Licensing Sub-Committee - Wednesday 12 March 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Licensing Sub-Committee
Wednesday, 12th March 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Good evening everyone and welcome to this meeting of the Licensing Subcommittee.
The first item on the agenda tonight will be to appoint a chair for the meeting and I'll start by
asking members of the subcommittee if they have an agreed person to take on that role.
Yes, you do.
Thank you and that's unanimous so I will pass over to Councillor French who will chair the
Thank you. Thank you. Good evening everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Licensing Subcommittee
which is being held as a remote meeting. The meeting is being webcast and please bear with us in case there are any technical issues.
My name is Councillor French and I'm chairing this meeting. I will now invite the other attendees to introduce themselves in the following order.
Councillors, officers, applicants, representations.
Okay, Councillor Tom Pridham, Conservative Councillor for Lavender Ward.
Councillor Simonee Radthiraj, Councillor for Wonder Ward.
Guy Bishop, Legal Advisor.
Good evening, it's Caroline Sharkey, the Licensing Manager. I'll be presenting the
guest to you today, Councillor Chair.
Michael Flowers, Democratic Service Officer and Clerk for this meeting.
Julie Hopkins, licensing officer, observing.
My name is Belinda Luisa. I'm one of the police licensing officers that cover Swansworth.
Atwakan.
I'm Mr. Pancha representing, this is Neetu, she's here with me.
Yeah, I'm Neetu Keshavar.
and applicant. Thank you. Good evening everyone. Welcome. Are there any apologies and absences
or declarations of interest for any items on the agenda?
No? Thank you. Moving on to item four. We will now consider the application for a new premises
licensed in respect to the premises known as Mitcham Road Local, 83 Mitcham Road, London,
and I now invite the licensing manager, Ms. Sharkey, to introduce the application.
Thank you, Chair. I'm mindful you read the paperwork, so I'll just give you the summary
and point out the pertinent points for this application for you to consider. This application,
Chairs you've stated is in the name of Neetal, Kaws and Jeeva. She's applied for a premises
license at A3 Mitcham Road to sell alcohol for consumption of the premises between the
hours of 8am until 11pm Monday through to Sunday nights. The premises, as you've stated
Chair, they are in Tooting Broadway. The applicant has complied with all the legal requirements
for advertising this application as detailed on page 3 of the agenda. During the consultation
period, the applicant agreed conditions with trading standards relating to the prevention
of children from harm, and in particular the applicant agreed staff training, record of
refusals and visual reminders at all points of sale. These conditions are produced in
of the agenda chair on pages 7 to 8. Representations were received from Metropolitan Police who
have raised concerns that the premises appear to share the same staff with the neighbouring
premises at No. 85 Meacham Road. The police have raised concerns that the premises license
for 85 Meacham Road was revoked in 2023 following a review which was submitted by the Chief of
Trading Standards Officer and this was due to multiple failures identified by officers which
included breaches of the premises license conditions, the sale of restrictive products
including alcohol, cigarettes to underage persons and the police provided a link in the agenda
of the hearing that took place on the 23rd of January. The police have noted that the
applicant Nito Kua Sanjeva has provided the same address as the revoked license orders.
The police have are concerned that this is the same people from the same family who will be
operating the premises license if the members were minded to grant it at number 83 Mitcham
Road local. The police officers provided further supplementary evidence demonstrating their
concerns and the police have asked that this application should be refused. No further
representations, Chair, were received from responsible authorities or any other persons
in relation to this application. The copies of all the representation and supplementary
evidence received from the police has been forwarded to the applicant and is available
for the committee's consideration tonight. The applicant has volunteered measures in
the operating schedule part of the application. These can be translated as conditions and
are produced under Appendix A of the report. The licensing subcommittee may modify these
conditions if they consider such steps appropriate after hearing all the evidence tonight. So
the options available to the subcommittee is to take such steps that are appropriate
for promoting the licensing objectives and these are either to grant the application
as requested, modify conditions proposed by the applicant or add more or to refuse the
application in its entirety. And this is the applications that you've got before you,
chair and members. I'm happy to answer any questions at this stage or any points of clarification.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sharkey. Does the subcommittee
have any questions for the licensing manager? Any councillors?
