Agenda item - Go Local, 93 North Road, Brighton

Report of the Assistant Director of Public Safety (copy attached).

78.1    The Panel considered a report from the Assistant Director of Public Safety regarding an application for a new Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for Go Local, 93 North Road, Brighton, BN1 1YE (for copy see minute book).

78.2    Mr Boulas, the applicant, and Mr Simmonds, agent for the applicant, attended the hearing to make representations in favour of the application. Mr Scam and Mrs Crowhurst from the North Laine Community Association attended the hearing to make representations against the application.

78.3    The Head of Environmental Health and Licensing began his statement and stated that this was a new application to sell alcohol. The premises were situated in the Special Stress Area (SSA) and representations had been received from Sussex Police, local residents and the Local Residents’ Association relating to Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Prevention of Public Nuisance, and Protection of Children from Harm. Following agreement of conditions with Sussex Police their representation had been withdrawn. Whilst the application was sited in the SSA, this did not prevent the applicant from making valid representations as to why his application would not increase the negative impact from licensed premises in the area.

78.4    Mr Scam began his representation and stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Local Residents Association. He believed that the Association had made it very clear that there was an existing problem from alcohol related anti-social behaviour in the area, and whilst he did not have an issue with the corner shop, he believed that the granting of an alcohol licence here would cause the North Laine area significant problems.

            Mr Scam drew on the Police letter, which referred to the North Laine area as a hotspot for anti-social behaviour and street drinking. The Police had already recognised that they could not police the area effectively at the weekends as their resources were concentrated on West Street. As the premises were intending to trade as an off-licence Mr Scam feared that the people already street drinking in the area would be able to purchase more alcohol and drink it later in the evening. He therefore did not feel that a terminal hour of 23:00 would have any mitigating effects. Mr Scam also did not feel that the restriction in the sale of alcohol over 7 percent ABV would be effective as most strong ciders and beers were between 5 and 7 percent.

            He asked the Panel to refuse the application as the Local Residents’ Association did not want any more licensed premises in the area, and because the competition in the area resulted in cheap alcohol promotions, which encouraged binge drinking and anti-social behaviour.

78.5    Mrs Crowhurst began her representation on behalf of Ms Hamilton, and stated that the alcohol related disturbance in the area was at times extreme. Residents in Kensington Street were frequently disturbed by late night swearing, shouting, urination, rubbish and broken glass left on the street and they were very worried about the lack of Police resources in this area. She asked the Panel to refuse the application.

78.6    The Chairman asked if there were any questions of the representations from Mr Scam and Mrs Crowhurst, and Mr Simmonds asked if they were concerned about the number of licensed premises in the area. Mrs Crowhurst stated she was extremely concerned that one in six commercial premises were now licensed to sell alcohol.

78.7    Mr Simmonds asked how many licensed premises there were in North Road and Mr Scam believed it was in the region of fifteen.

78.8    Mr Simmonds began his representation and stated that this was a new application for a convenience store to sell alcohol. The store was located opposite residential buildings and was a modern, new mini-market style store selling a variety of goods for the local area. There was a large local population who used the premises and the applicant had anecdotal evidence from residents who supported the licence application.

            Mr Simmonds stated that the applicant had consulted with the Police to ensure the conditions on the licence would be effective and tailored to recognise that the premises were situated in the SSA, and he believed that the operating schedule and these extra conditions would successfully promote the licensing objectives. He stated that the applicant had been running a successful business in the Hove area for the last five years without any problems, and no problems were anticipated at this new venture. The premises would be run responsibly with no irresponsible beer or wine promotions and would provide a needed service to the local community. He asked the Panel to grant the licence.

78.9    The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Mr Simmonds’ representation, and asked what proportion of the store would be given over to the sale of alcohol. Mr Simmonds replied that it would be about 1/60 of the floor space available.

78.10  The Chairman asked if the alcohol would be kept at the back of the store and Mr Simmonds replied that it would, and that an area to the side of the counter would be used for storing spirits. This would not be a self-service area and would be controlled by the staff.

