Portsmouth City Borough Council
Councillors:
42
Wards:
14
Committees:
37
Meetings (2025):
120
Meetings (2024):
154
Meeting
Licensing Sub-Committee - Portsmouth City
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Monday, 28th April 2025
11:00 AM
Monday, 28th April 2025
11:00 AM
End:
Monday, 28th April 2025
3:00 PM
Monday, 28th April 2025
3:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
28 Apr 2025
28 Apr 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - The Guildhall, Portsmouth
Council Chamber - The Guildhall, Portsmouth
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Environmental Services
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Leisure & Sport
Committee Member
Deputy Lord Mayor
Committee Member
Group Leader
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Planning Policy & City Development
Committee Member
Agenda
1
Appointment of Chair
Minutes
Councillor Strudwick was duly appointed as Chair for this meeting.
2
Declaration of interests
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest.
3
Licensing Act 2003 - Application for variation of a premises licence - New Kwikimart, 25 Albert Road, Southsea, PO5 2SE
The purpose of this report is for the committee to consider an application for the variation of a premises licence pursuant to section 35 of the Licensing Act 2003 ("the Act"). The matter has been referred to the committee for determination following receipt of relevant representations from the police and a local ward councillor. Further details about the representations received is shown at paragraph 4 in the report.
The Committee is requested to determine the report.
The Committee is requested to determine the report.
Attachments:
- Document Committee report - Application for variation of premises licence - New Kwikimart 15 Apr 2025
- Document Appendix A - Application to vary premises licence 15 Apr 2025
- Document Appendix B - Premises licence 15 Apr 2025
- Document Appendix C - Representation from ward councillor 15 Apr 2025
- Document Appendix C - Representation from Police 15 Apr 2025
- Document Appendix C - Additional information from Police 15 Apr 2025
Minutes
Licensing Authority's case
Derek Stone, Principal Licensing Officer, introduced his report, noting that the application was to extend the permitted hours for alcohol sales from 11 pm to 2 am on Fridays and Saturdays. The police, a responsible authority, had objected to the application, and Councillor Mason, a ward councillor, had made a representation as he had raised concerns about disruption to residents.
Questions from members
In response to questions from members, the Principal Licensing Officer did not recall any specific issues relating to the premises.
Questions from the applicant
In response to questions from the applicant, the Principal Licensing Officer said that paragraph 10.15 of the statutory guidance relating to alcohol sales had been unintentionally omitted as the text was generated automatically. Paragraph 10.15 indicated that shops, stores and supermarkets should normally be free to provide sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises at any times that the premises are open unless there are good reasons, based on the licensing objectives, to restrict the hours.
There were no questions from the police nor from Councillor Mason.
Applicant's case
Mr Wallsgrove outlined the six points he wished to make: an amendment to the application; identification of the principal issue; the burden and standard of proof; the background to the variation; analysis of police evidence; the reasons why the application should be granted.
In view of the police's concerns, the applicant wished to amend the application on Mr Wallsgrove's advice so that alcohol sales ceased at midnight on Fridays and Saturdays but the shop remained open until 2 am so people could buy soft drinks and food. There could be a condition requiring the applicant to lock alcohol behind shutters so that customers could not select it after midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.
The issue was a narrow one. There were no concerns about the management of the premises and none about alcohol sales. The applicant had had a premises licence for 20 years and there were no issues about compliance with conditions or any adverse comments about him as a premises licence holder (PLH). The police objected that people buying alcohol would drink it in the street and add to crime and disorder. Mr Wallsgrove was not disputing there was crime and disorder but the only issue for the Sub-Committee to decide was if granting the application would add to it.
The burden and standard of proof rested with the police in this case. Paragraph 9.43 of the statutory guidance stated that the licensing authority's determination must be evidence-based. The Sub-Committee must take paragraph 10.15 into account and if they departed from it they must say why. Paragraph 16.2 recognised that licensed premises made an important contribution to the local economy. Mr Wallsgrove's clear starting point was that the revised application should be granted and only refused if (and a "big if") there was credible evidence it would lead to crime and disorder in the vicinity.