not at this point? None from me at this stage. Thank you Ms Sharkey, I think everything's
expiratory. Okay, perfect. I can see no questions from the subcommittee, so just are there any
questions or clarifications or anything that has been stated? As a reminder both the applicant and
representations will have a chance to address the subcommittee and this should only be where you
like clarification on something stated by the speaker. So representations, is there any
clarification questions at this moment? No? Okay. I will now...
Sorry, did someone speak?
That was me, I just said nothing from me just to answer your question.
Apologies, sorry Mr Henry, the screen is split, so I didn't see, thank you. And if you could just
raise your hand with the icon button if you would like to speak that enabled me to make sure I can, there's an indication. Thank you. I now invite the subcommittee, the applicant to address the subcommittee, after which questions may be asked of you. I haven't seen it here. Is there usually Mr. Flowers a time scale, they get to talk for
There would be but this was omitted from the notice of hearing so because of that the procedure
would be followed in which case there hasn't been a set time limit but obviously as chair
you can impose one if you think it necessary.
No that's fine I just I'm so used to chairing that I was like usually there's a little note
here so my bad thank you over to you applicant.
Oh thank you very much chair. Chair I'm going to be very brief and straight I wouldn't like
waste much of your time in saying what how the premises are going to be promoted. That is the
main issue at the moment. I will be coming up in my summits if I want to when the objections are
reviewed to you. So Chairman at this very moment, Neetu Kaur Sashteva is going to be the applicant
and the DPS of the premises. She understands the four licensing objectives. Chairman I'm going to
quickly as to they have been in the area for the last 12 to 15 years, so she understands
what the area is going to be about. She is going to have a staff training manual as you've
seen in the report of the licensing officer. She's going to be having a refusal book, an
incident book and record all the trainings when she employs any staff before any matters
running the four licensing objectives. I'm happy for you to ask during your question
time for Mrs. Nittlesingh to if she wants to let you know how well she understands the four licensing
objectives. Ma 'am, at this stage what we are thinking are we understand the objections raised by the
police regarding the previous license orders. At this instance we have if you look at the conditions
that we've laid out on your bundle in page 23 that there will be no, the members of the staff,
sorry we've emailed to the police during his or her objection that the previous owners shall have
no or they shall be totally banned from the premises and they should not be allowed to be
coming in the premises. We do understand that the premises, the people that we've banned are just
next door and it's the husband and the son of Nitu Singh. But she can run the premises on her own,
she drives, she can go to the cash and carry, she understands the business fully, she can answer any
of your questions that regarding the licensing objectives and maybe we're looking at the
guidance section 1 .7 that each applicant should be considered on its own merits and here we are,
We've blown up the, on your page 23, the conditions laid out are strictly on robust promotion of four licensing objectives,
which is relevant to the section guidance. We're also trying to explain to you that all conditions which are laid out,
guidance section 1 .6 which we would like to bring in,
should be, we feel should be proportional,
justified to be capable of being met.
She is capable of meeting those guidance conditions
laid out to her and robustly promote
the core licensing objectives.
Ma 'am, we also would like to bring in the guidance,
we understand the objective objectives views on the 9 .42, the best determination of how the licensing will be promoted. And that is when you're making your decision to understand that how best she will be able to promote the core licensing objectives.
At the present moment, there is no evidence that she's going to breach any of the licensing objectives because she has not breached any of the licensing objectives in her past working.
She has worked in the licensing shop, in an off -license, so she does understand the conditions of the license.
She does understand what we've guided her through.
The training menu shall allow her to train her staff.
She understands how to train the staff.
And we feel on the 944 that she is determination
whether the election was stepped as appropriate.
And the conditions we are laying out is appropriate
for her to promote.
She's capable of promoting those conditions.
