Agenda item - Sea View Convenience Store, 41 Kings Road, Brighton

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

95.1    The Panel considered a report of the Assistant Director of Public Safety regarding an application for a new premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for Sea View Convenience Store, 41 King’s Road, Brighton.

95.2    Mr Shakir, the applicant and Mr Deacon, solicitor for the applicant, attended the hearing to make representations in favour of the application. Mr Pol, on behalf of the Ship Street/Middle Street Residents’ Association and Mr Simmonds, on behalf of several local business objectors, attended the hearing to make representations against the application. Inspector Harris, Sussex Police and Mr Lucy, solicitor for Sussex Police also attended the hearing to make representations against the application.

95.3    The applicant’s solicitor made an application for an adjournment on the basis that he had recently been instructed. The applicant’s solicitor did acknowledge that he was prepared to proceed if necessary. The Panel considered the application, but felt in the circumstances there was no basis for an adjournment as all the relevant notices had been sent out and all parties were present and ready to proceed.

95.4    The Licensing Manager summarised the application as set out in the report and highlighted that this was for a 24 hour alcohol licence and several objections had been received. The Licensing Manager referred the Panel Members to the Statement of Licensing Policy and noted that the application was within the Cumulative Impact Area where applications would normally be refused unless the applicant could show that the application would have no negative cumulative impact.

95.5    Inspector Harris from Sussex Police began her representation by stating that the premises was situated in a tourist area where a high number of families used the facilities regularly. It was already an area with a large concentration of late-night licensed premises and Sussex Police had set up a special task force to deal with the alcohol-related anti-social behaviour caused by this. There were secondary police teams also dealing with beggars and street drinkers, and the particular problems associated with high levels of tourist, including glass, litter and bonfires being left on the beach.

Inspector Harris felt strongly that another licensed premises in the area would create a negative cumulative impact. She felt that the conditions proposed on the licence were not tailored to the special circumstances of the area, there were no conditions to deal with the numerous special events that occurred in Brighton and Hove, the layout was inappropriate and no consideration had been given to deterring people from stealing alcohol from the shop.

Inspector Harris stated that the problems in this area were experienced both day and night, with a high proportion of incidents occurring in the afternoon. She felt that restricting the hours of the licence would not be effective in mitigating any negative impact it might create. Therefore she was requesting that the Panel refuse the application for an alcohol licence at this premises.

95.6    Mr Deacon, solicitor for the applicant, asked if most of the problems in this area happened in the middle of the night and Inspector Harris replied that in her experience this was not true and that incidents occurred regularly both day and night.

95.7    Mr Deacon asked if the basis for most of the objections to this application referred to problems caused at night and Inspector Harris replied that she did not know the basis of other people’s objections, but as far as the Police were concerned problems were experienced both day and night in this area, with police initiatives in place 24 hours a day.

95.8    Mr Deacon asked if reducing the hours of the licence would reduce the impact of the application. Inspector Harris replied that due to the nature of the problems experienced in this area, she felt that any additional licensed premises would create a negative cumulative impact.

95.9    Mr Deacon asked if the Police would still object to the application if the premises was situated outside of the Cumulative Impact Area. Inspector Harris replied that there were other problems with the application, including an unsatisfactory internal lay-out and as such she felt that the Police would still object to the licence being granted regardless of where it was situated.

95.10  Mr Simmonds then began his representation on behalf of local business owners and stated that their objections were from a range of different businesses and not based on need. He noted that the area was small, busy and dense with a high volume of licensed premises that already created unique anti-social problems in the vicinity. The application was limited in terms of the conditions it offered to deal with these problems and as such would cause a negative impact.

            Mr Simmonds stated that other licensed premises in the area had very high security measures because of the problems that had been experienced, there was an off-licence nearby that did not open to the full extent of their entitlement in an attempt to alleviate some of the problems and other businesses that were not associated with the alcohol trade were affected by anti-social behaviour from a high concentration of vagrants and street-drinkers. The conditions offered on the application to deal with these problems were not nearly stringent enough and therefore the application would not uphold or promote the four licensing objectives. On this basis, Mr Simmonds felt that the application should be refused.

95.11  Mr Deacon asked whether the objectors who Mr Simmonds represented were licensed premises. Mr Simmonds replied that he was representing a variety of businesses, which also included licensed premises. He noted that these businesses had included additional conditions on their licences and did not use their licences to the full extent that they were allowed in order to deal with the problems of the area.

95.12  Mr Deacon asked if restricting the hours of the application would help alleviate any impact that might be felt and Mr Simmonds replied that in his opinion the hours needed to be reduced, the layout of the shop needed to be changed and extra conditions needed to be added to deal with the particular problems in this area and uphold the licensing objectives.

95.13  Mr Pol, representing the Ship Street/Middle Street Residents’ Association, began his representation by stating that this area was already saturated with licensed premises. There were several problems associated with this and Mr Pol stated that on Friday and Saturday nights the streets were filled with people drinking alcohol. He felt that another 24 hour licensed premises being granted in this area would result in people from the bars and clubs buying cheaper alcohol from this out-let to drink on the streets which would create even more anti-social problems for the residents. As such he felt the application should be refused.

