Agenda item
Application by Parag Patel for a premises licence for 'Costcutter, 9-10 Heather Park Parade, Wembley HA0 1SL' pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003
Decision:
That the application by Parag Patel for a premises licence for 'Costcutter, 9-10 Heather Park Parade, Wembley HA0 1SL' be granted in accordance with all the agreed conditions proposed by the Police and the surrender of the Lush Bar premises licence. (The prevention of crime and disorder, Public Safety, the prevention of public nuisance, the protection of children from harm)
As an informative, there should be an on-going dialogue with the Council as Licensing Authority and the Police on all matters connected to licensing , pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003.
Minutes:
The Senior Regulatory Services Manager, Yogini Patel, introduced the application. The application by Parag Patel was for a new premises licence for 'Costcutter, 9-10 Heather Park Parade, Wembley HA0 1SL', to supply alcohol and refreshments from 6am – 12am, seven days a week. The premises had previously held a full premises licence as the Lush Bar and relevant representations had been received from the Police and three local business owners.
The Legal Advisor, Horatio Chance, explained that the application before the Committee was for a new premises licence and documentation relating to previous licences held by the applicant’s and a the premises should not be considered as part of the application. He concluded that the application should be considered on its own merits in relation to the objectives of the Licensing Act 2003.
Mr Bahal, representative of two of the local business objecting felt that the character of the applicants’ should be brought to the Committee’s attention and the consequences of their previous licence.
The applicant’s representative, Angela Sherrett of Licensing Matters was invited to address the Committee. She explained that although the premises had previously operated as a licensed entertainment venue, the application before the committee was for a convenience store which was intended to be run as a family business. The store would form part of the nationally recognised Costcutter’s group and would operate from 6am – 12am seven days a week. It was explained that the premises had been fully refurbished to include a modernised CCTV system consisting of 15 cameras, and a computerised till which included age restricting prompts when purchasing alcohol. Additionally, policies and procedures had been drawn up in accordance with the law as well as an intense training package enabling staff to undertake the national challenge 21 standard and to address issues that may arise with intoxicated customers. The premises had been trading for approximately one month under Temporary Event Notices (TENs) and had not seen any issues arise.
The applicant’s representative explained that 21 conditions had been agreed with the Police which demonstrated their commitment to operating the premises to a high standard. Subsequently an agreement between the applicant’s and the Police had been reached regarding the Police representation over the sale of AVB beers, ales and ciders to not exceed 6%. Additionally, she felt that the objection from the three local business owners addressed the previous reviews which were not relevant to the application under consideration and should be disregarded. Concern was expressed that the objection may have been vexatious due to potential loss of trade.
During questions of the applicant it was clarified that the Lush Bar caused an unfortunate background to the case and despite the applicants’ not having any involvement within the running of the premises, their reputations had been tarnished as a consequence.
The Police were invited to make their representation. They confirmed that an agreement regarding the sale of AVB beers, ales and ciders at 6% had been reached and therefore their objection had since been withdrawn. It was clarified that should the licence be granted, the Lush Bar premises licence would be surrendered.
During questions of the Police it was confirmed that no issues had occurred since the premises had commenced trading.
Mr Bahal was invited to speak. He highlighted that the applicants’ were the designated premises supervisor (DPS) and premises licence holder (PLH) for the Lush Bar and had concerns regarding their suitability to run a premises, based on previous experience. It was explained that the premises had a custom of changing hands within the family and it was often unclear who was responsible for the running of the premises.
In summary the applicant’s representative concluded that the decision should not be based on the history of the premises as appropriate measures were in place to ensure the premises was run to a high standard and no concern had been raised regarding the requested hours.
Mr Bahal concluded that he felt that a month trading was not a suitable amount of time to base a judgement upon and was concerned that the applicant’s previous experience suggested they would not be able to manage the premises to a fit and proper standard.
The Committee adjourned at 7.32pm to make its decision and reconvened at 7.45pm and informed all parties of the decision.
RESOLVED:-
That the application by Parag Patel for a premises licence for 'Costcutter, 9-10 Heather Park Parade, Wembley HA0 1SL' be granted in accordance with all the agreed conditions of the Police and the surrender of the Lush Bar premises licence.
As an informative, there should be an on-going dialogue with Brent Licensing and the Police on all licensing matters, pursuant of the provisions fo the Licensing Act 2003.
Supporting documents:
- costcutter-report, item 2. PDF 45 KB
- costcutter-application, item 2. PDF 685 KB
- costcutter-police-representation, item 2. PDF 146 KB
- costcutter-traders-representation, item 2. PDF 108 KB
- interested-party-letter-redacted, item 2. PDF 142 KB
- lush-bar-hearing-report-2011, item 2. PDF 16 MB
- 2011-07-20-lush-bar-determination, item 2. PDF 43 KB
- 2012-08-08-review-application, item 2. PDF 175 KB
- environmental-health-representation-2012, item 2. PDF 31 KB
- response-to-review-2012, item 2. PDF 82 KB