Use the search options to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council's decision making bodies and portfolio holders.

An explanation as to what constitutes a key decision can be found within the decision making section of the council's constitution.

Decisions published

13/02/2024 - Application For New Premises Licence for IZZY FOOD CENTRE, 380 Kenton Road, Harrow, HA3 8DP ref: 63092    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Licensing Panel

Made at meeting: 13/02/2024 - Licensing Panel

Decision published: 13/02/2024

Effective from: 13/02/2024


The licensing authority presented the report for the sub-committee, and noted its appendices pages 9-144.  The application included proposed conditions on the licence, which are set out in Appendix 4 of the application.  There was a further set of conditions marked as ‘final conditions agreed with licensing and police,’ at the same appendix.  The application for the sale of alcohol off the premises for 24 hours.


1.              The Premises are not currently licensed and is situated in an area of mixed commercial and residential properties.


2.              The licensing panel carefully considered all the relevant information including:

·       Written and oral representations

·       The Licensing Act 2003

·       The Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003

·       Harrow Council’s Licensing Policy

·       Human Rights Act 1998


3.              During the licensing panel hearing the facts giving rise to the application for the grant of a premises licence were set out by the licensing officer and were agreed by the Applicant.


4.              The panel heard from the applicant’s representative regarding the new business set up and the 24-hour application sought for a premises licence.  They offered a convenience store for the benefit of the local neighbourhood, with investment having gone into layout and design to ensure it meets neighbouring standards and would create employment opportunity in the area.  The applicant addressed how they would promote the licensing objectives and presented the conditions, as agreed by the responsible authorities, were adequate to promote the licencing objectives.  They confirmed challenge 25 would be adopted and the designated premises supervisor (DPS) was experienced, with a number of other businesses.  They confirmed that the DPS has never come to the attention of any responsible authorities.  The applicant addressed the panel as to the need for an evidence-based decision and stated there were controls and measures in place to promote the licensing objectives through the experienced DPS, the licensing conditions as agreed and the low crime in the area.  They presented data for crime and ASB in the vicinity of 380 Kenton Road, as reported.  They concluded nothing in their application undermined the licensing objectives.


5.              The panel heard from numerous objectors, through written representations to the Licensing authority and those that had attended in person, including local Councillors, who spoke on behalf of the residents.  The representations from the objectors were based on the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm and public safety.  They presented all four licensing objectives were not promoted by the licence sought and raised concerns about the possible consequences of the licence being granted as sought.  Summary of the relevant representations:

A.    Street drinking at unreasonable hours and concerns regarding littering on the adjacent streets and alleyway

B.    Anti-social behaviour (ASB) centring around street drinking, drug use, loitering, noise (particularly when groups congregate, being amplified by the availability of alcohol), fly-tipping, littering (empty alcohol and food containers) and public urination.  This was identified by local residents as a potential to spill into local Parks.

C.    Lack of resources to deal with littering and minor ASB matters

D.    Alcohol consumption can lead to a higher level of crime and disorder

E.    Underage drinking and intoxicated customer to be able to able to purchase alcohol 24 hours

F.    Concerns over the DPS being able to effectively supervise the premises 24 hours, as well as other premises he supervises

G.   Disturbance of the tranquillity of the area late at night and this being an inappropriate location for such a licence


6.              Other representations that were made, that were considered irrelevant for the purposes of the legislation were not taken into account included business commercial need, planning, parking, traffic and proximity to a temple.


7.              The panel noted that there were no representations made by any responsible authorities.  The licensing authority and the police had agreed conditions with the applicant to be attached to the licence sought.


8.              Questions were put to the applicant by the objectors and the panel.  The training of staff was covered and the applicant responded to say all staff would be trained to level one in responsible alcohol retailing.  They also addressed CCTV concerns laying out they had 20 cameras on site, with high digital quality, positioned at entry and point of sale.  They had more than adequately covered what was recommended by the police/licensing authority via CCTV.  They further stated that the alcohol spirits were behind the counter and to the far left by the till and were safeguarded by those on the till.  The fridge to the left would contain the beers, they confirmed they would not be selling single cans.  Regarding security at the premises the applicant stated they had the essential CCTV and they had a contract with VeriSure, who had supplied a panic button, they stated they use this company at their other sites.  They confirmed there would be two people on site one at the till point and one would be stationed outside, who would be a ‘strong guy.’  This was to protect their property and stock.  They could not answer the question as to what research they had undertaken regarding incidents not reported and stated they rely on the responsible authorities for this information.  It was confirmed the other sites they owned, did not operate on a 24 hour basis.


9.              The objectors were asked about the temple use and were told the opening hours were 6 am-11.30 am and then 3.30 pm to 8 pm, however there were activities most nights to 10 pm.  The panel asked the opening hours of Cost Cutter, and were informed that they close at 10 pm, although they have a licence to sell alcohol off the premises from 06:00 to 01:00.