The applicant was applying to vary the licence because he had noticed a considerable change in shopping habits after Covid. Footfall in the day was sparse and income and revenue had decreased. The applicant wanted to make his business sustainable and the extra hour on the busiest days would make a substantial difference to sustainability. He believed selling soft drinks and food would have benefits as customers would go to his shop rather than buying it from takeaway outlets. People only applied for variation of a premises licence for commercial reasons. There were several convenience stores in the locality, for example, Costcutter had a licence until 2 am though operated until 1 am. The applicant had another Kwikimart nearby which was licensed until 3.30 am on Fridays and Saturdays.
The police had provided two sets of evidence but there was no information on when and where the offences took place. When Mr Wallsgrove asked for information he was only given broad terms such as "in Elm Grove". The evidence did not say how many offences were linked to drink and off-premises sales. Therefore, the statistics in Appendix 1 were completely irrelevant and added nothing to the assertion that the application would increase crime and disorder. In the second set of incidents from January to April 2025 only two (25 January and 8 March) were in the hours covered by the application; the first was an assault on door staff at on-licensed premises; the second was an assault and did not say if it was related to the premises, the sale of alcohol or street drinking. In the second set of incidents there was no correlation between the evidence and the police requirements to prove that selling alcohol would add to crime and disorder. The other offences listed happened much later and were no longer relevant now that the applicant had amended the application. Offences which took place earlier were not linked to the sale of alcohol from off-licensed premises. The police must address the committee with credible evidence and their objection did not stand on the balance of probabilities.
Summing up, there was no dispute that the premises was managed well. The applicant had numerous off-licences and always worked in partnership with the responsible authorities. For example, he stopped selling alcohol on match days at his shop in Goldsmith Avenue at the request of the police. He had taken on board concerns so had amended the application. The police have not proved the case they have asserted. Mr Wallsgrove accepted and acknowledged the risk but there was the power to review. The Licensing Act allowed responsible operators to run their businesses as they wished. If the police showed the applicant credible evidence of risk he would accept it and amend the hours. If the risk was credible then other premises in the area would have had their licences reviewed and they had not. The applicant thanked the Sub-Committee for the time taken to consider his application, and the police, with whom he would always work in partnership.
Questions from members
In response to questions from members, Mr Wallsgrove said the applicant had eleven premises licences in Portsmouth. The applicant would have conditions on the licence to prevent alcohol sales after the permitted hours as well as others such as for CCTV. It was a small convenience store, probably the smallest in the area, so staff had full visibility of the shop. He would lock displays of alcohol so people could not see it.
The shop was generally busy on Fridays and Saturdays. People bought food for the weekend, not just alcohol. In convenience stores alcohol was an ancillary sale, usually bought with food, and accounted for 15% of the applicant's sales. There were no big advertisements outside the shop and he did not sell high-strength alcohol. The premises already had a sign asking customers to respect the neighbourhood; if the application was granted the applicant would place a clear notice stating when alcohol sales ceased, which would also help ensure staff safety.
The applicant had discussed a serving hatch with the police as a mitigation measure but now the application had been amended it was not necessary (though could be in reserve). It might require a minor variation to a change of plan.
Questions from the responsible authority
In response to questions from PC Pollard, the applicant said the shop currently closed at 11 pm on Friday and Saturday. The shop could not have opened longer as it was not allowed to as it was only licensed until 11 pm.
There were no questions from Councillor Mason for the applicant.
The responsible authority's case
PC Lewington said the premises was in one of Portsmouth's four night-time economy (NTE) areas and was at the busier end of Albert Road, reflected in the number of incidents reported to the police which occurred from 7 pm to 7 am (Appendix 1). The area, which stretched from Elm Grove and the full length of Albert Road, was the second highest in the city for NTE related crime. The figures to date related to a 20 to 30m radius of the applicant's shop. There were probably other incidents but the figures showed the type occurring from 11 pm to 2 am such as disorder and sexual assault, where alcohol was the main contributory factor. If increased hours for selling alcohol were allowed it would encourage later street drinking and add to existing crime and disorder. There were initially no additional measures in the application to combat the increased risk. The police spoke to the applicant (when the hatch was mentioned along with extra door staff) and their opinion was that even with measures around the sale of alcohol it would increase crime and disorder. Mr Wallsgrove had said no crime was linked directly to the shop and although it was difficult to make the link it could create a further flashpoint like the police have seen at other venues where people hang out.