She may also, we would like to bring the shop
at the present moment is on selling bags and other things, it will take another month or so if the
license is granted today to convert it and all the necessary requirements are met with which is,
if you look at the conditions of the CCTV and all that. I'm now going to ask Miss Nithu Singh
if she could relate to you what the four licensing objectives are. I would like you to speak loudly
What do you think? The four licenses, crime prevention. It's when we got the license,
we installed the CCTV camera and the second one is public safety. It's public safety means
It's in fire extinguisher.
And the third one is,
it's a public nuisance.
We have got waste collection,
contact with waste collection.
We don't let them, if I sell them,
run cobalt to the people.
We don't let them drink here.
I sell them, give it at home and it's public nuisance.
And the fourth one is children from harm.
If I see notice by any children under age
or in between 18 and 25, I will ask them for ID,
original ID, not in the phone or if I refuse them
I recognized they are underage, so I refused them to sell alcohol.
And I noticed in my refusal book with the description of he or she, they are asking for alcohol.
I put a note in my refusal book. When I hire staff, I well train them before they start the job.
I trained them and every three months I will again remind them about the training and this and that.
Me and my son mainly, my younger son, he is now 20, he is going to work with me.
My older son and my husband, I don't need any help from them.
They have their own business, 85 Mitcham Road side business.
They don't touch with me.
I do with my own.
I run business by myself and my younger son,
who is now 20, who is helping me and he is working with me.
If I got the license,
he gonna pass their personal license
and we will do, run the business here.
My husband and my older son, they don't touch with us anything, with anything.
Thank you very much. So she's explained to you how she's going to run the premises and how well she's going to be looking after the premises.
Yes, we can see the concerns laid out by the police regarding the previous staff of the next door license, which was which was banned.
We're not willing, we are happy to not to employ any of those staffs to work with us.
Mrs. Neetu Singh has got her own younger son and if she wants to employ any staff, we are making it very sure that none of those staffs will be employed to work on the shop, although they will be next to the shop.
So here we are, this is what our presentation is today.
We are happy to take any questions that you would like to ask,
but I'd like to be coming and remind you that this application is in its own merits of Mrs Neethu Satchdeva,
and we are happy to answer any of the merits or any of the matters concerning her.
We are happy to answer the question. Thank you very much.
Thank you Mr Panchai and Ms Litter. Does the subcommittee have any questions for the applicant
councillors? Yeah if I may just briefly say so just to confirm the the previous license holders
of the premises next door who lost their license are members of the same family but they're going
be banned from the premises that we're considering tonight, is that correct? That's correct.
Okay fine and do they have any stake, any share in the business, do they stand to benefit from
the profit of the business at all? Just to check? Shall we put it like that? In reality no,
but in practicality when Mrs Cooks the meal at home and works for profits,
We won't be able to refuse us when we eat that meal.
So they don't have a share in the business themselves?
No, they don't.
No, no, no.
Okay, fine.
Councillor...
It's coming from me for now.
Uh -huh.
Excellent.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation.
Obviously, there are some concerns related, because obviously on this new application for this premises, there are shared addresses,
and that we can all agree that your sons who were working
on the previous premises where the license was revoked,
it's gonna be quite difficult to say
that they can't enter new premises.
But my question was gonna be,
you did kind of address it in the end,
is will you be hiring new staff to work on this premises?
And I just want to know if you could tell us
a little bit more about the training
that you will be providing to new workers
or like to your staff that will be coming on,
like what kind of training do you have planned
and like the frequency of it,
just a little bit more information on the staff
you will be hiring in the training that you have planned? Yes, she she's as she's saying that and
as I said in representation that she's going to be training them and logging the trainings in the
training menu which we did take it at the time of our interview with the police. There will be a
training menu which we log in every three months training that is given to the staff. It will be
for the core licensing objectives, the training will be carried out on the core licensing objectives
and in future she will make sure that one of the staffs always present at the shop will have a
personal license, which we will be dealing with that at our,
because we are a personal license training company.
So Mrs. Nitu Singh also took a personal license from us.
