Content

Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to
determine an application for the variation of a premises licence
under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003
 
PREMISES:   
Bedfont Food and Wine Ltd, 164 Bedfont Lane,
Feltham, TW14 9NJ (“the Premises”)
 
APPLICANT:
Bedfont Food and Wine Ltd (“the
Applicant”)
 
TAKE NOTICE
THATON 4 March 2025 following a
hearing before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub-Committee
(the “Licensing Panel” or
“Panel”),
 
HOUNSLOW COUNCIL,
as the Licensing Authority for the Premises
RESOLVED as follows:
 
REASONS:
 

1)         
The Panel convened to determine an application
for the variation of a premises licence for
Bedfont Food and Wine Ltd, 164 Bedfont Lane, Feltham, TW14 9NJ made
under the Licensing Act 2003.
 

2)         
The Premises are currently licenced for the
following activities and hours:
 

(a) 
Supply of alcohol (off the
premises)
On
weekdays, other than Christmas Day, 8 a.m. to 11 p.m.
On
Sundays, other than Christmas Day, 10 a.m. to 10.30 p.m.
On
Christmas Day, 12 noon to 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
On
Good Friday, 8 a.m. to 10.30 p.m.

 
(b) 
The opening hours of the premises
Monday to Saturday 5:30
a.m. to 10 p.m.,
Sunday 7 a.m. to 9
p.m.
 
The application
sought to extend the opening and licensable hours as follows:
 

(a) 
Supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises:
Monday to Sunday, 06:00 to 23:59
 
(b) 
Hours premises are open to the public:
Monday to Sunday, 06:00 to
23:59

 

3)         
A copy of the application was attached as Appendix A (pages
11 to 18) of the agenda pack.
 

4)         
The Premises are situated in an area of mixed
commercial and residential properties. 
 

5)         
The hearing was held in-person. The Panel consisted
of three members.  All members of the
Licensing Panel were in attendance throughout the hearing, and
during deliberation which took place separately in a closed
session.
 

6)         
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
appropriate to promotethe
Licensing Objectives
·      
The guidance issued under section 182 of the
Licensing Act 2003 (“the Statutory
Guidance”)
·      
Hounslow Council’s licensing policy including
the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy 2020 – 2025
(“the Council’s Policy”)
·      
The Human Rights Act 1998
 

7)         
The measures and conditions the
Applicant proposes to include with any licence that may be granted
are set out in the application in Appendix A and
also set out in
paragraphs 4.2 to 4.6 (inclusive) (pages 7 to 8) of the agenda
pack.  
 

8)         
As part of the consultation process the Authority
received two representations from responsible authorities (the
“Objectors”), one from the Police shown at pages
19 to 22 with a further additional submission at pages 26 to 28 and
one from Licensing Enforcement shown at pages 23 to 25. There were
no other representations received.
 

9)         
The Police’s representation suggests
a number of conditions which ought to be
added to the licence if the variation is granted as a result of
said antisocial behaviour in the area and to prevent street
drinking. Two conditions were said to be rejected by the Applicant
in correspondence between the parties prior to the hearing whilst
the other conditions proposed by the Police were said to be agreed,
although during the hearing a third condition was also said to have
not been agreed. The Licensing Enforcement team’s
representation echoed the Police’s suggestion in that they
suggested similar conditions are added to the licence if granted
including the disputed conditions.
 

10)     
A copy of the report and all representations
received were sent to the Applicant.
 

11)     
During the Licensing Panel hearing the facts giving
rise to the application for the grant of a variation to a premises
licence were set out by the licensing officer and were agreed by
all the parties in attendance.
 

12)     
The Applicant’s shop manager attended the
hearing and was represented by a Mr Malik (the
“Agent”). The Police representative (PC
Johnstone) attended remotely whilst the Licensing Enforcement team
representative (Mr Hennessy) attended in person.
 
