A shop has been refused a premises licence in a community already “saturated” with alcohol sales.
Objections were raised by the police and council after permission was sought for drinks sales at 81 Roundhay Road, Harehills.
Yakob Tadese first applied for 24-7 alcohol sales at the shop, which is near a young people’s support centre.
The hours applied for were reduced to 9am-11pm after fears were raised over the impact on public health.
But permission was refused by a Leeds City Council licensing sub-committee on Tuesday (5 November).
The hearing was told a range of measures to prevent alcohol-related problems had been submitted, along with a petition in support.
Abiey Workie, representing the applicant, told councillors: “This convenience store will not only be focussed on selling alcohol and cigarettes.”
The hearing, first scheduled for 15 November, was told the premises is in a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA), officially designated as suffering from alcohol-related crime and health problems.
It is also close to Archway, a support centre for 16–25-year-olds, and a Surestart family centre on Leopold Street.
Neil Buckley, Conservative councillor for Alwoodley, said there were problems with sales of cheap contraband cigarettes and alcohol from other Harehills shops.
He said, “Given this situation, how on earth are you going to sell alcohol at the normal price?”
Mr Workie said, “There will be competition, price-wise. The main thing is upholding the law.”
PC Neil Haywood said that despite the reduced opening hours, an increased supply of alcohol would fuel crime and disorder.
He said, “The premises is located on a main arterial route. It’s a route that children use. It’s still 14 extra hours of alcohol in an area already saturated with alcohol.”
Measures suggested by the applicant included CCTV, litter checks, a challenge 25 policy and groups being discouraged to gather outside.
Mr Workie said, “We understand the concerns. We want to work with the police and other parties.”
Councillors unanimously rejected the licence application.
In its formal decision, the sub-committee said there was no reason to believe the applicant was not a responsible operator. But he had not demonstrated that the licence would not add to existing drink-related issues.