Questions from members
In response to questions from members, PC Lewington said the two highlighted incidents in Appendix 2 were in close proximity to the applicant's shop (at the top end of Albert Road and near the junction with Victoria Road South and Elm Grove).
As well as Costcutter there was a new convenience store licenced until 11 pm and there might be a couple more in the area; it was believed Costcutter sold alcohol until 2 am.
Questions from the applicant
In response to Mr Wallsgrove asking if the police accepted the contention that none of the incidents related to street drinking, PC Lewington said the list was not exhaustive; it was just to give an idea. Not all incidents were related to bars as some were outside and others at flashpoints where people congregated.
As to how much on-licensed premises had increased in the last five years, PC Lewington had not been here for five years but in the last 18 months the area had got busier and any availability of alcohol would add to problems. Albert Road was the second busiest NTE area which was reflected in the severity of the alcohol related crime the police saw reported.
The applicant had said there was not a prevalence of street drinking in the area so Mr Wallsgrove asked if the police had witnessed regular crime and disorder because of it. PC Lewington said street drinking constituted a small proportion of the statistics. In the last 12 to 18 months there had been a significant increase in footfall in Albert Road and he had witnessed crime and disorder while on duty. Asked if it related to cans and bottles, PC Pollard said he had seen two incidents; one near Deco in Elm Grove where street drinking led to blows and one near the applicant's shop. The police were concerned there were a lot of flashpoints in the area for falling outs and fights. They contended that alcohol sales would extend street drinking and the shop being open later could be a flashpoint.
No incidents had been reported at Costcutter. The applicant had never reported any incidents outside his shop. If there were any, they would have happened when the shop would have been closed.
There were no questions from Councillor Mason for the applicant.
The other person's case
Councillor Mason objected to the application on the grounds of public nuisance. He recognised that the licensing law was not the primary mechanism to deal with crime and disorder but paragraph 4.6 of the Statement of Licensing Policy (which the Licensing Committee had approved on 23 April) stated it was "a key aspect of such control." There were ten pubs and bars within a two-minute walk of the premises, some of which were very large establishments, and even more within three minutes. The majority of patrons went home quietly but there would always be a minority who drank in the street and left before premises closed to buy alcohol elsewhere. There were people shouting, fighting, vomiting, urinating and defecating. Albert Road was a residential neighbourhood with flats above the shops and houses nearby. The nuisance would extend much beyond midnight. Councillor Mason realised the Sub-Committee could not make a decision about what might happen but pointed out that another premises at 111-113 Albert Road had had its hours reduced recently such was the level of nuisance and that was in the quieter end.
There were no questions from members, nor the police nor the applicant for Councillor Mason.
Summing up
Councillor Mason had nothing else to add.
PC Pollard had no concern about the applicant or the store to date; their concern was that Albert Road had become very busy and popular leading to an increase in crime and disorder. There were places that kept people in the area, for example, public toilets, as well as late night refreshment, that could become flashpoints.
Mr Wallsgrove said that with the licence review of the applicant's shop at 111-113 Albert Road the police had made no representations. The hours were reduced but he appealed and as a result of mediation with the council it operated until 3.30 am on Fridays and Saturdays and 3 am on other days rather than 24/7. Mr Wallsgrove did not accept the assertions made at the review but it was pragmatic to avoid a lengthy appeal; the situation was not a precedent. With the current application the starting point was that it must be granted. People had to abide by opening hours stated on a licence even if no licensable activities took place which was why he was asking the Sub-Committee to consider extending alcohol sales until midnight and shop opening hours until 2 am. The vast majority of bars were open beyond midnight; quite a few were open until 1 am and some until 1.30 am. If the hours were until midnight then customers would not encounter people from on-licensed premises trying to purchase alcohol. He asked members to carefully consider again the police's evidence. They were the experts in crime and disorder and the primary source of expertise but they had not brought credible evidence. Costcutter and the applicant had not experienced issues as a result of alcohol being purchased in their stores. He asked if the police's case had been proved to the required standard on the balance of probabilities.
