A juicy one for SE5 to chew

[TommyD]

I think there's a good op for the Forum to step up - but as always, the time is short.

On 21 June 7pm, the Licencing committee will finally start consultation on a 'saturation policy'.  That is, can we legally have a policy to deny alcohol licenses because frankly, there are already too many in that spot and they cause too much trouble now.  They are taking views - a coherent view by the Forum would be a great contribution. Here's the report: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/uploads/file_27669.pdf

Incidentally, just days earlier, 4T4 is up for its license, which has some upset because, you guessed it, the area is already 'saturated' with similar places that have a record of problems.  You can read that report here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/uploads/file_27540.pdf

I've not dog in the 4T4 fight but overall, the introduction of a saturation policy would have ramifcations for those who do, and for all of us fed up with being South London's 24 hour off licence with space galore to sit and drink post purchase.

[Mark Dodds]

A good call TommyD.

[UncleSam]

Looking quickly at the saturation report you will see that of the 5 areas across Southwark it is Camberwell that has the highest figures in total (between 11pm-4am) for violence against the person (roughly a seventh of the Borough total), calls to the police for disturbances in or near licensed premises (roughly a tenth of the Borough total) and ambulance pick ups. All of this coincides with the highest number of licensed premises (76) being in Camberwell, but this is an underestimation as it obviously excludes those premises right on the border based in Lambeth and other off license premises which give a truer figure at around 120-130 premises. Local people have made the connection between alcohol and crime on a repeated basis over the years but it has fallen on deaf ears at the Council. This taken with the number of medical and social service facilties dealing with alcohol-related illnesses and rehabilitation makes one wonder if Camberwell is not treated as a merry-go-round based on the consumption of alcohol? As well as the Licensing Committee meeting on 21st June at the same time we also have the application for late night drinking and dancing at 44 Camberwell Church Street being considered by the Committee on 18th June (10am at the Town Hall).  It is important therefore that as many local people as possible attend both meetings to show their concerns about this issue. A saturation policy once adopted will allow the Council to take into consideration the number and type of licensed premises already within an area. Surely something long overdue for Camberwell!         

[Regeneguru]

Once again, TommyD draws attention to an issue of critical importance, which the Forum could use for a quick and simple win for the citizens of Camberwell if we find a way to articulate the opinions of our members en masse.

One way would be to introduce a simple voting widget on the site, which people are more likely to use than the discussion board, to illustrate whether they agree on the link between licences and crime, and that there are far too many such licences at present.  However, such a voting widget – linked to the membership database - might prove expensive and complicated to design, as I understand (unless anyone else knows to the contrary?).  It would certainly be worth its weight in gold as the 363 existing online local members would make their feelings known, and these results would be incorporated into ad hoc Forum deputations.

@ UncleSam:

At a recent Executive meeting one officer argued that the licensing committee had a «duty to satisfy market demand».  However:

1. Not all licensed premises survive by virtue of their sale of alcohol.  It is possible for a Costcutter to make a loss on its alcohol sales, and survive on profits from groceries.

2. The survival of licensed premises says nothing about the level of satisfaction of demand, because such premises can operate at a low percentage of capacity, such as below 20%, and still survive due to their high turnover. 

These licensed premises contribute to the kind of criminality which only their type of high turnover business can absorb, thus weakening other forms of independent business which could otherwise contribute towards the diversity of the area.

Because this leads to greater difficulty for local entrepreneurs, it is even possible to argue that the current licensing policy in Camberwell is indirectly racially discriminatory and so illegal under the Race Relations Act.  This is because members of local ethnic groups likely to be discriminated out of contention for the commuter jobs which many of us take for granted rely disproportionately on local enterprise for a route out of poverty, and restricting their realistic options to premises involving alcohol licences and fast food outlets, whilst high turnover, offers them a much reduced entrepreneurial prospect of betterment sufficient to elevate them out of poverty, where that is their starting point.

The truly shocking statistic will be the number of food/retail outlets in SE5 outside the Camberwell Green area which have alcohol licences or are fast food chains.  But getting accurate statistics on the area known and understood to be Camberwell is proving to be something of a difficulty due to the number of agencies involved.  We must persevere!

[Mark Dodds]

If 'saturation policy' means 'no more licensed premises' it will be counter productive to the regeneration of Camberwell.

This point is about OFFER, VARIETY and QUALITY. Camberwell is not saturated with good licensed premises. It is home to a preponderance low level subsistence shops that are licensed to sell alcohol as part of their retail mix. They probably see the need to be able to sell booze cheaply to their Camberwell catchment as an essentail part of their income along with fags and mags alongside daily essentials like milk, white bread and sweets...

A very different dynamic overall than that of East Dulwich where there's a lot of quite nice bars and many people flock there to enjoy the range on offer to the extent that WE, The People of Camberwell, who drink eat and want to be merry, are prepared to go the extra half mile and treat Lordship Lane as our Local.

[TommyD]

Two points:

Mark you are right - it is not about quantity, it is about linking over supply to anti-social behaviour.  I think we can.

Regen you are right - add to the list, private licences: we have three within one block that are 'private members' clubs for drinking and such, but they are never counted by the council when considering existing licensed joints.

Hope you are able to pull together something.