Agenda item

a. APPLICATION AND REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED. To consider the attached report

b. DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR A PREMISES LICENCE- Radom Euro Shop, 239 Dickson Road

c. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE APPLICATION FOR A PREMISES LICENCE- Radom Euro Shop, 239 Dickson Road

The Licensing Panel considered an application for a Premises Licence at Radom Euro Shop at 239 Dickson Road.

The applicant, Mr Belkaid, was in attendance at the meeting and made representations to the Panel.  He explained that the shop had changed ownership since the revocation of the previous premises licence. Mr Belkaid advised the Panel that he had held a personal licence for a number of years and outlined his previous experience in managing licensed premises.  In relation to security measures referred to in the application, Mr Belkaid confirmed that following discussions with the owners it had been agreed that it would not be financially viable to employ security staff and that it was considered that the CCTV cameras already installed would provide sufficient security. Mr Belkaid explained his role as a shop employee and confirmed that he was aware of the alcohol related issues in the area but did not consider that these would be increased by sale of alcohol at the premises. He advised the Panel of the main purpose of the premises and the intention to sell only higher priced non-UK alcohol.  In response to questions, he confirmed that alcohol sales would represent a maximum of 5% of the overall sales.

Mr Marshall was in attendance and made representations to the Panel on behalf of Public Health and the Licensing Authority.  Mr Marshall reported on the significant number of off-licences currently operating in the area and the challenges faced by both residents and retailers, particularly in relation to crime, domestic violence and alcohol dependency. Further concerns included the lack of detail in the operating schedule and the day to day management of the premises. Mr Marshall concluded by stating his opinion that there was nothing exceptional in the application to justify approval of an additional premises licence in an off-licence saturation area.

Mr Petrak was in attendance at the meeting and made representations on behalf of the Weights and Measures Authority. He advised the Panel of the circumstances surrounding the previous revocation of the Premises Licence and his concerns that the previous owners at the time of revocation were not completely disassociated from the premises. Mr Petrak reported on a visit he had made to the premises at the end of January which raised concerns regarding the management’s ability to promote the licensing objectives.

PC Pritchard was in attendance at the meeting and made representations on behalf of the Police.  She reported on the high levels of domestic violence and crime and disorder incidents in the area, many of which were alcohol related.  Whilst she accepted that these could not be attributed to any particular premises, she expressed concern that a further premises licence within the off-licence saturation area could exacerbate the problems.  PC Pritchard raised concerns regarding the lack of detail in the operating schedule regarding appropriate security measures.

The Panel carefully considered the representations made by all parties both in writing and at the meeting.  It also had regard to its Statement of Licensing Policy which created a rebuttal presumption that applications would be refused unless the applicant could demonstrate through the operating schedule that the operation of the premises would not add to the cumulative impact already experienced in the area.

The Panel did not consider that the application was sufficiently exceptional to justify overriding the Policy and was not satisfied that granting the application would not add to the cumulative impact already experienced in the area.

Resolved:  That the application be refused.