The Sub-Committee went into exempt session at 11.56 pm to determine the application. The Chair reminded those present that they must not discuss the application with members of the Sub-Committee outside the meeting room during the break for deliberation.
The Sub-Committee reconvened at 1.07 pm.
Decision
The Sub-Committee has considered very carefully the application for variation of a premises licence at New Kwikimart. It gave due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance and the adopted statement of licensing policy.
The Sub-Committee considered the relevant representations, both written and given at the hearing, by all parties. Human rights legislation and the public sector equality duty have been borne in mind whilst making the decision.
The Sub-Committee noted that the application sought an extension in hours for the sale of alcohol. There had been representations from the police and a ward councillor. Those objecting raise concerns in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and public nuisance. The issues of concern relating to crime and disorder arise from the concentration of late-night premises in the area which cause a higher number of incidents of assault, public disorder and sexual assault - with alcohol said to be a contributing factor. Concerns were expressed about the proximity of 24 hour toilets and late closing premises nearby as well as alleged potential drug dealing and noise which may increase if the application is granted.
It was noted that the applicant had initially offered steps to mitigate the impact, including use of a service hatch and SIA door staff, but police objection remained. At the hearing it was clarified that the application had been amended to reduce the hours for the sale of alcohol until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights and for the premises to remain open until 2.00am on those days.
After having heard all of the above evidence the Sub-Committee determined to grant the application subject to the outlined amendment, the operating schedule and the following additional premises licence conditions:
- The premises licence holder shall ensure that signage is prominently displayed at the premises - both within and visible outside the premises indicating that alcohol sales shall cease at midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings and at 23.00hrs Monday to Thursday and 22.30hrs on a Sunday.
- Lockable roller shutter blinds or other such secure measure shall be in place and utilised to ensure customers cannot view or access alcohol after the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol cease.
Reasons
The Sub-Committee listened very carefully to police concerns and those raised on behalf of residents - and has had to balance those against the interests of the business. In doing so it has had to determine the extent of the impact that the proposed variation might have upon the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public nuisance and the promotion of public safety. Weight was attached to the police position as the lead in their field in accordance with the statutory guidance.
The police indicated that the premises is located in a busy nighttime economy area at the busier end of Albert Road and where there is a high concentration of licensed premises. Statistics showed the locality is the second highest area for nighttime crime (between 7pm and 7 am) in the city. It was stressed that further availability of cheaper alcohol would necessarily lead to an increase in crime and would aggravate street drinking, with a likely flash point occurring. Two specific incidents of crime related to street drinking were detailed in response to questions during the hearing.
The ward councillor indicated that the premises is located in a residential area as flats are located above shop premises and family homes are nearby. Previous hearings had led to reduced hours of other premises in the locality. Nuisance would likely increase if alcohol provision was increased at the proposed times.
For the premises it was stressed that no credible evidence had been relied upon by the police as the evidence did not correlate with or distinguish street drinking in particular. Police opinion ought not be given weight, but rather credible evidence. The power of review existed and should give considerable reassurance. The guidance is clear that the starting point is to grant the licence unless there is good reason to restrict the licence (based upon evidence). The guidance further makes plain that shops and off licences generally should be granted licences for the hours that the premises are open - again, unless there is good reason not to. The reduced hours following the latest amendment meant that the premises would stop selling alcohol before the majority of premises in the locality close and the longer hours for the provision of soft drinks and food would have a positive effect upon the existing issues (which were not disputed and were acknowledged by the reduction in hours). The premises licence holder has traded in excess of twenty years and no criticism is made of his management or the premises in question.
The Sub-Committee has had to consider whether the proposed variation is likely to undermine the licensing objectives and the argument that, in essence, there is a cumulative impact from the number of premises in this location. Police evidence was clear that the area has become far busier - particularly in relation to footfall in the last 18 months. The Sub-Committee accepted advice in private session that the premises is not located in an identified cumulative impact area and accordingly there is no reverse burden of proof. This does not prevent such arguments from being raised or prevent the refusal of licences on that basis. The test, however, that the Sub-Committee had to apply was a question of whether the proposed variation was likely, on the balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not), to lead to an increase in the issues raised by those making representations.