We are BII qualified company.
Yeah, I think my question was more like,
so just would it be like a presentation or like what,
what the training itself will entail?
I understand that you're saying you're going to
carry out some training,
but kind of if you could provide us a little bit more detail
of what the training itself entails.
Yeah.
The training entails on a BII basis that we normally give him a training menu which is to promote the core licensing objectives and it is under the guidance APLH level 2 BII -related training. So it is under a BII -related training.
Okay.
Thank you, Councillor Bair, Arch.
Sorry, for the benefit of the Councillor, that's the training that would normally be
provided for a personal licensee, as I understand it.
That's right, a personal license training, plus the set out which is a training for the
staff is also related to promotion of the core licensing objectives in the same course,
but it is presented by the DPS.
I have a couple of questions though. The first being is the applicant missing,
has she trained herself at the moment? You spoke about her having knowledge of licensing
and so forth, so has she undergone training herself? Yes she has. She has applied, she came
out in training on the award for personal license holders and she's also obtained her personal
license for which she then can become the DPS and that is where she is now applied as
a DPS for the premises.
And has this been within that the last two years or has this been a historic training?
Yeah it is a training and it has been done with a personal license.
What a personal license.
Personal license?
What a personal license.
already awarded to her. Yeah my question, I understood that sir, when, when is it historic or something?
You have to excuse me, I don't know if it has an expiration date or has this been within the last
two years? It's been, it's been, it was given in January this year. Generally. And prior to the one
that she received in January last year, had she held any previous license? No she hasn't. No.
Okay. And my final question is, has she on prior to January this year, had she undergone any training?
Yes, she has. With the training she got her personal license.
I'm going to ask that again because I don't know. Prior to the license being obtained this year, was that training that she underwent to do with the license being obtained or did she do training under, I don't know, not making any assumptions here,
but say when the business that was at 85,
if that's the door number, when they were selling stuff,
was she employed there to sell alcohol?
Had she undergone training in that role
as it's her husband and her son's business?
No, I didn't know.
I don't have any training over there, no.
So prior to this application being made
and her obtaining her personal license in January,
the applicant had not undergone any training
to do with licensing or had been because you said she had years and years of experience or something
but I just want to get specifically around training had she she had not had the experience
of being trained to sell alcohol prior to this application in 2025. She had worked you know she
did not apply for the personal license. I'm asking about working sir, I'm asking a very specific thing
here about being trained to work so there's a difference of working you can work lots of places
just the training, had she obtained training.
I was just shelfing. I've been shelfing and
sort of these things I didn't sell over there.
Alcohol or diesel kind of things.
So you weren't on the till?
No, I weren't on the till. Over there.
And I was shelving over there and sort of the things over there.
Yeah, because when someone comes into the shop and you're on the till,
you don't know what they're going to buy until they come to the till.
So it's important to understand if that was a role that you occupied,
because I think anyone that is on the till needs to be.
I know that the children are under age. I can't sell them alcohol. I know that.
If I now I got my license so I know that I have to ask them for the ID and before I'm selling them
I can ask them show me your ID and I know that I can't sell underage children or like that.
Okay thank you for your answers. Subcommittee are there any more questions from fellow councillors?
Okay, if not, are there any other questions of clarification on anything that has been
stated?
As a reminder, the representations will have a chance to address the committee and this
should only be where you would like clarification on something stated by the speaker.
I can see no requests for questions or qualifications.
I now invite those making representations to address the subcommittee after which questions
may be asked of you. Thank you. Thank you chair. Yeah Mr Hedney. Thank you chair. If you can't hear
me please do sort of tell me because as I say I'm conscious of the issues here but simply in
rebuttal chair I first wanted to draw your attention to um paragraph 11 .31 or i, 3i of the
Merton Council's licensing policy and additional to that is paragraph 14 .8 but to sort of summarize
in terms of what it says the key thing there is in an application for um licensing of this kind
one of the things that the applicant has to demonstrate is that what they put for you has
be adequate and in looking at whether it's adequate you also have to consider the level
of crime and disorder in and around the venue. Considering having regard to the level of crime
and disorder in and around the venue also include the gravity of offense or disorder that happened
around the premises. Now, Chair, in the supplementary bundle, which I believe was provided, on page
five of that bundle, you will see no doubt an email dated the 9th of May 20, the 9th
Thanks my love. Cheers darling. See you together.
