5
The Sub-Committee received report ES/2159 regarding an application for a new premises licence for Foxhall Road Stores, 698 Foxhall Road, Rushmere St Andrew for the supply of alcohol off-sales, Monday to Sunday 06:00 to 23:00.
The Legal Advisor outlined the procedure to be followed and the Licensing Officer explained that the hearing was required because eight representations opposing the application had been received and had not been withdrawn. Across all eight representations against the application there was a constant concern about anti- social behaviour and noise disturbance. There were no objections from the responsible authorities.
The Licensing Officer ran through the report and identified several points for the Sub-Committee to consider:
•
the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003;
•
the Council’s current Statement of Licensing Policy; and
•
The Human Rights Act 1998
She explained that if the Sub-Committee had reason to depart from these it was asked to give full reasons for doing so.
The Sub-Committee was requested to determine the application through one of the following options: 1) granting the application subject to any mandatory conditions and to those consistent with the application, 2) granting the application subject to the same conditions but modified to such extent as the Sub-Committee considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives, or 3) by rejecting the application. The Licensing Officer advised that the Sub-Committee must state its reasons when announcing its decision.
The Chair invited the Sub-Committee, Legal Advisor, Applicant and Objectors to ask questions of the Licensing Officer. There was only one question from an Objector who asked about the change of use and if the hours were subject to planning.
The Licensing Officer explained that this was a hearing of the Licensing Sub- Committee which had no regulation over planning law so classes of use and change of use could not be commented on.
The Chair invited the Applicant’s Agent, Mr Suresh Kanapathi, to present their case. Mr Kanapathi gave a brief overview, explaining that the premises was previously used as a fruit and veg shop so it was thought to be Class E. He explained that a planning consultant was dealing with the planning application separately and so he would just focus on the licensing element. Due to the objections received he said the applicant would like to amend the licensing opening hours to start at 8am rather than 6am but would like to stay open until 11pm in line with other local shops.
With regards to antisocial behaviour Mr Kanapathi felt it was unfair to link previous incidents of antisocial behaviour with this premises as this shop had not existed before. He stated that they would promote the four licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003.
Regarding the protection of children from harm they would take steps to ensure they did not sell to under 18s. This included implementing the Challenge 25 policy and ensuring that if groups came in to make purchases they would ID the whole group to ensure no proxy sales took place. Mr Kanapathi explained that the Applicant was very experienced, having run another shop for many years and that the police have not raised any concerns about the Applicant.
In relation to concerns about disorder and crime, a number of conditions would be in place including CCTV, incident record books and signage as well as staff training. The Applicant and his wife would work with local people and would do everything they could to prevent antisocial behaviour. The Applicant would clear up any litter and there would be a bin outside so the area was always kept clean.
Responding to the concerns about delivery vehicles, Mr Kanapathi explained that there wouldn’t be large vehicles as it is a small store and supplies would mainly be brought by car from the cash and carry.
Mr Kanapathi concluded that it was a small store but felt it would be useful for the local residents. He also didn’t feel that there were many objections considering the number of houses in the local area. He reiterated that the Applicant would do everything to promote the licensing objectives and the complaints about parking were not relevant as this is an area with other commercial premises nearby.
The Chair thanked Mr Kanapathi and asked for clarification about the change of hours and if that was acceptable. The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that changing the hours was fine and if the Sub-Committee agreed those hours that is what would be put into the licence.
The Chair invited questions to Mr Kanapathi.
Councillor Hedgley thanked Mr Kanapathi for his presentation and asked about the Applicant’s experience of running shops. Mr Kanapathi stated that the Applicant had been a shop owner for more than 10 years and lived locally.
Councillor Thompson asked if they would open the shop earlier than 8am and not sell alcohol. Mr Kanapathi confirmed that the licensing hours would be from 8am but the shop would open from 6am to sell things like newspapers and milk that are wanted early in the day.
The Chair invited questions from the Objectors.
