Licensing Sub- Committee - Meetings, agendas and minutes

. London Borough of Hammersmith & FulhamLicensing Sub-CommitteeMinutesMonday 23 January 2012PRESENTCommittee members: Councillors Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler (Chairman),Michael Cartwright and Matt ThorleyResponsible Authorities:LBHF Trading Standards: Martin O’Brien, Trading Standards OfficerMetropolitan Police: PC Michael Payne, Hammersmith and Fulham Licensing TeamApplicantsDebra Silvester and Charanjit Khaneja, Item 4JS Khaneja, Gahandeep Singh and Michael Attenborough, Item 5Officers: Lewis Aldous, Licensing Officer, Piero Ionta, Legal Adviser, and Owen Rees,Committee Coordinator1. MINUTESRESOLVED THAT:The minutes of the meeting held on 21 November and 12 December 2011 beconfirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings.2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCEThere were none3. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTThere were no declarations of interest.4. BEST QUALITY FOOD & WINE, 333-335 LILLIE ROAD, LONDON, SW6 7NR(APPLICATION NUMBER:2011/01931/LAPR)The Sub-Committee received and considered an application for a new premiseslicence at Best Quality Food & Wine, 333-335 Lillie Road, London, SW6 7NR.______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will berecorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.

Main Points Of EvidenceLicensing OfficerLewis Aldous, Licensing Officer, introduced the application, and set out therepresentations received against it. He said that the applicant had agreed 9 of the11 conditions requested by the Police. In response to a question from theChairman, he said that the premises had previously held a licence, which had beenrevoked by a Sub-Committee hearing on 10 th October 2011. The revocation wasthe subject of an appeal, with the first directions hearing scheduled for 14 thFebruary 2012.Responsible AuthoritiesTrading StandardsMartin O’Brien, Trading Standards Officer, said that, following the revocation of theold licence, he had spoken to the licensee, Mr Malhotra. Mr Malhotra hadconfirmed that he wished to sell the premises, but that the sale would take somemonths. Mr O’Brien said that, without confirmation of the business’ sale, he couldnot support a new licence on the site, and believed the Sub-Committee needed tobe clear that a permanent change of control had taken place.The Chairman asked if it would be usual to see such documentation. Mr O’Briensaid that it was not normally necessary, but the circumstances of the applicationmade it so.Metropolitan PolicePC Michael Payne, Hammersmith & Fulham Licensing Team, presented hisobjections to the application. He said that the premises had accepted a number ofconditions put forward by the police, but not 9 and 10, as numbered in the policerepresentation. He said that the conditions, which would prevent the sale of singlecans or bottles of beer or cider, and the sale of beers or ciders that were over 5.5%abv, were designed to combat street drinking. He said that street drinking was asignificant problem in the borough, and increasingly displaced into the areafollowing action taken elsewhere, and a high priority for the Safer Neighbourhoodteam in the ward were the premises were situated. He said that single cans of highstrength cider or lager were the preferred method of purchase for street drinkers,and that it was unlikely that other customers would choose to purchase alcohol inthat way. He added that the police did not believe the condition on staff trainingwas sufficiently robust.He stated that the opening hour of sale applied for, 8am, was too early, and wouldcause disruption to nearby schools and to those travelling to work; the policetherefore suggested 11am. He concluded by stating that the application paid toolittle regard to the prevention of crime and disorder and of public nuisance, giventhe location of the premises.ApplicantDebra Silvester, agent for the applicant, said that the applicant, Charanjit Khaneja,had been working in the licensed trade for 3 years, and understood the importance______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will berecorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.

of responsible operation. She listed the measures the premises would put in place,including regular staff training with records kept, Challenge 25 and a refusals book,and the premises’ plan to employ experienced staff.She said that the premises had agreed to the majority of conditions suggested bythe police, but could not agree to the limitations on type of alcohol to be sold. Shesaid that customers who wished to purchase alcohol in a premises such as BestQuality Food and Wine generally preferred to purchase a small number of cans,and would visit a supermarket if they wished to make a larger purchase.She said that Mrs Khaneja and her husband owned and operated a number oflicensed premises, and that they had never, and would never, purchase alcoholfrom anywhere other than a bonded warehouse. She said that there was nodocumentation regarding the sale of the premises to Mrs Khaneja, but that theapplicant would give an undertaking not to trade under the new licence until thesale of the premises were complete.The Chairman asked whether Mrs Khaneja had received her personal licence. MrsKhaneja said that she had not.The Chairman asked whether Mrs Khaneja had any relationship with Mr Malhotra.She said that he was her brother, but that his desire to sell had predated therevocation of his licence, while she and her husband wished to expand theirbusiness.The Chairman asked what price had been agreed. Mrs Khaneja said that the pricewas still under discussion.The Sub-Committee retired at 10.35am, returning at 10.48am.The Chairman said that, in the light of the evidence heard, the Sub-Committee wasminded to adjourn until documentation of the sale of the premises, and of MrsKhaneja being awarded a personal licence, could be produced.Martin O’Brien said that he agreed that an adjournment would allow the applicantto address concerns about the sale. PC Payne said that he felt an adjournmentwas appropriate, and that he hoped the applicant would amend their application toaccept the conditions proposed.The Sub-Committee retired at 10.50, returning at 10.58am.RESOLVED THAT(i)(ii)(iii)The hearing be adjourned, and the determination of the applicationdeferred, until such time as the applicant produces documentationillustrating their purchase of the premises, and the award of apersonal licence to the prospective licensee, andThat all supporting documentation should be submitted a minimum of14 days in advance of the hearing being held, and thatThe Sub-Committee’s concerns with regards to the premises’ failureto agree conditions be noted.______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will berecorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.

Full reasons for decision are contained in the decision letter which accompaniesthese minutes.5. BOWMANS NEWS, 218 NORTH END ROAD, LONDON, W14 9NX(APPLICATION NUMBER: 2011/01963/LAPR)The Sub-Committee received and considered an application for a new premiseslicence at Bowman’s News, 218 North End Road, London, W14 9NX. In givingevidence, Mr Gahandeep Singh, a friend of Mr Khaneja’s, relayed questions to,and responses from, Mr Khaneja, due to Mr Khaneja’s difficulties with hearing.Main Points Of EvidenceLicensing OfficerLewis Aldous, Licensing Officer, set out the application, and listed therepresentations made.In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr Aldous said that the premiseshad had their licence revoked on 7 th November 2011; that decision was subject toappeal with a hearing date of the 27 th February. The licence holders were Ajit andManmohan Singh.Councillor Cartwright asked why the licence had been revoked. Mr Aldous said thatthe application for a review had followed a raid on the premises by HMRC, wherenon duty-paid alcohol and cigarettes had been seized, to the value of £22,000. Thepremises was also alleged to have failed an under-age test purchase.Responsible AuthoritiesMetropolitan PolicePC Michael Payne said that the applicant, Mr J.S. Khaneja, worked at anothershop owned by the current licensees. He did not believe that there was sufficientdistance between the applicant and those implicated in the previous incidents atthe premises, especially as it would not be changing its name.He also expressed concerns that the applicant had not agreed to conditions 9, 10and 11, as enumerated in his representation. He said that all three conditions weredesigned to combat street drinking and its associated problems.With regards to condition 11, which provided that all alcoholic products be markedwith the name of the premises that sold them, PC Payne said that the police hadpowers to seize alcohol being consumed on the street throughout the borough(due to its status as a Controlled Drinking Zone). Labelling allowed officers toidentify which stores alcohol was bought from, and could be done at a low cost tothe licensee.______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will berecorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.