Venue: Committee Rooms 3 & 4, Civic Centre, Dagenham
Contact: Masuma Ahmed, Democratic Services Officer, Civic Centre, Dagenham Telephone - 020 8227 2756 / e-mail - firstname.lastname@example.org
Declaration of Members' Interests
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting.
Councillor Waker, stated that in accordance with the Council’s Licensing Policy, he would withdraw from hearing item 5 of the agenda, (application for the variation of the premises licence for Dagenham Food Store) as the premises were in the Village ward, which he represented.
The Council’s Licensing Officer presented a report in respect of an application by Costcutter, 13 – 15 High Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford to vary the premises licence for the sale of alcohol. The current licensing hours were 07.00 to 23.00 Monday to Sunday and the application sought to vary the hours to 07:00 to 01:00 Monday to Sunday.
The application was before the Board as valid representations had been received from the Chadwell Heath Residents’ Association and two local councillors. The Police had not submitted representations as the conditions they proposed had been accepted by the applicant.
Chadwell Heath Residents’ Association had requested that its Deputy Chair, Terry Justice, address the Board on its behalf with regards to its representations against the granting of the application. Mr Justice made the following points:
· The Chadwell Heath Resident’s Association recently had a meeting where members were unanimously against the application.
· Reasons for this were that the area was one which experienced constant civil unrest due to the number of outlets selling alcohol, which was a contributory factor to problems relating to anti-social behaviour.
· The granting of the application would send the wrong message to the community who felt that problems caused by alcohol consumption were extensive.
· The High Road was overly furnished with similar outlets.
· The Board was urged not to grant the variation to help preserve public order.
In response to questions, Mr Justice stated that the premises in question were approximately 50 yards away from the nearest public house and described the nature of the residential element in the area.
Having heard the submissions made the Board agreed to maintain the status quo, and refuse the application, as a strong residential element existed within the area, and in the absence of the applicant, the Board could not clarify its concerns around public nuisance.
The Council’s Licensing Officer presented a report in respect of an application by the Metropolitan Police to review the Premises licence for Club Ambassador, 20 to 30 London Road, Barking.
An expedited review relating to these Premises was heard by the Licensing Board on Wednesday 26 October 2011, and the decision the Board made was to reduce the licensing hours to 10:00 to 23.00 hours every day with immediate effect, and to remove the Designated Premises Supervisor effective from 13.00 hours on Thursday 27 October 2011. The licensing hours previous to this decision were as follows:
The Licensing Officer stated that the full review would be heard now and the Board’s decision today, if it was different, would supersede the decision of the Board on 26 October 2011.
Sarah Le Fevre, representing the Metropolitan Police stated the grounds for requesting the review as follows:
The licensees were incapable or unwilling to operate the Premises with proper regard for the Licensing Objectives. The Board would today be told about the serious crime and disorder associated with the Premises and the Board was asked to note that the Police had limited the evidence submitted to the last year.
A number of themes could be identified when considering the Licensing Objectives in relation to these Premises:
Ø The late night operation of the Premises
· All but one of the incidents listed in the Police’s evidence took place after 23.00.
· Weapons were a common theme across the incidents of crime and disorder which took place at or near the Premises. These included swords, planks, a gun and broken bottles.
· The only permanent access to the nightclub section of the Premises was via a road to the rear of the Premises, James Street, which was a small, poorly lit road that exposed customers and staff to risk of serious violence.
Ø The continuance of these occurrences despite Police input.
· The advice given to the management of the Premises was evidenced in PC Corinne Holland’s witness statement. In response to the Police raising concerns, the management’s response was that they were considering extending their hours, which was indicative of the attitude held by them.
Ø Cooperation with Police
· There were grave concerns about the extent staff at the Premises cooperated with the Police. This included the non-provision of CCTV footage required by the Police to investigation incidents which took place in the Premises and the non-cooperation of staff to assist Police with their enquiries. This included refusing to help identify the people involved in given incidents and declining to give a witness statement.
Ø Control of the Premises
· The management failed to retain control of the Premises resulting in crime and disorder issues. ... view the full minutes text for item 35.
Councillors Waker and Obasohan were absent during the entire part of the hearing for this application.
It was agreed that Councillor Keller would chair the hearing of this item.
The Council’s Licensing Officer presented a report in respect of an application by Dagenham Food Centre, 171 Church Elm Lane, Dagenham, Essex, to vary the premises licence for the sale of alcohol. The premises were currently licensed to sell alcohol from 08:00 to 23:00 Monday to Sunday and the application sought to vary the hours to 05:30 to 01:00 Sunday to Thursday and 05:30 to 02:00 Friday and Saturday.
The application was before the Board as two valid representations had been received from the Police and one from a resident.
Councillor Mullane stated that she was there to represent the resident who had made a written representation against the application and made the following points:
· The Premises were in a residential area which was an anti-social behaviour hotspot.
· There was a tendency for youths to congregate in the area and an extension of the licensing hours of these premises would exacerbate anti-social behaviour problems and amount to unacceptable noise nuisance for residents.
PC Andy O’Connor on behalf of the Police had also made written representations against the application and outlined them as follows:
· The Premises is located in a sensitive area and is currently one of the Borough’s anti-social behaviour hot spots.
· If the premises are allowed to remain open and serve alcohol during the times requested, it will inevitably attract people to the store until those times, adding to the problem associated with this area.
· The application makes mention of other shops in the area trading beyond 23.00 hours. There are no other off-licence premises in the immediate area of this store that open, or indeed have a licence to operate beyond 23.00 hours.
· The fear is that if this application were granted, other premises would start seeking similar licensing hours.
· Although it might be argued that these statements were speculation, they were based on years of knowledge and experience.
· The Police’s objections are not intended to shed a bad light on Mr Cimikoglu, the Licence Holder, as an individual, rather they were about the impact such hours would have on the crime and disorder licensing objective.
· In the further papers submitted by Mr Hassan Sal, there was information about Mr Cimikoglu’s business costs. These were not relevant considerations.
· Mr Sal was mistaken in stating in his written representations that there were no drinking controls in the area; there was a Borough-wide Designated Public Places Order (DPPO).
· The Police are opposed to this application, as in their view the risks to the Licensing Objectives are clear and there is nothing contained within this application which allays those risks.
· The local Safer Neighbourhood Team Sergeant has also written a statement supporting the Police’s objection to this application.
In response to a question from Mr Sal, PC Andy O’Connor confirmed that there were signs in the area stating that the Borough ... view the full minutes text for item 36.
The Licensing Officer stated that there were no appeals to report.
To view PDF files you need to have the free Adobe Reader installed.
© MMVI London Borough
of Barking and Dagenham
Telephone: 020 8215 3000
Fax: 020 8227 2806