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 Angela Murphy-Strachen 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).
Procedure to be followed at an oral hearing.
The Chair asked the Panel Members, officer/s, Responsible Authority/ies 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.
Canons Food and Wine, 7 Canons Corner, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 8AE
Report of the Interim Director, Environmental Services
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.
The Applicant, Mr Sukheet Singh Rajwansi attended the remote hearing. He was represented by Mr Panchal. Six representations were received from members of the public. Only one of the objectors; Mr Godfrey Dyan attended the remote hearing.
The Panel heard from Mr Ash Waghela, licensing officer. He gave a brief outline of the application, details of which were contained in the report to the Panel. In summary, the Applicant as an individual, was applying for the premises to be used as a convenience store and off-licence. Mr Waghela informed the Panel that some of the representations made by the objectors go towards conditions to be applied to the licence if the Panel decided to grant the licence. He further informed thePanel that the Applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by the police which were set out in Appendix 4 of the bundle.
Mr Waghela clarified that the point, raised by the Panel, that the Applicant despite being granted a personal licence from the London Borough of Ealing, was not prevented from being the Designated Premises Supervisor as stipulated in the application before the Panel.
Mr Panchal made oral submissions on behalf of the Applicant to the Panel. He stated that the Applicant was an experienced person in the off-licences shop trade. He had previously been involved in running a similar family business in Wolverhampton (from 2017-2020) which was sold recently. They also have a shop in Camberley, which is part of the family business. He informed the Panel that the Applicant understood the licensing objectives and the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (he referred to paragraphs 2.2 and 2.10 of the statutory guidance as examples).
Mr Panchal also submitted to the Panel that any objections must be evidence based which was not the case in this instance. In support of this submission, he referred to paragraph 9.4 of the statutory guidance which deals with relevant, vexatious, and frivolous representations and further stated in response to some of the objections that the premises was not in a cumulative impact zone and therefore, the objections that there were already similar businesses in the area was not relevant. He stated that the conditions proposed by the police had been agreed by the Applicant and that none of the other responsible authorities had raised any objections to the application.
With regards to training, Mr Panchal stated that the ... view the full minutes text for item 97.