It is accepted by all parties that the area is a busy nighttime economy area and that it suffers a disproportionate amount of crime and disorder and nuisance as a result of the number of licensed premises. It was disputed, however, that the reported crime relied upon related to alcohol provided by off-licence premises. The Sub-Committee was clear that had the application proceeded unamended, it would have been refused.
After very careful consideration it was accepted that an additional hour of alcohol sales, with the outlined steps imposed via conditions, would not necessarily alter the dynamics of the area.
The premises licence holder should be strongly warned however, that the licence can be reviewed and incidents of concern resulting from the grant of additional hours may mean the licence is brought back for consideration at review.
There is a right of appeal for all parties to the Magistrates' Court and formal notification of the decision will set out that right in full.
Derek Stone, Principal Licensing Officer, introduced his report, noting that the application was to extend the permitted hours for alcohol sales from 11 pm to 2 am on Fridays and Saturdays. The police, a responsible authority, had objected to the application, and Councillor Mason, a ward councillor, had made a representation as he had raised concerns about disruption to residents.
Questions from members
In response to questions from members, the Principal Licensing Officer did not recall any specific issues relating to the premises.
Questions from the applicant
In response to questions from the applicant, the Principal Licensing Officer said that paragraph 10.15 of the statutory guidance relating to alcohol sales had been unintentionally omitted as the text was generated automatically. Paragraph 10.15 indicated that shops, stores and supermarkets should normally be free to provide sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises at any times that the premises are open unless there are good reasons, based on the licensing objectives, to restrict the hours.
There were no questions from the police nor from Councillor Mason.
Applicant's case
Mr Wallsgrove outlined the six points he wished to make: an amendment to the application; identification of the principal issue; the burden and standard of proof; the background to the variation; analysis of police evidence; the reasons why the application should be granted.
In view of the police's concerns, the applicant wished to amend the application on Mr Wallsgrove's advice so that alcohol sales ceased at midnight on Fridays and Saturdays but the shop remained open until 2 am so people could buy soft drinks and food. There could be a condition requiring the applicant to lock alcohol behind shutters so that customers could not select it after midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.
The issue was a narrow one. There were no concerns about the management of the premises and none about alcohol sales. The applicant had had a premises licence for 20 years and there were no issues about compliance with conditions or any adverse comments about him as a premises licence holder (PLH). The police objected that people buying alcohol would drink it in the street and add to crime and disorder. Mr Wallsgrove was not disputing there was crime and disorder but the only issue for the Sub-Committee to decide was if granting the application would add to it.
The burden and standard of proof rested with the police in this case. Paragraph 9.43 of the statutory guidance stated that the licensing authority's determination must be evidence-based. The Sub-Committee must take paragraph 10.15 into account and if they departed from it they must say why. Paragraph 16.2 recognised that licensed premises made an important contribution to the local economy. Mr Wallsgrove's clear starting point was that the revised application should be granted and only refused if (and a "big if") there was credible evidence it would lead to crime and disorder in the vicinity.
The applicant was applying to vary the licence because he had noticed a considerable change in shopping habits after Covid. Footfall in the day was sparse and income and revenue had decreased. The applicant wanted to make his business sustainable and the extra hour on the busiest days would make a substantial difference to sustainability. He believed selling soft drinks and food would have benefits as customers would go to his shop rather than buying it from takeaway outlets. People only applied for variation of a premises licence for commercial reasons. There were several convenience stores in the locality, for example, Costcutter had a licence until 2 am though operated until 1 am. The applicant had another Kwikimart nearby which was licensed until 3.30 am on Fridays and Saturdays.
