Agenda item

In the matter of this Premises Licence review,the Committee has considered all the relevant representations made by all parties.

The Committee has made the following determination with a view to ensuring the promotion of the licensing objectives in accordance with the provisions of the secretary of state’s guidance and the principles of our licensing policy:

With a view to ensuring the promotion of the licensing objectives, in accordance with the provisions of the statutory guidance and the principles of our licensing policy, the premises licence was revoked and the interim steps imposed by the Committee at the expedited hearing held on 25 October be continued for 21 days after the date of this letter.

In coming to a determination the Committee considered the following matters;

1.      Members of the Committee considered the representations made by the Metropolitan Police. On 22 September 2018, two males were assaulted outside the premises. One male was left with a serious head injury; he is still in hospital and has a significant brain injury which is life changing. The suspect of the assault is a member of staff at the above named premises.

2.      The Committee noted that the suspect has admitted assaulting the male. He is co-owner of the premises.

3.      Members noted that staff had not been co-operative towards Police following the assault. As part of the investigation, Police seized the CCTV from the shop. The Police need the code to the CCTV but it has not been given to Police despite several requests. One member of staff went to the Police station to retrieve the CCTV but reports were that this member of staff was aggressive and under the influence of alcohol.

4.      The Committee also noted a number of breaches including:

·         The CCTV only stores and records for three days instead of 31 days.

·         There were no records regarding the refusals of the sale of alcohol for a year despite several street drinkers being patrons of the premises.

5.      The Committee noted the presentation from the Crime, Enforcement and Regulation Team. Officers visited the premises after the incident. One member of staff was witnessed as joking about ‘laying out a crackhead in one punch’.

6.      Members of the Committee noted the presentation made by the applicant’s representative and the two statements circulated at the meeting. One was from the premises licence holder who stated that she has run her business without any incidents since 2014. She is known in the community as a helpful, caring person. She was not at the premises at the time of the incident but knows of the two males because they are always drunk, high on drugs and cause problems in the community.

7.      The Committee noted the statement of the PLH’s son in law. He said that he has been a business man for 10 years and has always run his businesses in accordance with the law. He went to the Police Station to retrieve the CCTV but officers would not give it to him because he did not know the password they wanted. He was not drunk because he does not drink alcohol.

8.      The Committee noted the presentation made by the owner of a business near to the premises. She said that she had been on Lewisham Way for 20 years. She said that the P.L.H of the Can Food Centre is a good business woman and street drinkers have caused a lot of problems in the area. Despite several calls to the Police regarding drug and alcohol related crime, the situation does not improve for the community.

9.      Although the Committee sympathised with the concerns of the local community, they could not condone anyone taking the law into their own hands and were not confident that the Licensing Objectives were being upheld.

10.    In order to uphold the licensing objectives, it was considered appropriate and measured that the premises licence for Can Food Centre be revoked.

The decision of the Committee, takes effect as set out above, namely in 21 days (unless appealed against), and in the meantime, the interim steps – namely the suspension of the licence shall remain in force.

3.1      The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and introductions were made. She then invited Ms Hooper to introduce the application.

            Licensing Officer   

3.2      Ms Hooper said that members were being asked to consider an application for a review of a premises licence for Mace Stores, 111 Deptford High Street SE8 4NS. The application had been sought by Frank Olaniran, Crime, Enforcement and Regulations Officer on the grounds of public nuisance, crime and disorder. Ms Hooper then outlined the current licence and licensable hours.

            Applicant

3.3      Mr Olaniran said that for approximately 3 ½ years the Crime, Enforcement and Regulation (CER) Service, has routinely been involved in tackling alcohol related anti-social behaviour reported to be taking place at Margaret McMillan Park, Douglas Way and Giffin Square. Mace Stores is situated in the middle of these locations.

3.4      The CER service has received reports from local residents of noise nuisance including shouting, the playing of loud music, urinating on properties, fighting generated from street drinkers, drug dealing/ taking and offensive comments towards women. The local M.P has received a lot of complaints about this problem and has walked around the area with police and local authorities. Young women identified a congregation of males on Douglas Way as particularly distressing to young residents.