95.14  Mr Deacon asked if restricted hours would help alleviate the concerns Mr Pol had raised. Mr Pol replied that residents also experienced problems in the early morning between 06.30 and 08.30 with street drinkers and beggars causing problems due to excessive drinking.

95.15  Mr Deacon asked why Mr Pol felt that people would leave an on-licensed establishment just to buy more alcohol in an off-licensed establishment and Mr Pol felt that as the alcohol would be cheaper in the off-licence this would encourage people to buy and drink even more in the area than they already did.

95.16  Mr Shakir, the applicant, then began his representation by stating that he would be happy to change the interior layout of the shop to ensure that alcohol could not be stolen, although he felt that the premises was small enough that this was unlikely to happen. He stated that he was in consultation with a security company who were willing to provide SIA trained door staff on Friday and Saturday nights and a mobile support service at all other times. Mr Shakir was also willing to suspend the sale of beer and cider above a specified Alcohol per Volume (APV) level and would not advertise cheap alcohol or offers in the windows of the premises.

            Mr Shakir felt that the complaints that had been received related to other premises and felt it would be unfair to judge his premises in the same way. He stated that he would uphold and respect the four licensing objectives if this application was granted and would be willing to reduce the opening hours of the establishment if that would alleviate the concerns of residents and Panel Members. He noted that there was an opportunity for review should his establishment cause problems related to alcohol sales, but he felt that this would not be likely. Mr Shakir stated that he was a responsible and law-abiding person and would introduce any recommended conditions the Panel sought to place on the licence.

95.17  Mr Pearson from Washington State Security Systems addressed the Panel on Mr Shakir’s behalf and stated that in his experience it was the night-time economy that caused most of the anti-social behaviour problems in the area. He felt that it was very rare for people to create problems outside off-licensed premises and even if such problems occurred for Mr Shakir, there would be licensed door staff to deal with this provided by his company.

95.18  The Chairman asked for clarification on when the door staff would be present and Mr Shakir replied that he was willing to hire staff from midnight until 04:00 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.

95.19  A Panel Member asked what the current opening hours of the convenience store were and why Mr Shakir wanted an alcohol licence. Mr Shakir replied that he was currently open as a convenience store until 03:00 and wanted to sell alcohol to the tourist trade. He noted there were many hotels in the area and tourists would often come to the convenience store to buy alcohol because they did not want to buy it in the hotel. Mr Shakir felt it would be beneficial to his business in these difficult economic times.

95.20  A Panel Member asked how the shop would be arranged to prevent young people from stealing alcohol. Mr Shakir replied that the alcohol would be kept behind the counter, in a fridge and on high shelves which would prevent people from taking alcohol. He also stated that the premises was very small and there would be two staff on at night.

95.21  Mr Lucy asked if this was Mr Shakir’s first Premises Licence application and he confirmed that it was. Mr Lucy went on to ask if Mr Shakir was aware of the particular problems an off-licensed premises would create in this area. Mr Shakir stated that he did not feel that his premises would be causing problems and that the problems already in existence in the area were created by other premises selling alcohol.

95.22  Mr Lucy asked why none of the measures that Mr Shakir had proposed today were part of the licence application. The advice Mr Shakir had been given was inaccurate and he had applied for a licence without these conditions. Mr Shakir felt that he had been represented badly in this issue by previous solicitors and had since changed solicitors because of this and was now happy to include any conditions necessary in the licence application to ensure the licensing objectives would be upheld.

95.23  Mr Lucy asked if Mr Shakir was aware of the Cumulative Impact policy and Mr Shakir confirmed that he was but that he felt his store would create no negative cumulative impact.

95.24  The Licensing Manager then gave her final submission and reminded the Panel that economic need was not a valid licensing consideration. If they were minded to grant the application the Panel needed to be sure it would not cause a negative cumulative impact, and if they were minded to refuse the application, they needed to give valid reasons as to why conditions would not be effective in managing the impact of this application.

95.25  Mr Pol gave his final submission and stated that granting another premises licence in this area would be inappropriate and would detrimentally impact the Cumulative Impact Area.

95.26  Mr Simmonds stated that the applicant had not demonstrated that conditions would be effective in reducing the negative impact on the area and as such the four licensing objectives would not be upheld if this application was granted.

95.27  Mr Lucy stated that the applicant had been given a number of opportunities by Sussex Police to discuss the application and suggested conditions with them, but had not done so. There were no suggested conditions for dealing with large tourist events in the city and the internal layout was still unsatisfactory. As such the Police were objecting to this application.

95.28  Mr Deacon gave his final submission on behalf of Mr Shakir and stated that the applicant had offered restricted hours, restrictions on the sale of high strength alcohol, a contract with a reputable security company, CCTV installed inside the premises and rearrangement of the internal layout, to ensure that the four licensing objectives were upheld. He stated that Mr Shakir understood the Cumulative Impact policy and had taken specific steps to address these problems and in his opinion, the store would not create a negative impact on the area. He asked the Panel Members to grant the application.

95.29  RESOLVED – that the application be refused for the following reason:

“The panel decided to reject the application. They felt that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that his application would not add to the negative cumulative impact in this area. Therefore the panel believed that the four licensing objectives would be compromised. They did not consider that placing conditions on the licence would ameliorate the concerns expressed by the police and the interested parties.”