The police had provided two sets of evidence but there was no information on when and where the offences took place. When Mr Wallsgrove asked for information he was only given broad terms such as "in Elm Grove". The evidence did not say how many offences were linked to drink and off-premises sales. Therefore, the statistics in Appendix 1 were completely irrelevant and added nothing to the assertion that the application would increase crime and disorder. In the second set of incidents from January to April 2025 only two (25 January and 8 March) were in the hours covered by the application; the first was an assault on door staff at on-licensed premises; the second was an assault and did not say if it was related to the premises, the sale of alcohol or street drinking. In the second set of incidents there was no correlation between the evidence and the police requirements to prove that selling alcohol would add to crime and disorder. The other offences listed happened much later and were no longer relevant now that the applicant had amended the application. Offences which took place earlier were not linked to the sale of alcohol from off-licensed premises. The police must address the committee with credible evidence and their objection did not stand on the balance of probabilities.
Summing up, there was no dispute that the premises was managed well. The applicant had numerous off-licences and always worked in partnership with the responsible authorities. For example, he stopped selling alcohol on match days at his shop in Goldsmith Avenue at the request of the police. He had taken on board concerns so had amended the application. The police have not proved the case they have asserted. Mr Wallsgrove accepted and acknowledged the risk but there was the power to review. The Licensing Act allowed responsible operators to run their businesses as they wished. If the police showed the applicant credible evidence of risk he would accept it and amend the hours. If the risk was credible then other premises in the area would have had their licences reviewed and they had not. The applicant thanked the Sub-Committee for the time taken to consider his application, and the police, with whom he would always work in partnership.
Questions from members
In response to questions from members, Mr Wallsgrove said the applicant had eleven premises licences in Portsmouth. The applicant would have conditions on the licence to prevent alcohol sales after the permitted hours as well as others such as for CCTV. It was a small convenience store, probably the smallest in the area, so staff had full visibility of the shop. He would lock displays of alcohol so people could not see it.
The shop was generally busy on Fridays and Saturdays. People bought food for the weekend, not just alcohol. In convenience stores alcohol was an ancillary sale, usually bought with food, and accounted for 15% of the applicant's sales. There were no big advertisements outside the shop and he did not sell high-strength alcohol. The premises already had a sign asking customers to respect the neighbourhood; if the application was granted the applicant would place a clear notice stating when alcohol sales ceased, which would also help ensure staff safety.
The applicant had discussed a serving hatch with the police as a mitigation measure but now the application had been amended it was not necessary (though could be in reserve). It might require a minor variation to a change of plan.
Questions from the responsible authority
In response to questions from PC Pollard, the applicant said the shop currently closed at 11 pm on Friday and Saturday. The shop could not have opened longer as it was not allowed to as it was only licensed until 11 pm.
There were no questions from Councillor Mason for the applicant.
The responsible authority's case
PC Lewington said the premises was in one of Portsmouth's four night-time economy (NTE) areas and was at the busier end of Albert Road, reflected in the number of incidents reported to the police which occurred from 7 pm to 7 am (Appendix 1). The area, which stretched from Elm Grove and the full length of Albert Road, was the second highest in the city for NTE related crime. The figures to date related to a 20 to 30m radius of the applicant's shop. There were probably other incidents but the figures showed the type occurring from 11 pm to 2 am such as disorder and sexual assault, where alcohol was the main contributory factor. If increased hours for selling alcohol were allowed it would encourage later street drinking and add to existing crime and disorder. There were initially no additional measures in the application to combat the increased risk. The police spoke to the applicant (when the hatch was mentioned along with extra door staff) and their opinion was that even with measures around the sale of alcohol it would increase crime and disorder. Mr Wallsgrove had said no crime was linked directly to the shop and although it was difficult to make the link it could create a further flashpoint like the police have seen at other venues where people hang out.
Questions from members
In response to questions from members, PC Lewington said the two highlighted incidents in Appendix 2 were in close proximity to the applicant's shop (at the top end of Albert Road and near the junction with Victoria Road South and Elm Grove).
As well as Costcutter there was a new convenience store licenced until 11 pm and there might be a couple more in the area; it was believed Costcutter sold alcohol until 2 am.
Questions from the applicant
In response to Mr Wallsgrove asking if the police accepted the contention that none of the incidents related to street drinking, PC Lewington said the list was not exhaustive; it was just to give an idea. Not all incidents were related to bars as some were outside and others at flashpoints where people congregated.
