Decision details

Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of Westmount Corner, 112 Westmount Road, Eltham, London, SE9 1UT

 

NOTE: The application was originally made under the name Eltham Food & Wine but as there is already another premises with that same name, the application is now made under the name ‘Westmount Corner’.

 

MEETING

 

The Sub-Committee has determined an application for a new Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect of Westmount Corner, 112 Westmount Road, Eltham, London, SE9 1UT (“The Premises”). The application is to enable the supply of alcohol between 7am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 10pm on Sundays.

 

At the outset of the meeting, Councillor Bird declared an interest, namely that the application related to a premises within her ward.

 

The application attracted a number of representations against it. Two were from individual residents who attended, while a third was a petition. The objections covered all four of the licensing objectives.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Gemma Devine (Licensing Officer), who set out the application as per the Licensing Sub-Committee Report. She also explained that two conditions proposed by the police that had originally been agreed by Rasu Sabesan (“the Applicant”) were reviewed by the police after he instructed a representative, Gill Sherratt, to act on his behalf. Following representations by her, the police agreed they would not seek the inclusion of the two conditions on the licence.

 

The Applicant was then given an opportunity to set out the reasons for his application and Ms Sherratt spoke on his behalf.

 

She stated that the proposed hours were nothing unusual for businesses in the area, and that the Applicant had extensive experience, some twenty years, in similar businesses. This included ten years at a Londis in Deptford and around ten years at the Londis a few doors down from the Premises, where he had managed the business for Ms Sapna Patel. She said there had never been any problems at either shop. She explained that Ms Patel was the organiser of the petition that had been submitted.

 

Ms Sherratt said that the number of shops selling alcohol was not a relevant consideration for the Sub-Committee, and that if there was excessive competition, this would sort itself out commercially. She explained that in any event the Applicant felt he could offer something different. He would be applying to install a cash machine, which otherwise would be 15 minute walk away for local residents.

 

She pointed out that the Premises had been derelict for around ten years, and that the Applicant had put around £60,000 of his own savings bringing it back to life. She highlighted that this was not in a Cumulative Impact Zone nor covered by any Public Safety Protection Order.

 

She addressed concerns about traffic by saying the Applicant had a delivery bay where he could park at the side of the Premises. She explained that there was brand new, modern CCTV and that the till had an automatic prompt for staff should they suspect a customer was under 25 and trying to buy alcohol.

 

Ms Sherratt emphasised that this was very much a family business, run by the Applicant’s wife, son and daughter and that his wife and son both hold personal licences. They currently employ one member of staff part time but expected others would probably be employed from the local area in due course.

 

She said all members of staff would undergo remote training on the sale of alcohol that would be conducted before they could make sales of alcohol. She again emphasised the flawless track record of the Applicant and that there were a number of very robust conditions in place. She briefly addressed the Sub-Committee on the two conditions discussed with the Police and why those had rightly not been pursued by them.

 

Ms Sherratt concluded by addressing the petition directly, stating that it had been organised by the owner of a rival business who the Applicant had actually worked for, without issue, for ten years. She asked the Sub-Committee to give the petition its due weight.

 

In terms of other resident objections she said they were right to point out the neighbourhood was quiet and peaceful and that there were no problems – she said good retailers make things better, and that this was actually a case where an empty, unlit premises was being turned into one constantly manned and brightly lit up. The Premises in fact upheld the licensing objectives.

 

The Chair asked why such early hours were required when in his experience, local supermarkets didn’t start selling until later in the morning. Ms Sherratt responded that the reality was there might not be any sales in the morning at all, but by not allowing sales that might create problems, for example the need to cover up alcohol. She pointed out it was a matter for the Applicant whether he felt he could make any more money at this time or not, and regardless of what other businesses did, this case had to be dealt with on its own merits.

 

The two residents who attended then gave their views. They highlighted their longstanding links to the community. The large number of premises that sold alcohol in close proximity to the Premises was pointed out (5 out of 8) and that under the Corbett Estate regime, alcohol had originally been banned entirely from sale at three of those shops.

 

The grant of the application was objected to on the basis that the community was already well served with shops selling alcohol and allowing another would put in jeopardy the quite and peaceful nature of the area.

 

Concerns were also raised with traffic, in particular at the junction the Premises was situated at. The dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour of some motorists was highlighted, and the problems that an additional delivery van might cause. The safety of children crossing the road was also raised. Councillor Bird expressed her support for anxiety over road safety.

 

Ms Sherratt was given an opportunity to respond, where she pointed out that the Premises probably had far more stringent conditions then neighbouring businesses and that any kind of business, regardless of whether they sold alcohol or not, would be a magnet for customers wanting to park nearby. Any problems that might arise from that were the responsibility of police and traffic management. The Premises Licence decision should be dealt with separately from concerns about members of the public behaving poorly when it came to their driving.

 

The Sub-Committee then retired to consider their decision.

 

 

DECISION

 

The Sub-Committee were mindful that the only representations they could consider under the Licensing Act 2003 are those which are relevant to the licensing objectives:

i.              Prevention of Crime & Disorder

ii.            Prevention of Public Nuisance

iii.           Public Safety

iv.           Protection of Children from Harm.

 

Further, the Sub-Committee were aware of both the Statutory Guidance under the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

 

The Sub-Committee had read the papers and listened carefully to the oral submissions of those attending, noting the various representations made for and against.

 

Although the Sub-Committee were live to the fact that the Premises was one of what appeared to be a large number of similar businesses all within a very small area, which had licences to sell alcohol, they were aware that this was no basis on which to refuse an application. They were also of the view that any business operating out of the Premises, licensed or not, would attract customers who needed to park, and that concerns over road safety could not fairly be linked to the success or failure or the application for a Premises Licence.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the Applicant’s track record and renovation of the Premises. The Sub-Committee welcomed the fact he had brought back to life a previously unused commercial property.