Yes.
Thank you.
That that email chair is an email, um, from a Mr Manpreet is effectively saying that Mr
Patel will be managing the premises, this is the 85 we're referring to, for the next four years.
As you've heard from the applicants, 85 and 83 shares a sort of a close interest, the level to
which you can say there's an independence of mind between the parties. Of course, for the panel to
consider we say there isn't an independent of mine because Mr Patel in the statement
of officer Belinda Luce, on page two of that statement, let me know chair when you are
there.
Yeah, go ahead.
So in that statement at paragraph, on page two, the second paragraph done, you can see where the officer said she recognized Mr Patel at the premises from her previous visit.
and then beneath that you see straight away where Mr Patel was described as a street drinker
rather than a manager. Now chair that's important even though it's connected to the previous
premises because when you look at the statement the statement above that in the officer's
um witness statement you see where Mr Farouk, Muhammad Farouk confirmed to the officer
um that he Mr Muhammad Farouk is managing both premises 83 and 85. So the the independence
that that you've heard um the the applicant's raise isn't on its own um adequate or sufficiently
made out here because we have testimony from the persons connected to both premises saying that
they're managing both premises. No doubt chair you've heard the reasons for why the 85 was
previously 85 license was terminated previously that was as the licensing manager opened up before
says that was connected to tobacco and alcohol and other matters to children.
The reason I'm pointing that out is this, under the current guidance and on the applicant's own
application. The first thing to note is on the application itself on page 17
it says provide a general description of the premises and in looking at the description of
the premises the applicant herself described the premises as an off -license and convenience
and convenience store. Now you will note that from the evidence submitted that Alakbra goods and
luggage store is effectively a luggage and goods and accessories store which is the 80s, this is 83.
Now what that tells you chair is that what you're simply seeking to do by that description in
18 is effectively circumvent what happened to 85 by bringing in the license under 83.
And in doing so they've listed a number of reasons on page 23 of the application as to how
they propose to satisfy or uphold the license objectives. But I draw your attention chair to
the language in in in I think the 11 all 11 points used it's all promissory or giving some level of
assurance but what assurance can the applicant themselves give if at present this the management
from the 85 is already kind of in management board premises they have not shown here anything that
they can comfortably say,
adequately demonstrate how any lessons learned
from past experience.
And on its own, by their own admission,
they've already converted the,
they're intending to convert the luggage
and accessor store into a convenience store.
So effectively, it makes no difference
if you knock out the wall between the two,
or it makes no difference if there's two managers.
The wife is owning the one on the left
and the husband is owning the one on the right
because the attention of the applicant is quite clear.
Now, the other point to note,
the other point to note,
chair, is this, there is simply
no reflection evidence in the application under compliance,
i .e. the license objectives.
In terms of the training itself,
um in my in my submission it simply is the what the applicants have said about previous training
or proposed training um it simply isn't enough because what we're dealing with here is a case
where 85 to which they have a closed nexus um have already been found to have supplied um
privated items to underage children. You know that Chair will see in the supplementary bundle a
statement from a concerned parent who previously reported,
Chair I'll just pause so I can go to the statement.
Please bear with me a moment.
Okay, here it comes.
Yes, so in the supplementary bundle chair, you will see the 23rd, the 5th, 2023, and
is on page, it's done as I think 19, it's on about page 17 of 23, it's 22, thank you.