As to how much on-licensed premises had increased in the last five years, PC Lewington had not been here for five years but in the last 18 months the area had got busier and any availability of alcohol would add to problems. Albert Road was the second busiest NTE area which was reflected in the severity of the alcohol related crime the police saw reported.
The applicant had said there was not a prevalence of street drinking in the area so Mr Wallsgrove asked if the police had witnessed regular crime and disorder because of it. PC Lewington said street drinking constituted a small proportion of the statistics. In the last 12 to 18 months there had been a significant increase in footfall in Albert Road and he had witnessed crime and disorder while on duty. Asked if it related to cans and bottles, PC Pollard said he had seen two incidents; one near Deco in Elm Grove where street drinking led to blows and one near the applicant's shop. The police were concerned there were a lot of flashpoints in the area for falling outs and fights. They contended that alcohol sales would extend street drinking and the shop being open later could be a flashpoint.
No incidents had been reported at Costcutter. The applicant had never reported any incidents outside his shop. If there were any, they would have happened when the shop would have been closed.
There were no questions from Councillor Mason for the applicant.
The other person's case
Councillor Mason objected to the application on the grounds of public nuisance. He recognised that the licensing law was not the primary mechanism to deal with crime and disorder but paragraph 4.6 of the Statement of Licensing Policy (which the Licensing Committee had approved on 23 April) stated it was "a key aspect of such control." There were ten pubs and bars within a two-minute walk of the premises, some of which were very large establishments, and even more within three minutes. The majority of patrons went home quietly but there would always be a minority who drank in the street and left before premises closed to buy alcohol elsewhere. There were people shouting, fighting, vomiting, urinating and defecating. Albert Road was a residential neighbourhood with flats above the shops and houses nearby. The nuisance would extend much beyond midnight. Councillor Mason realised the Sub-Committee could not make a decision about what might happen but pointed out that another premises at 111-113 Albert Road had had its hours reduced recently such was the level of nuisance and that was in the quieter end.
There were no questions from members, nor the police nor the applicant for Councillor Mason.
Summing up
Councillor Mason had nothing else to add.
PC Pollard had no concern about the applicant or the store to date; their concern was that Albert Road had become very busy and popular leading to an increase in crime and disorder. There were places that kept people in the area, for example, public toilets, as well as late night refreshment, that could become flashpoints.
Mr Wallsgrove said that with the licence review of the applicant's shop at 111-113 Albert Road the police had made no representations. The hours were reduced but he appealed and as a result of mediation with the council it operated until 3.30 am on Fridays and Saturdays and 3 am on other days rather than 24/7. Mr Wallsgrove did not accept the assertions made at the review but it was pragmatic to avoid a lengthy appeal; the situation was not a precedent. With the current application the starting point was that it must be granted. People had to abide by opening hours stated on a licence even if no licensable activities took place which was why he was asking the Sub-Committee to consider extending alcohol sales until midnight and shop opening hours until 2 am. The vast majority of bars were open beyond midnight; quite a few were open until 1 am and some until 1.30 am. If the hours were until midnight then customers would not encounter people from on-licensed premises trying to purchase alcohol. He asked members to carefully consider again the police's evidence. They were the experts in crime and disorder and the primary source of expertise but they had not brought credible evidence. Costcutter and the applicant had not experienced issues as a result of alcohol being purchased in their stores. He asked if the police's case had been proved to the required standard on the balance of probabilities.
The Sub-Committee went into exempt session at 11.56 pm to determine the application. The Chair reminded those present that they must not discuss the application with members of the Sub-Committee outside the meeting room during the break for deliberation.
The Sub-Committee reconvened at 1.07 pm.
Decision
The Sub-Committee has considered very carefully the application for variation of a premises licence at New Kwikimart. It gave due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance and the adopted statement of licensing policy.
The Sub-Committee considered the relevant representations, both written and given at the hearing, by all parties. Human rights legislation and the public sector equality duty have been borne in mind whilst making the decision.
