foot, if it was further away the delivery was likely to be by car.  Mr Shukla explained that his company would deliver items and it was proposed there would also be an agreement with online ordering sites to provide deliveries.

Mr Shukla was asked by the Sub-Committee whether, as indicated in the report, the premises would be closed to the public at 21:00.  Would the Applicant only be proposing to provide off-sales or hot food and hot drink by way of delivery after this time?  Mr Shukla replied that he was also considering opening a hatch at the premises where customers would be able to purchase items, including off-sales.  The Chairman explained to Mr Shukla that if he was intending to sell products from a hatch after 21:00 this should have been reflected in the opening hours set out in the application in order to give those objecting the chance to comment if they so wished.  Mr Shukla referred to his existing premises licence permitting him to open until 23:00.

The Sub-Committee was addressed by PC Lewis on behalf of the Police.  PC Lewis said that it was his understanding that the shop would remain open after Core Hours with alcohol and hot food and hot drink being sold via the hatch.  PC Lewis advised that the Police were thoroughly opposed to this for a number of reasons.  The Police were concerned that customers would potentially have already consumed alcohol in other licensed premises and then would purchase further alcohol at the premises which could lead to anti-social behaviour or customers being the victims of crime.  The Police believed that the sale of alcohol at supermarkets and convenience stores contributed more to disorder than bars as alcohol is cheaper and there are no constraints on how it is consumed.  There was the potential for the availability of alcohol to attract street drinkers, both late into the evening and the early morning.  PC Lewis referred also to Maddox Street being a quiet street and that the premises could become a destination venue.  It would result in an additional drain on Police resources.  PC Lewis also expressed concerns that if the application was granted, it could set a precedent for other licensed premises in the area, including supermarkets, seeking later hours.

PC Lewis informed the Sub-Committee that there were no reported issues with crime and disorder under the current licence at the premises.  However, PC Lewis queried how, if alcohol was sold through a hatch, there would be satisfactory age checks or an assessment could be made as to whether customers were sober or not.  PC Lewis added that no proposed conditions relating to alcohol would reassure Police in respect of the application as it was considered to be high risk.

Ms Bolton on behalf of the Council’s EH stated that her concerns were very similar to those expressed by PC Lewis and she was maintaining her representation on that basis.  EH objected to any increase in the proposed hours for the sale of alcohol beyond 23:00 on the current licence.  Ms Bolton expressed the view that Maddox Street is a very quiet street and people visiting the premises late at night would have the potential to cause public nuisance.

Ms Bolton addressed the Sub-Committee on the point relating to the opening hours.  The Sub-Committed were advised that it was EH’s understanding that the premises would continue to open until 23:00 and the hatch would open from 21:00.  The apparent reduction in opening hours in the application was misleading. 

Ms Lawrance confirmed that the application when received had not distinguished between the opening times for the convenience store and the use of the hatch.  There had been no mention of the hatch in the application.  21:00 was the terminal hour set out in the application for when the premises would close.

Mr Wroe and Mr Chance drew the Sub-Committees’ attention to the point that the application had indicated that the premises would close at 21:00 and people may have taken a view during the consultation process on whether or not to make a representation based on this information. The Sub-Committee therefore had to deal with the application in front of them based on the hours applied for.

The Sub-Committee based on the evidence refused the application as they felt that the application would not promote the licensing objectives.  The Sub-Committee shared the Police and EH’s concerns as the Applicant was seeking to sell alcohol 24 hours a day, including potentially from a hatch.  The Applicant was also seeking to sell hot food and hot drink until 05:00, also potentially from the hatch.  There was the potential for customers to be attracted to what was a relatively quiet street well beyond Core Hours and potentially throughout the night, causing public nuisance or anti-social behaviour.   

The Sub-Committee also considered that there was the potential for public nuisance to be caused from the use of any delivery vehicles throughout the night.  Overall in determining the matter the Sub-Committee shared the Police’s view that this was a ‘high risk application’ and on balance the right to refuse the application was appropriate and proportionate based on the evidence.

The Sub-Committee noted that the application had indicated that the opening hours had been reduced to 21:00.  The Sub-Committee had concerns that the application might have been misleading during the public consultation process, if the Applicant was seeking to increase the hours applied for.  The Chairman recommended that the Applicant seek professional advice, including in relation to the matters raised by the Police and EH.         

2.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (Off)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The application was refused (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

3.

Hours premises are open to the public

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Applicant, Mr Shukla, informed the Sub-Committee that he was not intending to close the premises at 21:00 as set out in the application.  He wished to keep the convenience store open until 23:00 as was permitted under the existing premises licence and he wished to open a hatch after 21:00.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee refused the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

4.

Conditions being varied, added or removed

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee refused the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).