3.5      On 17 August 2018, the CER and Police undertook an operation enforcing the Public Space Protection Order. During this co-operation, officers confiscated in excess of 25 cans and bottles of alcohol. When approached during the operation, males were in an intoxicated state and subsequently threatened violence towards officers as a consequence of removing their alcohol from them. Officers noted that many of the street drinkers were customers of Mace Store.

3.6      As a result of this enforcement day, a known street drinker was arrested for being drunk and disorderly outside the premises. Despite Police presence, one of the street drinkers proceeded to threaten officers. He confirmed that he had purchased his alcohol form Mace Store. This was confirmed on CCTV footage observed on 28 August 2018.

3.7      CER Officers attempted to obtain/review CCTV footage within the premises on 17 August 2018. As officers waited for the DPS to arrive, officers observed a customer entering the premises with an open container of alcohol and purchase a mini bottle of rum having advised shop staff that the rum was not for him. Officers noted that the member of staff was initially reluctant to authorise the sale, however preceded with the transaction, it was only when the customer requested a can of alcohol that the sale was refused.

3.8      Officers requested to view the sale of refusal log for the premises. The last entry made was on 3 August 2017. During discussions with the staff and the DPS, officers were advised that shop staff found it difficult to detect if a customer was drunk.

3.9      On 24 August 2018, the DPS was unable to operate the CCTV and allowed CER officers to access the unit. Officers observed the street drinkers who had seized alcohol from them in the premises; they were seen purchasing alcohol. It was noted that within a period of 10 minutes, 4 street drinkers were observed purchasing cans of alcohol in the premises.

3.10    In Sgt Hughes’s evidence, officers arrest a street drinker for being drunk and disorderly. During the time of this arrest, many of the drinkers who had been seen on the CCTV footage were in the area when the arrest took place. Drinkers are comfortable entering the premises no matter how they present themselves, to purchase alcohol.  They are comfortable loitering in the area.

3.11    Following playback of these incidences, the DPS and staff were apologetic, having seen the contraventions they had committed. Officers have concerns regarding the safeguarding of the key licensing objectives and feel that recommendations made are necessary to uphold the licensing objectives. The DPS has now begun to implement good practice in the business.

3.12    Conditions had been recommended to the DPS. They were all agreed with the exception of two; the removal of the DPS and the joining of the Safer Neighbourhood Business Partnership.

3.13    The removal of the DPS was recommended following several visits to Mace Store. The DPS was not seen and had to be contacted to attend the premises and meet with officers. While it is not mandatory for a DPS to be present to authorise all sales of alcohol, there is no evidence of any strict policing of alcohol sales. Concerns have arisen as to the DPS’s ability to ensure that staff exercise responsible sales in his absence and his failure to maintain a robust level of caution in selling alcohol.

3.14    The joining of the Safer Neighbourhood Business Partnership was recommended as a means of assisting the business in tackling the alcohol related anti social behaviour they have experienced occasionally at the premises. It is an important measure because the premises is situated in close proximity to a Cumulative Impact Zone.

3.15    In conclusion, Mr Olaniran confirmed that despite the DPS advising of issues experienced at the premises with aggressive street drinkers, the Police have advised that between January 2018 and August 2018 there have been only 3 calls to the Police. A further 3 more call outs were made to the Police after CER officers’ involvement in the premises.

3.16    Mr Power said that the area in which the premises is located, has been identified by the licensing authority as being acutely affected by the associated effects of alcohol related anti social behaviour. As such, the area has been incorporated within the exiting Cumulative Impact Zone for New Cross by way of the licensing authority’s licensing policy.

3.17    Mr Power said that he has been working closely with the PLH since 2015 and this is evidenced in the report. The existing super strength alcohol scheme holds a monthly meeting with every associated member in an effort to bridge a gap where licensees are not able to report crimes to the Police or CER.  In addition there has been a licensing workshop in response to an increase in crime and anti social behaviour. Mr Power met with every licensed premises on Deptford High Street and went through all that is expected of a licensee. Mr Power has also been meeting with management at the premises weekly, making sure they had no issues regarding anti social behaviour and that they had a platform to raise issues if they did experience any problems. Nothing was ever brought to officers’ attention.