The Sub-Committee noted that the application sought an extension in hours for the sale of alcohol. There had been representations from the police and a ward councillor. Those objecting raise concerns in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and public nuisance. The issues of concern relating to crime and disorder arise from the concentration of late-night premises in the area which cause a higher number of incidents of assault, public disorder and sexual assault - with alcohol said to be a contributing factor. Concerns were expressed about the proximity of 24 hour toilets and late closing premises nearby as well as alleged potential drug dealing and noise which may increase if the application is granted.
It was noted that the applicant had initially offered steps to mitigate the impact, including use of a service hatch and SIA door staff, but police objection remained. At the hearing it was clarified that the application had been amended to reduce the hours for the sale of alcohol until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights and for the premises to remain open until 2.00am on those days.
After having heard all of the above evidence the Sub-Committee determined to grant the application subject to the outlined amendment, the operating schedule and the following additional premises licence conditions:
- The premises licence holder shall ensure that signage is prominently displayed at the premises - both within and visible outside the premises indicating that alcohol sales shall cease at midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings and at 23.00hrs Monday to Thursday and 22.30hrs on a Sunday.
- Lockable roller shutter blinds or other such secure measure shall be in place and utilised to ensure customers cannot view or access alcohol after the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol cease.
Reasons
The Sub-Committee listened very carefully to police concerns and those raised on behalf of residents - and has had to balance those against the interests of the business. In doing so it has had to determine the extent of the impact that the proposed variation might have upon the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public nuisance and the promotion of public safety. Weight was attached to the police position as the lead in their field in accordance with the statutory guidance.
The police indicated that the premises is located in a busy nighttime economy area at the busier end of Albert Road and where there is a high concentration of licensed premises. Statistics showed the locality is the second highest area for nighttime crime (between 7pm and 7 am) in the city. It was stressed that further availability of cheaper alcohol would necessarily lead to an increase in crime and would aggravate street drinking, with a likely flash point occurring. Two specific incidents of crime related to street drinking were detailed in response to questions during the hearing.
The ward councillor indicated that the premises is located in a residential area as flats are located above shop premises and family homes are nearby. Previous hearings had led to reduced hours of other premises in the locality. Nuisance would likely increase if alcohol provision was increased at the proposed times.
For the premises it was stressed that no credible evidence had been relied upon by the police as the evidence did not correlate with or distinguish street drinking in particular. Police opinion ought not be given weight, but rather credible evidence. The power of review existed and should give considerable reassurance. The guidance is clear that the starting point is to grant the licence unless there is good reason to restrict the licence (based upon evidence). The guidance further makes plain that shops and off licences generally should be granted licences for the hours that the premises are open - again, unless there is good reason not to. The reduced hours following the latest amendment meant that the premises would stop selling alcohol before the majority of premises in the locality close and the longer hours for the provision of soft drinks and food would have a positive effect upon the existing issues (which were not disputed and were acknowledged by the reduction in hours). The premises licence holder has traded in excess of twenty years and no criticism is made of his management or the premises in question.
The Sub-Committee has had to consider whether the proposed variation is likely to undermine the licensing objectives and the argument that, in essence, there is a cumulative impact from the number of premises in this location. Police evidence was clear that the area has become far busier - particularly in relation to footfall in the last 18 months. The Sub-Committee accepted advice in private session that the premises is not located in an identified cumulative impact area and accordingly there is no reverse burden of proof. This does not prevent such arguments from being raised or prevent the refusal of licences on that basis. The test, however, that the Sub-Committee had to apply was a question of whether the proposed variation was likely, on the balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not), to lead to an increase in the issues raised by those making representations.
It is accepted by all parties that the area is a busy nighttime economy area and that it suffers a disproportionate amount of crime and disorder and nuisance as a result of the number of licensed premises. It was disputed, however, that the reported crime relied upon related to alcohol provided by off-licence premises. The Sub-Committee was clear that had the application proceeded unamended, it would have been refused.
After very careful consideration it was accepted that an additional hour of alcohol sales, with the outlined steps imposed via conditions, would not necessarily alter the dynamics of the area.
The premises licence holder should be strongly warned however, that the licence can be reviewed and incidents of concern resulting from the grant of additional hours may mean the licence is brought back for consideration at review.
There is a right of appeal for all parties to the Magistrates' Court and formal notification of the decision will set out that right in full.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in