And in this statement she stated very clearly that they've sold her child cigarettes in her own
the form and explain at paragraph three or paragraph four, her daughter approached the
counter and what went on there. And then you also see she's evidence herself. It doesn't mean you
should overlook these factors and consider it as a isolated incident or an application, a totally
separate application or an application which should be considered on this whole merit because
they've been very clear in their application that it's a it's they're intending to treat it as a
as a as a as a as a off license and convenience tool. The the other point to note chair in
considering the home office guidance on on this is that the the the steps proposed by the respond
by the applicant so far cannot in any way satisfy you, satisfy the panel that the risk of harm to
children is not likely to reoccur and that obviously what they've said about adherence to
the challenge 2025 policy certainly if you have a previous history of the kind that they
already described you would at least expect to see some level of sort of proposed mitigation
being aware of previous breaches of the licensing objective so that certainly isn't there.
And the conditions that they propose in terms of supervising the alcohol sales via CCTV and the
none of those items, again I say, isn't sufficient, chair, largely because their previous history,
you would see from that hearing, several items were requested and they effectively failed
to produce the items that were requested as part of the investigation into the breach
of the licensing objective.
So in terms of deterrence, the level to which anything said in this application can satisfy the
core that there's a sufficient, there's going to be enough deterrence in place to prevent a further
breach. I say this simply isn't enough and you know I don't invite you to take the assurance or
sort of promissory comments set out at paragraph 10, page 23 of the application in any way
evidence that the applicants can be trusted to afford the objectives. The second point I wish to
to add on to that and sort of drive home really is effectively it's the same staff running board
premises and you would note from officer Belinda's statement at the very bottom on page two
I think it's just in the section dated April 2023.
you would see there that they are describing Mr Patel as a, I think he was just a regular customer
and not a not a not an applicant. So essentially what we have or what the panel has before it in
application by the applicant is this, an application where the applicant is seeking to
circumvent the objectives of the licensing objective by effectively taking over 83 and
then attach with a name they can to it. And the reason I say that is because there was a previous
application after 85 had lost its license, there was a previous application where they actually
re -applied for a further license, that license, that application, they discontinued. And the reason
they withdraw that is because Mr Patel and the other members of the staff at 85 then realized
that with the parent coming forward and saying that they've been doing, they've effectively been
breaching their licensing condition, there was simply no merit in their application.
So this is effectively a kind of last resort attempt for them to try and circumvent the
rules.
So in closing then Chief, I say these few points.
Under the objectives, largely of crime and disorder and the protection of children, I
I'm invited to conclude that the applicant hasn't sufficiently or adequately evidenced
how they will uphold the licensing objective and how they will promote it in any way.
The premises are operated by the same people, the same management.
You've seen that very clearly in Mr. Faruq's statement.
The nexus between the party or the relationship between the parties cannot be overlooked.
there isn't really a degree of independence. You've seen my submission that the application
itself already describes the premises as an off -license and convenience store, so that
tells you what they're what they are intending to do given their previous history.
So in summary, really not much has changed and no lessons has been learned from previous incidents.
And so with that said, Chair, and given their previous history and lack of any adequate
measures in the application, I'm invited to deny the application as opposed by the applicant. Thank you.
Thank you for that comprehensive input Mr Henry. Does the subcommittee have any questions for those making representations?
No? Miss Lewis, are there any other questions of clarification, anything that's been stated? Anybody else, any questions of clarification? Mr Panchar?
I have a lot of questions to the...
No, but the questions are questions of clarification at the moment, just questions of clarification.
So if there's something that he has said that needs to be clarified, then if that's my understanding,
Mr Flowers or somebody, I don't want to prevent Mr Panchow from speaking, but my notes say
questions of clarification more so than general questions.
Yes, Che, you're correct.
It's not an opportunity for cross -examination obviously.
After all questions have been asked by the committee, both parties will have chances to
sum up and provide any more comments and it may be that at that moment councillors may have more questions but
it is not an opportunity for either party to cross -examine one another.
Okay, so thank you for the clarification there Mr Flows, it's really appreciated.
So Mr Pancha, I'm gonna just ask you again.
Are there questions of clarification you have for Mr. Henry?
Is there anything that he has said
that you do not understand,
you would like clarified more so then as Mr. Flowers has said
any form of interrogation or cross -examination?