Objector One said his key issues were the hours and noise as he lives opposite. He was concerned about the noise disturbance for the school aged and young children who live above the shop and opposite. Although there wasn’t antisocial behaviour here at the moment, there were issues at Harry’s One Stop further along.
The Objector continued that he didn’t have an issue with competition or an 8am start. However, he was concerned about the 11pm finish, stating that this was the time they already experienced problems with people walking back from the golf and they could potentially buy alcohol in an already drunken state on the way home.
Mr Kanapathi asked what noise the Objector was concerned about. The Objector explained it wasn’t from the shop but from the potential of people gathering outside.
Councillor Thompson explained that we cannot punish behaviour if it hasn’t already happened.
The Chair reminded everyone that this hearing must be kept to Licensing and that if there was any antisocial behaviour it would be picked up by the police and they would refer it back to the East Suffolk Licensing team. The second Objector believed that you could use the example of other local stores as evidence as to what could happen.
The Senior Licensing Officer explained that she understood the residents’ fears about groups congregating outside the premises, but as there was no evidence of this happening now it was hard for the Sub-Committee to make a judgement on what might happen.
The Senior Licensing Officer asked Mr Kanapathi about the Designated Premises Supervisor, who she assumed was the Applicant’s wife, and how much experience she had. Mr Kanapathi said she was the Applicant’s wife and she was experienced as they have worked together for a number of years.
Objector Two asked for clarity on how the shop would be staffed if open from 6am to 11pm. Mr Kanapathi explained there would be at least two other staff working for them.
Objector One asked if the licence holder had to be on site the whole time or if it could be delegated. The Senior Licensing Officer explained that they did not, and nor did the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). But it was good practice for the DPS to authorise staff in her absence.
The Chair then invited the Objectors to make any further representations, noting that the Sub-Committee had received their written objections.
Objector Two realised that some of the objections he had would not be relevant to a licensing hearing. He gave his experience of living in the area and concerns about another of this type of premises being opened in the area. He thanked the Sub-Committee for holding this hearing. He explained that residents had concerns about the store and the unsavoury clientele it may attract. They already experienced youths driving at speed along the road, throwing litter from their cars and being disrespectful when they visited the nearby One Stop. He had concerns about people’s safety that covered all four licensing objectives.
He continued to voice concern that it will encourage vulnerable people out of central Ipswich to the outer neighbourhoods and referenced two recent incidents of someone walking along Foxhall road drunk just after lunchtime and another of a man with a can of beer in his hand and more cans in a carrier bag at 9.30am. This was all very close to the local primary school. He had not witnessed such events before but believed that the upsurge of local stores has drawn vulnerable people out of Ipswich into the outer neighbourhoods. He explained that this stretch of Foxhall Road was very heavily used by people dropping children to the local primary school. He had concerns about parking and additional traffic and incidents occurring and referenced the photographs he had supplied.
The Chair asked him to stay on licensing issues and that parking was not relevant to this Sub-Committee.
Objector One agreed to stick to licensing concerns and not reference parking. He was happy with an 8am start but was concerned about closing at 11pm and groups gathering at this time. He had no issues about consumption on premises as it was for off sales only or about competition but struggled to understand how this shop will be able to compete. He also stated that if there was antisocial behaviour he would bring it back to the relevant committee as well as the police. He was concerned about broken bottles on the pavement and the danger for local children going to the local schools. He had already seen broken glass but appreciated these were potential problems.
Councillor Hedgley thanked the Objectors for their presentations. He sympathised with their fears about antisocial behaviour. He asked where these unsavoury people from outside the area were coming from and felt that the Objectors’ fears are slightly exaggerated. Antisocial behaviour happens here anyway so he struggled to understand how this shop would make things worse. Crime and disorder would be reported to the police who would come back to East Suffolk Council if necessary. He was happy with the measures being put in place.
