Tooting shop denied 2am alcohol sales after police objections

A convenience store in Tooting has been refused permission to extend its alcohol sales hours to 2am daily. KK Convenience Store, located on Tooting High Street, had applied to change its licence to allow alcohol sales until 2am every day, an extension from its current 11pm limit.

Police and Council Opposition

Both the Metropolitan Police and Wandsworth Council's environmental services and licensing officers opposed the application. The store is situated within the Tooting Broadway Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), an area where new licence applications are typically refused if they are likely to worsen existing problems.

PC Belinda Loizou, a licensing officer for the Met Police, stated at the licensing hearing on August 19 that extending the hours would likely contribute to increased anti-social behaviour and crime. She noted that police data indicated rising crime levels in Tooting Broadway and that late-night alcohol availability was identified as a contributing factor to these issues.

Russ Stevens, Wandsworth's principal licensing officer, added that the area is already saturated with alcohol vendors. He explained that supplying more alcohol in a cumulative impact zone, regardless of how well a business is managed, would inevitably have a negative effect by increasing availability and potentially exacerbating reported problems associated with alcohol.

Licensing Committee Decision

Shop owners Kavikumar Paramasivam and Karthick Siva Subramanian had argued that the extended hours would benefit their business and that they would adhere to all licence conditions. They proposed restrictions on high-strength alcohol sales and a ban on single cans, with Mr. Siva Subramanian suggesting a midnight extension as an alternative.

However, the licensing committee ruled against granting any extension. In their report, the committee cited vagueness in the information provided by the shop owners during the hearing, expressing concern that they may not have fully understood the implications of their application. The committee concluded that the owners had not demonstrated why an exception should be made to the CIZ policy.