3.18    Mr Power referred to a letter from a member of the public who confirms the effect that anti social behaviour has had on local residents. The resident has stated that there were over 90 separate police cad reports between June 2017 and at the time of the report.

3.19    Mr Power confirmed receipt of the licensee’s bundle. He disputed Mr Sanghera’s claim made on page 7 paragraph 9 where he states that the CER service failed to forward or issue any advice prior to seeking a premises review. The CER service has assisted the DPS for over 3 years; this is not a service offered to all businesses, it has been targeted towards Mace Stores. Mr Sanghera also claims that the Police’s inability to attend call outs has effectively deterred staff at the premises from calling Police. He considered such a remark as justifying the need to bridge an obvious vacuum and the reason why the service supports the recommendation.

3.20    It is the view of the CER service that the Safer Neighbourhood Business Partnership is an independent organisation which can hold the Police accountable. Mr Sanghera claims that membership of this organisation is too expensive; the cost equates to a fee of £10 per week. It is applicable to all new applicants seeking a premises licence within a CIZ or the immediate locality.

3.21    Statutory guidance provided to licensing authorities states that the licensing authority should aim to consider the potential burden that a condition would place on a Premises Licence Holder, including a financial burden. However, it is important that the authority ensures that factors which form the basis of its determination are linked to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

3.22    Mr Power referred to the other condition to which Mr Sanghera did not agree, that of the removal of the DPS. He noted Mr Sanghera’s response to officers observing four intoxicated sales within a 10 minutes period. Mr Sanghera queried as to officers merely recognising the men on the day. In fact officers did not have any interaction with the men. It states clearly in the report that all four men were served with requests to surrender their alcohol. All four incidents occurred within a time frame of 10 minutes.

3.23    Mr Power accepts Mr Sanghera’s subsequent efforts but he is still concerned about:

·         Allowing disorderly conduct in and around a licenced premises

·         Selling alcohol to a person who is drunk

·         Obtaining alcohol for a person who is drunk

3.24    In conclusion, Mr Power said that these offences are not in keeping with the expectations placed on a DPS. Therefore, whilst recent efforts are admirable, CER officers have been working with the premises for more than 3 years but the breaches have continued and it is evident that local residents have been adversely affected as a consequence. He does not have confidence in the current DPS. It is admirable that following a year of no records in the incident log, this has increased to 164 within two months. There has not been any regard to training for staff. He drew members’ attention to the letter of complaint received from a local resident. He said that there have been fewer complaints since the CER service has been working with the premises.

3.25    Councillor Elliott said that management and staff claim that customers threaten them if they do not serve them alcohol; he asked officers whether they had witnessed or seen footage of any threats. Mr Power said that there has been a platform for the premises to report any threats but nothing has been reported.  

3.26    Councillor Feis-Bryce said that the Mr Sanghera did not agree with two conditions, particularly the removal of the DPS. He asked whether officers considered it sufficient if all other conditions were agreed, bearing in mind that the DPS had made efforts to uphold the licensing objectives. Mr Power did not consider it to be sufficient. He said that officers had gone out of their way to educate the DPS and having exhausted all avenues were now adhering to Lewisham’s enforcement policy.

3.27    Councillor Feis-Bryce said that there had been claims that Police do not respond to incidents and this has been a disincentive for staff to call them. He asked whether there is a record of reports having been made. Mr Olaniran said that he checked with Police; between January and August 2018; there were three calls. A further 3 calls were made to Police after CER involvement in August. Reports were made of suspicious behaviour, inconsiderate behaviour and violence against a person. There were no reports relating to people being intoxicated.

3.28    Councillor Feis-Bryce asked what effect assessment officers have made on the impact of anti-social behaviour in the area and on other businesses. Mr Olaniran said that work is on-going. Officers do not claim that Mace is responsible for all anti-sociable behaviour following sales of alcohol but it is the most accessible premises for street drinkers. Officers are working with all other licensed premises in the area and have brought this information to committee following their findings on 17 August 2018.