78.11  The Chairman asked how many staff would be on duty at the premises and Mr Simmonds replied that it would be a minimum of two, with a minimum of three if the alcohol licence was granted. Intensive training would be carried out for staff before they were allowed to sell alcohol.

78.12  The Chairman asked the average age of staff members and Mr Simmonds stated they were mostly over 30 years of age, and all staff members would be over 18 years of age.

78.13  The Chairman asked if Mr Boulas was the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and he stated that his brother was.

78.14  Councillor Pidgeon asked if the DPS would train the staff at the premises and Mr Simmonds replied that it would be a mixture of training from the DPS and Trading Standards training. The DPS would be responsible for ongoing training at the premises.

78.15  Councillor Pidgeon asked what the current hours of operation were and Mr Boulas replied they were between 06:30 and 23:00 hours. He was not applying for any increase in hours.

78.16  Mr Scam asked where the till was situated and Mr Simmonds explained that the till would be at the front of the premises with spirits stored behind this.

78.17  Mr Scam asked how the conditions would be enforced and Mr Simmonds replied that they would be enforced by the licensee via training of staff and by the threat of review if the conditions were breeched.

78.18  Mr Scam felt that most residents would not know what the conditions were on this licence, and asked how the premises could be monitored for the community’s benefit. Mr Simmonds felt that the Residents’ Association would have the knowledge and capacity to monitor any premises and submit a review of the licence if necessary.

78.19  Mr Scam asked if Mr Simmonds recognised the North Laine area as a hotspot for anti-social behaviour. Mr Simmonds replied that all areas could be considered hotpots at different times.

78.20  Mr Scam asked if alcohol promotions would be held at the premises and Mr Simmonds confirmed that they would be, but would not be run irresponsibly. Mr Scam asked how this could be when prices were dictated by the market, and there were already retail outlets selling cut-price alcohol in the area. Mr Boulas reiterated that they would not run irresponsible promotion as this was not the type of customer who would be encouraged into the store.

78.21  The Head of Environmental Health and Licensing began his final statement and stated that the Panel needed to adhere to licensing guidance to determine the application and consider what steps were necessary to promote the four licensing objectives. The statements of the residents needed to be given due regard, as did guidance in the Brighton & Hove Statement of Licensing Policy. Any decision must be fair and reasonable and the key protection for residents against problem premises was the review process.

78.22  Mr Scam began his final representation and stated that the Police categorised the area as a hotspot for anti-social behaviour and crime. The residents had been told that the area could not be policed effectively at weekends and the local residents were keen to stop any more licences being granted in the area so that the problem was not exacerbated. He stated that the responsibility for granting licences had been taken away from the Magistrates Court in order to give local residents a say in how and when licences were granted in their area, and he asked the Panel to take in the views of the Local Residents’ Association. Mr Scam added that he believed that many of the conditions proposed on the licence were unenforceable.

78.23  Mrs Crowhurst had nothing further to add to her representation.

78.24  Mr Simmonds began his final representation and stated that the applicant had worked with the Local Authority and the Police to put forward conditions that would be effective and successfully promote the four licensing objectives. The conditions were promoted by the Secretary of State as being of a style and type that were enforceable and effective. The applicant had identified a need within the community for a community store that could sell alcohol and although he was very aware of the existing problems in the area, he did not feel this premises would contribute in any way towards those problems.

78.25  The Solicitor to the Panel reminded Panel Members that “need” was not a licensing consideration.

78.26RESOLVED – That the Panel decided to grant the application as applied for with the conditions on the operating schedule and those agreed with Sussex Police (not including the 24 hour mobile support unit).

The Panel were aware that the premises was located in the Special Stress Area, but noted the closure time of 23:00 hours. They were satisfied that the conditions, especially the additional Police conditions would meet the licensing objectives. The Panel were mindful that these conditions were legally binding and had serious implications if breached. However they felt the conditions would promote the licensing objectives, and added that should the residents become aware of any problems associated with the premises they may contact the Licensing Authority for a review of the licence.