Westminster City Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee (2) met to discuss two applications for new alcohol licences. The committee approved an application for a new licence for a restaurant at 157 Praed Street, but refused an application for a new premises licence for Williams Chemist, 55-57 Harrow Road.

Application for a new Premises Licence for 157 Praed Street https://www.google.com/maps/search/157+Praed+Street,+London,+W2+1RL/@51.5147333,-0.1753631,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x48760b8902415473:0x894a72d53641d40!8m2!3d51.5147333!4d-0.1731744

The sub-committee considered a report recommending that a new alcohol licence be granted to Dinings SW Limited for their new Japanese restaurant, Issho-Ni, at 157 Praed Street.

The report noted that no representations had been received from residents or the police and that the applicant had agreed to a number of conditions in order to limit disruption to local residents. These included:

• limiting the terminal hour to 11pm
• installing noise-limiting acoustic glass
• operating a ‘Challenge 25’ policy

The applicant was represented in the meeting by their solicitor who noted that the applicant had:

a strong track record of operating similar premises responsibly in other London boroughs.

The sub-committee agreed to grant the applicant a new premises licence with the conditions recommended in the officer’s report.

Application for a new Premises Licence for Williams Chemist, 55-57 Harrow Road https://www.google.com/maps/search/Williams+Chemist,+55-57+Harrow+Road,+London/@51.523572,-0.1950592,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x48761ad0b7336d5f:0x866c1b33787a8a17!8m2!3d51.523572!4d-0.1928705

The sub-committee considered a report recommending refusal of an application for a new premises licence for Williams Chemist, 55-57 Harrow Road.

The report explained that the applicant sought permission to sell alcohol between the hours of 10am and 11pm, for consumption off the premises. The report noted that the premises were in a Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ)¹, and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the sale of alcohol from the premises would not add to the problems already experienced in the area. In particular, the report drew the sub-committee’s attention to the three objectives of the council’s Licensing Policy² which the application failed to uphold:

• the prevention of crime and disorder
• the prevention of public nuisance
• the protection of children from harm.

The applicant argued that the ability to sell alcohol at the premises was vital to the future of the business and that they had a strong track record of operating responsibly in similar locations across London. In response to questions from members of the committee, the applicant’s legal representative explained that, in addition to alcohol, the shop would sell groceries, household goods, and toiletries.

Several residents spoke against the granting of the licence. One resident, who lives near the premises, argued that the application was:

completely inappropriate and showed a callous disregard for our community

Another resident, who has lived in the area for 20 years, said that:

Granting this licence would make the lives of people in this community unbearable.

She went on to describe existing problems with street drinking and anti-social behaviour in the area and said that:

it beggars belief that the council is even considering this proposal.

The Sub-committee refused to grant the licence on the grounds that the applicant had not demonstrated how the licensing objectives would be upheld.