The Hammersmith and Fulham Licensing Sub-Committee met to discuss an application for a new premises licence for Sharn Local, but ultimately decided to reject the application, citing concerns about the prevention of crime and disorder. The committee heard from the applicant, responsible authorities, and local objectors before making their decision.

Sharn Local Licence Application

The sub-committee considered an application for a new premises licence for Sharn Local, located at 51 Fulham Broadway, London SW6 1AE. The applicant, Prabakaran Shanmugaratnam, sought permission to sell alcohol off the premises between 10:00 and 23:00, Monday to Sunday, and to open to the public between 08:00 and 02:00. After hearing from all parties, the committee decided to reject the application.

Arguments for granting the licence

Lewis Stelling, the agent for the applicant from Coleridge Law, expressed the applicant's acceptance that the premises had failed to meet some licence conditions over the last year, but also raised concerns about finger pointing at the premises as the cause or the main indicator of problems . He stated that the drug-related paraphernalia found on the premises was a staffing error and was immediately removed. He also said that the applicant was willing to engage with the local community and attend ward meetings if invited.

Prabakaran Shanmugaratnam said that the breaches were isolated incidents and honest mistakes that were immediately rectified. He also outlined steps taken to address concerns, such as training staff and implementing cashless payments for alcohol purchases. He said that he had made requests to connect with local parties, but was unaware of the ward community meetings.

Arguments against granting the licence

Charlotte Bennett from the Metropolitan Police, objected to the application, citing breaches of the existing licence conditions, including the sale of strong beer above 5.5% ABV¹ and the display of drug paraphernalia. She also referenced police databases, stating that the Fulham Broadway ward experiences higher levels of anti-social behaviour, violent offences, and theft compared to neighbouring wards. Bennett stated that, in her opinion, the shop was contributing to street drinking, drug use, and associated disorder. James Dismore, representing the licensing authority, summarised the premises' long history of non-compliance and enforcement action, including repeated licence reviews and revocations since 2018. He stated that breaches had continued under different licence holders, including the current applicant, and that concerns remained that individuals connected to former licence holders may still have influence over the business. He did not believe that imposing further conditions would be sufficient to promote the licensing objectives or prevent further non-compliance.

Daisy Armstrong, a local resident, objected to the application based on the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of the welfare of the local community. She said that when Sharn Local previously held an alcohol licence, problems with antisocial behaviour, street drinking, and public urination were constant. She added that the business had failed to engage with residents or improve its behaviour, and that alcohol could still be purchased from the shop out of licensing hours.

Charlotte Dexter, speaking on behalf of John Scalding, said that the problems were symptomatic and systemic, and that residents had been putting up with them for several years. She said that there were concerns about children buying vapes and alcohol from the shop, and that the applicant had shown a disregard for the conditions of the licence.

Sarah Chambers, chair of the Wallen Green Ward panel, said that the premises was the only shop in the ward that was regularly mentioned at ward panel meetings in the context of licensing issues. She said that the store was known for people hanging around outside, and that there were concerns about the legitimacy of some of the stock in the shop.

Licensing Policy Considerations

The sub-committee was required to consider the application in light of the four licensing objectives² and the council's Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP). Key considerations included:

• Whether the licensed activities were likely to have an adverse impact on residents.
• Whether there would be a substantial increase in the cumulative adverse impact from these or similar activities on an adjacent residential area.
• Whether the applicant had demonstrated steps to prevent nuisance, prevent disturbance and protect amenity.
• The proximity to areas where children may congregate.
• Any risk posed to the local area by the applicants' proposed licensable activities.

The SLP also provides suggested closing times for licensed premises, with off-licences and alcohol sales in supermarkets in residential areas suggested to close at 22:00 daily.

Committee Questions

Councillor Dominic Stanton, Opposition Whip, asked about labels on alcohol containers and questioned the applicant about repeated breaches of licence conditions. He also asked Charlotte Bennett about the legality of an advertising sign at the premises.

Councillor Wesley Harcourt, Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Ecology, questioned how much of the general crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) could be directly attributed to Sharn Local. He also asked about underage sales and the connection between the current applicant and previous licence holders.

Committee Decision

Ultimately, the committee decided to reject the application for a new premises licence.