 

The Sub-Committee did consider carefully whether the proposed hours should be amended to reflect the hours of other comparable licenced premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the hours were not in fact the same across the three shops identified and in any event objections to the application were not linked to the proposed hours of licensable activities.

 

The Sub-Committee did note the objections and concerns of residents, but on balance felt that the strict conditions imposed were appropriate to uphold the licensing objectives.

 

Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously resolved that the Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of Westmount Corner, 112 Westmount Road, Eltham, London, SE9 1UTbe GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 

Supply of Alcohol (Off the premises) and opening hours of the premises:

-      Monday to Saturday from 7:00 hours until 23:00 hours;

-      Sunday from 8:00 hours until 22:00 hours.

 

1.    The Premises Licence Holder shall install and operate a CCTV system at the premises, capable of providing coverage of all entry points and areas to which customers have access in any lighting conditions.

2.    The CCTV system shall continuously record whilst the premises are open to members of the public and shall be capable of providing clear images and frontal identification of customers.

3.    All CCTV recordings shall be retained for a minimum of thirty-one (31) days and shall be correctly date- and time-stamped; sufficient data storage shall be available to facilitate this.

4.    CCTV recordings shall be made available within forty-eight (48) hours upon receipt of a request by the Police and / or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13 of the Licensing Act 2003), and recordings provided in an easily downloadable format.

5.    A member of staff shall be present on the premises whilst they are open who is capable of operating the CCTV system and able to facilitate viewing of CCTV footage upon the demand by the Police and / or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003).

6.    The Premises Licence Holder shall perform regular maintenance of the CCTV system in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines and timeframe as a minimum. All CCTV cameras shall be cleaned and clear of obstructions and signage, including displays and promotional materials.

7.    The premises shall perform a test of the CCTV every seven (7) days. This shall include, but not be limited to, confirmation of playback of 31-day old recordings. The testing of the system shall be recorded in a log with the time and date of the test, and name of the staff member completing it, and shall be made available to the Police and / or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003) upon request. The log shall also include the details of the regular maintenance requirement detailed in Condition 6.

8.    In the event of failure or faults with the CCTV which compromise its ability to record clear usable images, real-time playback, or provide recordings in an easily downloadable format, all licensable activity shall cease forthwith. Details of the system fault shall be recorded in writing and maintained for a minimum of twelve (12) months at the premises.

9.    An Incident and Refusals Record, kept in written form, shall be maintained at the premises and made available on request to the Police or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003). The Incident and Refusals Record shall record:

 

a)    Any complaints received in connection with the licensable activity permitted at the premises. 

b)   Any refusal to sell alcohol at the premises, including the date and time of the refusal, why the sale was refused, and the name of the staff member refusing it.

c)    Any removal of individuals from the premises, including the date and time of the removal, why the individual was removed, and the name of the staff member removing the individual.

d)   Any incidents of crime, disorder, or nuisance at the premises.

e)   Any faults with the CCTV system.

f)     Any visit to the premises by a Responsible Authority in connection with the licensable activity permitted at the premises.

 

10.No high-strength beers, lagers, ciders, and spirit mixers with an ABV of 6.5% and above shall be stocked or sold at the premises, with the exception of imported, premium and craft beers with the written consent of Royal Borough of Greenwich Licensing and Greenwich Police Licensing. 

11.All alcohol on display shall be in full view of the cashier / staff member on duty at all times and shall not be obscured by displays or shelving.

12.There shall be no self-service of spirits, save for spirit mixtures of less than 6.5% ABV. 

13.During the hours of operation of the premises, the Premises Licence Holder shall ensure that sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent litter or waste arising from customers in the area immediately outside the premises, and that this area shall be swept and or washed, and litter and sweepings collected from the frontage of the premises to the kerbside (Eltham Park Gardens and Westmount Road), the premises licence holder, DPS or named individual shall ensure by way of regular daily checks that the area is kept clear of litter and similar detritus. A written record of the litter checks shall be maintained at the premises and signed by the premises licence holder, DPS or shop manager at the end of each day the premises is open to the public, to confirm the checks have taken place.

14.The premises shall discourage customers from gathering outside the premises and environs so as to reduce the potential for noise and anti-social behaviour with the prominent display of signage in the premises advising customers not to congregate outside.

15.All staff engaged in the sale of alcohol shall receive suitable training at the start of their employment, and thereafter refresher training every six (6) months, in relation to the proof of age “Challenge 25” scheme. The following forms of identification are acceptable: photo driving licence; passport; Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card; military ID; and any other locally or nationally approved form of identification.

16.Notices and posters shall be prominently displayed inside the premises stating that a “Challenge 25” policy is in force. The posters shall include “It’s A Crime!” or equivalent, to deter proxy sales on behalf of those under-18.

17.All staff shall be provided with recognised customer welfare and vulnerability training from an appropriately qualified trainer, details of which must be documented (e.g. “WAVE”, “Ask Angela”, and/or equivalent). The Premises Licence Holder and/or the Designated Premises Supervisor shall sign-up to the Royal Borough of Greenwich Women’s Charter or its equivalent, and display certification of this prominently at the premises. Such display shall include any “WAVE” etc. certification.

18.All sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be in sealed containers and shall not be consumed on the premises and signage will be displayed to this effect.

19.A telephone number for the premises shall be displayed that is visible from the exterior of the building if contact needs to be made with the staff to deal with any issue that might arise from the licensable activity.

 

 

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee.

 

The Applicant and any person who has made a relevant representation may appeal the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee by written notification to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of the decision notice and reasons.