Agenda and minutes

To appoint a Chairman for the purposes of this meeting.

RESOLVED:  That Councillor Jeremy Zeid be appointed Chairman of the Licensing Panel for this meeting.

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interest was declared:

[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 Chairman 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 Chairman 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).

To receive any questions, petitions or deputations (if any), under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rules 19, 16 and 17 (Part 4B) of the Constitution respectively.

[Note: These items are qualified by the requirements of the licensing legislation and will not be applicable to applications on the current agenda.]

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rules 19, 16 and 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution) respectively.

Procedure to be followed at an oral hearing.

The Chairman asked the Panel Members, Officers, Responsible Authority and other attendees at the meeting to introduce themselves.  A licensing services officer then outlined the procedure for the conduct of an oral hearing, as set out in the agenda.

Report of the Chief Environmental Health Officer.

The Panel received a report of the Chief Environmental Health Officer which sought determination of an application for review of the premises licence of Abercorn Arms Public House, 78 Stanmore Hill, Stanmore, Middx, HA7 3BU.

In attendance at the meeting were Mrs Serra, Police Sergeant Carl Davis and Mrs Nathan.  Mr Pandya and Mr Popat were in attendance as, the Premises Licence holders (“the respondents”) and were represented by Ms C Eames.  Also present were Mr P Sivashankar and Ms M Khan from Licensing Services.

An officer informed the Panel that the application for review had been made by Mrs Serra on the grounds of public nuisance stated in the Licensing Act 2003.  Other representations had been received from the Metropolitan Police, and another local resident Mrs Nathan who both supported the review application.  He added that the representation made by the Environmental Health Officer of Harrow Council had been withdrawn after the respondents had agreed to attach two additional conditions to the existing operating schedule.

The officer advised that the conditions of the premises licence could not be enforced in the event of a Temporary Event Notices (TENs) that were in operation before the review.  In response to questions raised by a Member of the Panel and the respondent, the officer confirmed that:

·                     the Licensing Policy used by Harrow Council was reviewed every 3 years;

·                     options available to the Panel in imposing conditions to promote the licensing objectives, should be proportionate and evidence based;

·                     the Panel could use the model conditions outlined in the Council’s existing licensing policy;

·                     only 12 notices or 15 days could be granted in respect of the TENs on the same premises during a calendar year;

·                     events could last up to 96 hours under a TEN;

·                     under the Licensing Act 2003, a TEN that operated between 11.00 pm and 2.00 am the following day, would be classed as existing for a two day period.

The applicant for the review reported that:

·                     incidents relating to crime and disorder as well as public nuisance had been reported to the respondents, and they had not sought to engage the community to resolve matters;

·                     the number of anti-social behaviour incidents caused by patrons to the premises had risen in the last six months.  Some of the incidents had been included in the application for review;

·                     on the occasions where the applicant for the review had visited the premises to speak to the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), he was not present and the staff were not aware of his identity;

·                     reassurances provided by the Manager of the premises had not been implemented.  The applicant’s quality of life had deteriorated since the change of ownership and being woken up in the small hours had become a common occurrence for her;

·                     the number of incidents, such as early morning deliveries, had fallen since the possible review of the licence had been discussed.

In support of the comments made by the applicant, Mrs Nathan, reported that various complaints made regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 380.