Representations

3.29    Mr Sanghera’s legal representative, Mr Uppal, made a presentation on his behalf. He said that all members of staff had attended this meeting. They have run a successful business for 35 years without any issues. Alcohol related anti-social behaviour affects them and their business, they are one of the nearest businesses to Deptford High Street where most of the anti-social behaviour has been identified. If staff sell alcohol to street drinkers they could lose their licence, but they have had their windows smashed when these people have not been served alcohol.

3.30    Mr Uppal said management co-operate with Police and have helped them with convictions in the past. On one occasion 3 individuals were prosecuted for antisocial behaviour related offences and management were witnesses for Police in court.

3.31    2 ½ years ago, CER officers advised the family not to sell super strength beers which they have done. They have learned about the issues and have seen the residents’ objections. Mr and Mrs Sanghera are co-operative but they are an elderly couple who have been running their business for 35 years in the same way.

3.32    Mr Uppal said the DPS was not present in August when the Police visited the premises, and they questioned how staff were managed in his absence, but staff are all family, and he is usually on the premises so they do not understand why it is recommended that the DPS be removed. There was no warning of the visit. They have not had any problem with their licence in the past and they have run a successful business without any conditions.

3.33    Mr Uppal said that the local authority installed benches in the area and it marked the beginning of increase in alcohol related anti-social behaviour. It had been agreed that theses benches should be removed but this had not happened and the number of street drinkers continues to rise as they congregate in the local area.

3.34    Mr Uppal referred to the document circulated by Mr Sanghera. He said that it addressed all conditions including:

• An incident log in use and kept up to date
• Challenge 25 implemented
• Training has started
• CCTV – Police are given access and staff are still learning how to operate it.

3.35    Mr Uppal said that one of the recommended conditions is that Mr Sanghera should join the Safer Neighbourhood Business Partnership. This costs £525 per year and is too expensive for a small shop; joining the partnership should be voluntary. This is the first time that the premises licence has been reviewed, the family have worked at this shop for 35 years and it would be unfair if these conditions were imposed on their licence.

3.36    Councillor Millbank asked how long Mr Sanghera has had a licence. Mr Uppal said that Mr Sanghera has had his licence for 35 years at the same premises. Mr Power confirmed that the licence was granted under grandfather rights.

3.37    Councillor Elliott said that staff at the premises claim that they find it difficult to refuse alcohol to street drinkers for fear of reprisals. He asked whether they could manage these situations now that the changes have been made because they are on the edge of a Cumulative Impact Zone and there is an onus on staff to really adhere to the regulations in that area. Also, they claimed to have reported some incidents to Police but they had no record of these reports. He asked when they claimed to have made these reports of threatening behaviour from customers.      Ms Sanghera said that some of the reports made, were regarding anti-social behaviour within the shop made as a result of staff not selling alcohol to a street drinker. That individual was aggressive and smashed things inside the shop. It was reported to the Police, the case went on to the court and the person was prosecuted. Ms Sanghera said on another occasion, the shop has a flat roof, and at 5am one morning, a group of 10-15 individuals who all had alcohol with them, climbed onto this roof. The Police were called and asked them to leave; they were all intoxicated. Sometimes incidents are small and not reported because they are costly and they take time.

3.38    Mr Power said that he has been supporting the premises for 3 ½ years, and during this time the CER service have held monthly multi-disciplinary risk assessments where local businesses in the area, meet with Police, Safer Lewisham Partnership and the CER. They were offered a tailored platform on which they could report Anti-Social Behaviour. Since officers’ involvement, there has not been any interaction with the premises; management have not approached CER officers for advice. Mr Power understands that the environment is a factor particularly because of the installation of street benches, however, officers are aware that there is a concentration of support services in Deptford and the responsibility relies with the DPS to uphold the licensing objectives.

3.39    Members of the Committee then withdrew to make their decision. When they           returned it was:

RESOLVED thatall conditions recommended by the Crime, Enforcement and Regulation service be added to the premises licence.

3.40    Ms Der Man said that an appeal may be made against this decision to the Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of the decision letter which would be sent out within 5 days of the meeting.