Agenda, decisions and minutes

None declared.

That the application by Kaneshalingham Thayaparan for a variation of the premises licence for ‘Anglo Asian Cash and Carry’ (539 High Road, Wembley, HA0 2DJ) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 be approved in part.

That the following variation be permitted:-

Update of the plans the premises with plan 21101 dated October 2012 as set out in the application.

That the following variations applied for be refused:-

Removal of condition 7 on the premises licence: A personal licence holder shall be present on the premises and supervise the sale of alcohol throughout the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol.

Removal of condition 8 on the premises licence: No high strength beers, lagers and ciders above 5.5% shall be stocked.

The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) accepted that the police’s representation showed evidence of public nuisance, particularly in relation to street drinking, within the vicinity of the premises.  In addition, it felt that the applicant had not provided sufficient information on how they would uphold the licensing objectives (prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder, ensuring public safety and protection of  children from harm) in relation to the application to justify withdrawing conditions 7 and 8 on the premises licence and accordingly this element of the application for variation of the premises licence was refused.

That the application by Kaneshalingham Thayaparan for a variation of the premises licence for ‘Anglo Asian Cash and Carry’ (539 High Road, Wembley, HA0 2DJ) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 be approved in part.

That the following variation be permitted:-

Update of the plans the premises with plan 21101 dated October 2012 as set out in the application.

That the following variations applied for be refused:-

Removal of condition 7 on the premises licence: A personal licence holder shall be present on the premises and supervise the sale of alcohol throughout the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol.

Removal of condition 8 on the premises licence: No high strength beers, lagers and ciders above 5.5% shall be stocked.

The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) accepted that the police’s representation showed evidence of public nuisance, particularly in relation to street drinking, in the vicinity of the premises.  In addition, it felt that the applicant had not provided sufficient information on how they would uphold the licensing  objectives (prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder, ensuring public safety and protection of  children from harm) in relation to the application to withdraw conditions 7 and 8 on the premises licence and accordingly this element of the application for variation of the premises licence was refused.

That the application by Sukinthan Suntharalingam for a variation of the premises licence  for ‘Abbey Food and Wine’ (220 Preston Road, Wembley, HA9 8PB) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 be approved in part.

That the following variation be permitted:-

Removal of condition 5 on the premises licence: No high strength beers, lagers and ciders above 5.5% ABV shall be stocked.

That the following  variation be refused:-

Removal of condition 1 on the premises licence: A personal licence holder shall be present on the premises and supervise the sale of alcohol throughout the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol.

The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) felt that there was insufficient evidence in the police’s representation to merit removal of condition 5 on the premises licence on the grounds that it would undermine the licensing objectives (prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder, ensuring public safety and protection of children from harm) and accordingly this variation was agreed.  However, it felt that the applicant in his application had not sufficiently demonstrated how he would uphold the licensing objectives to remove condition 1 on the premises licence and that its removal would undermine the licensing objectives (prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder, ensuring public safety and protection of children from harm) and accordingly this variation was refused.

That the application by Sukinthan Suntharalingam for a variation of the premises licence  for ‘Abbey Food and Wine’ (220 Preston Road, Wembley, HA9 8PB) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 be approved in part.

That the following variation be permitted:-

Removal of condition 5 on the premises licence: No high strength beers, lagers and ciders above 5.5% ABV shall be stocked.

That the following  variation be refused:-

Removal of condition 1 on the premises licence: A personal licence holder shall be present on the premises and supervise the sale of alcohol throughout the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol.

The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) felt that there was insufficient evidence in the police’s representation that the application to remove condition 5 on the premises licence would undermine the licensing objectives (prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder, ensuring public safety and protection of children from harm) and accordingly this variation was agreed.  However, it felt that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated how they would uphold the licensing objectives in the application to remove condition 1 on the premises licence and that its removal would undermine the licensing objectives (prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder, ensuring public safety and protection of children from harm) and accordingly this variation was refused.

The Sub-Committee heard that the application had been withdrawn and accordingly did not need to be considered.

The Sub-Committee heard that the application had been withdrawn and accordingly did not need to be considered.

The Sub-Committee noted that the proposed designated premises supervisor had been evicted from the premises by the applicant, who had indicated that they would not be pursuing the application further.  In addition, it was also noted that the consent form had been completed incorrectly, thereby deeming the application defective and so it could not be considered by the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee noted that the proposed designated premises supervisor had been evicted from the premises by the applicant, who had indicated that they would not be pursuing the application further.  In addition, it was also noted that the consent form had been completed incorrectly, thereby deeming the application defective and so it could not be considered by the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee heard that the application had been withdrawn and accordingly did not need to be considered.

The Sub-Committee heard that the application had been withdrawn and accordingly did not need to be considered.

The Sub-Committee noted that the police had withdrawn their representation after the proposed designated premises supervisor had agreed to all their conditions, including withdrawing his designated premises supervisor status at another premises in Brent and accordingly this application did not need to be considered.

The Sub-Committee noted that the police had withdrawn their representation after the proposed designated premises supervisor had agreed to all their conditions, including withdrawing his designated premises supervisor status at another premises in Brent and accordingly this application did not need to be considered.

The Sub-Committee heard that the application had been withdrawn and accordingly did not need to be considered.

The Sub-Committee heard that the application had been withdrawn and accordingly did not need to be considered.