Then he said contamination then, so excuse me.
My clarification is,
we've heard, sorry, my clarification is,
has need to call breached any of the conditions?
We haven't heard, we would like to know,
as they want to clarify for Mr. Henry to clarify,
is he saying that need to call
has breached the conditions in the past?
I think the point.
My understanding is that he did not say that.
I didn't hear him say that the applicant
had breached anything.
So I don't think we need to clarify something
was not stated. Okay, nothing else we need to, we just we would wish to ask the questions.
The questions are about clarifications, this is not cross -examination, so if you have a question
of clarification you are more than welcome and encouraged to stipulate and state that now.
Not at the moment, we haven't got anything for clarification.
Okay, sir. Thank you for that.
As I say, Mr. Hari says, the FARU is the managing board.
Madam, madam, this is not an opportunity for you to clarify anything. I've not invited
any clarifications from you as the applicant. So we are not seeking at this point any reassurances,
any additional information. You've had your opportunity to state your case when you spoke
first. So this is not an opportunity to add more or less to what's been said. This is
only an opportunity to ask questions of clarification. Do you have any questions, ma 'am, of clarification
for Mr Henry?
No, we have not anymore.
Okay that's great, we appreciate it. If you wish to put yourselves on mute so you may want to have a conversation amongst yourself you're totally entitled to do so but I will not permit questions to be asked that are not based on clarification okay.
Just about the fairness of the procedure and that everybody has an opportunity. Okay, thank you.
So I can see no questions for clarification.
Representations, I believe we have the police in the room.
Miss, is it Miss Lewis?
I don't know if you will be addressed.
Oh, myself, Chair, Belinda Louisa.
Louisa, I understand you made a representation
in terms on behalf of the Met Police.
Now, I don't know if Mr. Henry, you've covered that,
so excuse me, usually I'm used to just seeing one,
so I don't know if you're gonna make
separate representations of whether the one that Mr. Henry has provided is
sufficient but I didn't want you not to have an opportunity as I've read what
you've submitted to contribute to the committee, contribute to the proceedings
this evening. No I think, thank you, I think Mr. Henry has addressed all the
points, thank you very much. Fabulous, thank you, thank you. So at this point I
would now like to invite each party to provide any closing remarks that they
would like to submit. This should be limited to a maximum of two minutes. I will first
invite those making, I'm just going to get my timer off, sorry, so we can have parity
because I understand that we were allowing everyone to speak much more open ended before,
but we're going to have it to be minute now. So we are going to have two minutes each party.
I will first invite those making representations, followed by the applicant to address the licencing
subcommittee. Okay, so this is an opportunity now, Mr. Henry, if you have two minutes, if
there was anything further you'd like to add, I know you just spoke and you were very comprehensive,
but you may just want to surmise in the two minutes what you've said before. And equally,
if you don't feel you have anything further to add, that's completely fine. So I'm going
have two minutes from there. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think I'll just
get us to summarize some of the key points I raised before. And
I think the first point to note is, on the matters that I've
laid out before you today, there simply isn't anything here that
can honestly satisfy this panel that the applicant are intending
to promote or are capable actually of upholding or promoting the any of the four licensing objectives.
You know they're aware that it's not it doesn't it doesn't stop at risk of harm to children.
There's also the risk of nuisance happening and of course crime and disorder. In the material
provided, I believe it's in the supplementary bundle you will see the police incident report
record, I'm just trying to bring that up please, you'll see the the police incident report proving
that the areas in and around 83 or 85 are involved in at least crime and
disorder as being associated with crime and disorder and or nuisance. The risk of harm to
children speaks for itself. I've already taken you to that. What you also have to bearing in mind
here is effectively a degree of risk management and that by that I mean you cannot in any way
anticipate at least from the evidence provided in the application that the risk of harm will not
again crystallizes by that I mean having to another child or more children and there's no
evidence from the applicant setting out how they at least could mitigate or intending to mitigate
that and I say there's no evidence because what they've provided in 23 hundreds or in the
application isn't adequate it's not adequate and even the council's own license licensing policy
specifically set stuff out. Thank you. Just to rest your case there, it was two minutes and 15.
