Venue: Virtual Meeting - Online. View directions
Contact: Andrew Seaman, Senior Democratic Services Officer E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Appointment of Chair
To appoint a Chair for the purposes of this meeting.
RESOLVED: That Councillor Maxine Henson be appointed Chair of the Licensing Panel Hearing.
Declarations of Interest
To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:
(a) all Members of the Panel;
(b) all other Members present.
RESOLVED: To note that there were no declarations of interest made by members.
[Note: Licensing Panel minutes are:-
(1) approved following each meeting by the Members serving on that particular occasion and signed as a correct record by the Chair for that meeting;
(2) not submitted to the next panel meeting for approval.
Reasons: The Licensing Panel is constituted from a pooled membership. Consequently, a subsequent Panel meeting is likely to comprise a different Chair and Members who took no part in the previous meeting’s proceedings. The process referred to at (1) above provides appropriate approval scrutiny].
(See Note at conclusion of these minutes).
Licensing Procedures PDF 120 KB
Procedure to be followed at an oral hearing.
The Chair asked the Panel Members, officers, Responsible Authority and other attendees at the meeting to introduce themselves and then outlined the procedure for the conduct of an oral hearing, which was set out in the agenda.
Stanmore Place Food Market, Unit 5, Stanmore Business and Innovation Centre, Sceptre House, Howard Road, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 1BT PDF 173 KB
The Licensing panel carefully considered all the relevant information including:
· Written and oral representations by all the parties
· The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives
· The Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003
· Harrow Council’s Licensing Policy
· Human Rights Act 1998
The Panel hearing was held remotely and via an online platform. The Panel were present throughout and were able to see and hear all representations made.
- It was confirmed that the Applicant planned to carry out remote sales which would be conducted from the Premises.
- A written statement of case had been submitted by the Applicant’s agent prior to the meeting of the Panel. He said that this dealt with most of the concerns raised by the objectors. It noted there had been a flurry of representations in support of the Application, but that they had been received outside of the 28 day statutory consultation period. Further, one objection had been withdrawn, and another objector was now supporting the Application.
- The Applicant’s agent noted that the Premises was right next door to the Estate Office and that, together with the training the staff would receive and the state of the art CCTV system (confirmed to consist of 12 cameras) would prevent the congregation of people outside the Premises or the Premises becoming a source of Anti Social Behaviour (ASB).
- Questions were asked of the Applicant as to why the Premises needed to sell alcohol from such an early hour. Mr McCann submitted that customers expected all of the offering to be available from the time the Premises opened and that having to shutter or move alcohol if sales were to begin later than the opening time was unduly onerous. Mr McCann also submitted that the Applicant’s business was new and that they were still getting a feeling as to what demand would be and when.
- The Panel had read very carefully the objector’s written representations, which mostly related to the protection of children from harm; the prevention of public nuisance; and, public safety. The Panel noted that most of the objections appeared to be written using a ‘template’ and raised exactly the same concerns. Objectors were concerned about the proximity of the Premises to a nursery; the Premises causing an increase in public nuisance; and, the Premises causing greater traffic within the Estate, causing a risk to public safety.
- The Panel heard from Mr Rashid and Mr Riley who attended the meeting in order to support their written representations. The Panel was grateful to both for their attendance at and participation in the meeting.
- In support of the written representations, Mr Rashid submitted that contrary to what Mr McCann had told the Panel, the Premises was not next door to the Estate Office. Rather, there were a number of other premises ... view the full minutes text for item 92.