Objector One imagined that unsavoury people will come from Ipswich town centre and use the different licensed premises as stepping stones to buy alcohol.
Councillor Thompson asked how many other licensed premises there were between here and Ipswich Town Centre. The Senior Licensing Officer answered that the only other one nearby in East Suffolk was the One Stop. This location is close to the border with Ipswich Borough Council so East Suffolk is not responsible for the other shops.
The Legal Adviser asked what time of day the photographs were taken. Objector One confirmed they were taken at school time around 8.30am.
There was nothing further from the Licensing Officer or Applicant. Objector Two asked if the licence could be curtailed at 10pm rather than 11pm. The Legal Adviser asked if the Applicant would be happy with 10pm. Mr Kanapathi said he would be happy to meet in the middle with 10.30pm.
The Sub-Committee, Legal Advisor and Democratic Services Officer adjourned to consider their decision. On their return the Chair read the following decision notice:
Decision Notice
Kirisanthy Senthilkumaran (the applicant) has applied for a new premises licence at Foxhall Road Stores, 698 Foxhall Road, Rushmere St Andrew, to permit the sale of alcohol for off sales from 6am to 11pm Monday to Sunday.
This Sub-Committee has been held as eight representations against the application had been received. Across all eight representations against the application there was a constant concern for antisocial behaviour and noise disturbance.
The Sub-Committee first heard from the Licensing Officer, who summarised the report. They had not received any objections from statutory consultees and they had no concerns with the application.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the applicant’s agent Suresh Kanapathi who confirmed that having taken into account the representations, the applicant was willing to amend the licensable hours from 6am to 11pm to 8am to 11pm. The applicant’s agent highlighted that as this is a new premises licence it is unfair to project that additional antisocial behaviour will occur as a result of granting this licence. The applicant’s agent highlighted the licensing objectives and assured the Sub-Committee that the applicant will promote these. The applicant will put in place preventative measures including Challenge 25, CCTV and signage. When questioned by the Sub-Committee the applicant’s agent confirmed that the applicant has more than ten years’ experience as a licence holder.
There were eight representations from interested parties who objected to the application. The objectors’ main concerns were in relation to the shop attracting individuals that may exhibit antisocial behaviour. The objectors were also unhappy with the proposed licensable hours, particularly the late time of 11pm, and the detrimental impact this premises could have on local children and vulnerable individuals. One of the objectors stated that they would be happier with the licensable hours ending at 10pm. The applicant’s agent was willing to compromise so that the licensable hours end at 10.30pm.
The decision of the Sub-Committee
The Sub-Committee, having considered the application, the Licensing Officer’s report and the representations, the Sub-Committee has decided to grant the application for an off sales licence however the licensable hours are modified to Monday to Sunday 8am to 10.30pm.
Reasons for decision
In arriving at this decision, the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the representations of both the applicant’s agent and objectors as well as the Licensing Officer’s report. The Sub-Committee also considered the Council’s own licensing guidance and statement of licensing policy, as well as the Statutory Section 182 guidance, and Human Rights Act 1998.
The Sub-Committee noted the representations from interested parties, however some of the points made fell outside of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee understands that although the objectors had concerns about potential antisocial behaviour these could not be proven because the shop is not currently open.
The Sub-Committee took great weight in making its decision upon the lack of responses from responsible authorities, most notably the Police in relation to antisocial behaviour.
The Sub-Committee notes that the representations stated that there were already a number of similar premises in the area. The Council’s guidance does not currently have a policy in place in relation to competition of similar premises. Therefore, the Sub-Committee should consider the impact of a new licence on individual merit. As the applicant’s agent agreed to amend the hours applied for and has committed to put in place measures to uphold the licensing objectives the Sub-Committee is therefore confident that the applicant will promote the licensing objectives.
Anyone affected by this decision has the right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receiving notice of the decision.
Date: 20 November 2024
The Chair thanked those that attended for agenda item 5 and asked for a brief adjournment before proceeding to item 6.