In the interest of parity, I will permit the applicant to have same said time which
was two minutes and 15 seconds. Mr Panchal, would you like to... Thank you, thank you very much.
I'll try and be as quick as possible. Ma 'am. Two minutes 15 seconds so be as quick as two minutes
in 15 seconds sir. Thank you ma 'am. Ma 'am you could look at the guidance section 1 .17 which says each
applicant is considered on its own merits. Here we are considering an application which is for 83
premises and not 85. Whatever has happened at 85 has no merits at 83. We are clearly seeing
Mrs Anita Kapoor who's going to be promoting the fall assets of this. She's able to answer all your
questions when it concerns with the robustly promoting the core licensing objectives.
She's made everything very clear how trainings are going to be carried out.
She's happy not to employ any of the previous staffs at 83 premises.
We have no evidence of 83 any of the breaches that Mrs. Nita Core has created or made.
So when you're making your decision, you need to look at what Nita Core is presented to
you that how robustly she's going to be promoting the four licensing objectives.
We are not here to look at what 85 has done because that has got nothing to do with Nithapur.
She wasn't employed or worked at 85 premises and she has clearly said that it is her own
business she's going to run, it is for her own matter and for her own premises.
Ma 'am, she's qualified, she has got a personal license and she understands the four licensing
objectives very clearly. During the meeting with the police, again she managed to present herself
with how well she will be able to run the premises at 83. Again and again we are hearing about what
has happened at 85. She has nothing to do with 85, she hasn't worked at 85 and she understands
all of us and that is a major part of any guidance when you understand and look at the premises
and promotion of the premises.
She understands the area because her husband was in the area
and she has been also in the area understanding
all the local people there, so last 12 years.
So she does understand the local people also.
It is very important to understand the local people
when you're running a premises.
So that's our presentation for how, when,
and how robustly the promotion of -
That's two minutes and 15 seconds.
Okay, thank you.
I do have, Mr. Fadd, I just wanted to flag something
because I think doing this, and this is,
you used the word, Mr. Panchal, that marriage.
And I think it's a bit, in the case of this,
a bit misleading because the premise is next door.
She is married to somebody who's involved there.
So the marriage is maybe not in the business,
but it's definitely there in another form of covenant.
And the second thing was you had said several times
that 83 and stuff that had happened there,
but this application is related to 83.
So I think he was getting a few of the numbers mixed up
unless my hearing was mistaken that you had said 85.
And the final thing is I had asked when my question
into the applicant was about her serving.
And you just said that she didn't work in 85
unless I miss hearing, but this is why I'm coming back to it
that she hadn't worked there.
But in the evidence she gave earlier,
I heard she had been stacking shelves
and she had never worked in the till.
So I'm a bit confused now.
She has worked in a golf license, not at 85.
I worked in the Stockwell, not here.
She's worked at Stockwell, not here.
Stockwell, not here.
Okay, thank you for that clarification. It would have been useful had it been said before, but I was under the impression when I had asked it was to do with 83, maybe I should have been much more specific with my line of questioning, so I apologize if there was some confusion there caused.
Okay, I think at this point there are no more questions.
I just think it was important to clarify some of the stuff that had been raised in your
final closing.
Okay, thank you.
That now concludes this part of the meeting.
The decision, reasons and any legal guidance given during the subcommittee's discussion
that has informed their decision will be confirmed in writing, together with information about
any rights of appeal within five working days.
Members of the Licensing Subcommittee, the Democratic Services Officer and Legal Advisor
will now join the separate confidential meeting room to make the decision.
I'd like to thank everybody for attending this evening.
We really appreciate your time, the consideration and effort that's gone into these applications.
We will now be closing this meeting and as relevant people will be joining another meeting
so a decision can be made.
I bid you all farewell.
Have a lovely evening.
Take care.
It's a pleasure.
Thank you very much.