Submissions by the Objectors
 
13)     
PC Johnstone started his submissions by stating that
the Police were suggesting 13 conditions which ought to be added to
the licence should the variation be granted to bring in it line
with other off licence shops in the area. This includes two other
shops within close proximity with
similar conditions including those which were being disputed. He
further explained that Bedfont Lane is situated close to a school,
a community centre and a church all of which have been affected by
anti-social behaviour ‘hotspots.’ Referring to the
disputed conditions, namely one relating a restriction on selling
beer, lager, or cider that is equal to or greater than 6% ABV and
the second being a restriction on the sale of single cans/bottles
of beer, lager or cider, he added that they were specifically
seeking to add these conditions because the area has a high crime
rate and antisocial behaviour record. As set out in the further
submission, he further explained that Bedfont Lane is covered by
two different safer neighbourhood wards and the crime figures for
the period between January to December 2024 taken from both wards
shows that every month apart from June 2024, there were 3-4
hotspots identified of street drinking / antisocial behaviour.
During the hearing he also highlighted that it was a residential
area surrounded by housing estates in which calls of domestic
violence as a result of drunkenness were
a regular occurrence. Furthermore, the police had noted that other
premises which have similar conditions implemented have been
effective in reducing the level of crime. In addition, street
drinkers tend to want cheap alcohol and will look to buy single
cans or spirit miniatures. For these reasons they were seeking that
the licence be granted with the full list of conditions they had
proposed as not adding them may lead to an increase in crime and
disorder which could potentially start early in the morning and
throughout the day given the licensable activity times sought by
the Applicant.

 
14)     
Following his submission, the Panel queried whether
there was any evidence that the stated antisocial behaviour which
was occurring could be attributed to this Premises and whether
there was any evidence of this. He confirmed that without having
stickers to identify where the cans may have been purchased from,
they could not say if it was associated with this Premises although
he stated that there are known issues close to the Premises
including a few doors down. In response to a further question about
whether there was a noticeable impact for other shops with licences
that contained the disputed conditions, he stated that was
noticeable differences. He highlighted that a shop at the far end
of the high street was known to have people loitering outside and
since the implementation of the disputed conditions, the loitering
drastically dropped and there were no longer huge crowds hanging
around outside the premises. The Panel also asked for more detail
about the said effect on schools and young adults. PC Johnstone
stated that there were instances of other premises failing test
purchases with children or sixth form students usually trying to
buy alcohol and causing trouble. PC Johnstone gave an example of
street drinkers walking into a school and urinating on the
grounds.

 
15)     
In response to a question from the Applicant about
whether there were any special measures in the area, PC Johnstone
confirmed there were no special measures in
place.
 
16)     
The Licensing Enforcement Officer, Mr Hennessy
outlined that their submission was to support the application but
for it to be granted with minor amendments. In addition to similar
conditions suggested by the Police which included the disputed
conditions, the Licensing Enforcement team were proposing a start
time of alcohol sales to be from 7am as the applied for 6am seemed
excessive. Mr Hennessy added he was in
agreement with PC Johnstone with the area being one of
concern. Referring to the earlier point about special measures
being in place, Mr Hennessy acknowledged that the Premises did not
fall within a Cumulative Impact Area but that there was a desire
for licences across the borough to be upscaled with such conditions
so that there were in line with the council’s model
conditions contained within the Council’s Policy (the
“Model Conditions”) albeit it was
ultimately up to the Panel to consider and decide. Mr Hennessy
added that unlike the Police he did not have data to support the
concerns in the area but was aware of this from the Police and
safety officers in the area. Therefore
they believed that the conditions proposed and the timings
suggested would not have a significant impact on the business but
would help to mitigate difficulties within the
area.

 
17)     
When asked by the Panel, Mr Hennessy confirmed he
was not aware of any specific issues at the Premises. He also
confirmed that the closest Cumulative Impact Area to the premises
was probably Cranford which was not immediately adjacent to the
area in which the Premises is.
 
18)     
In expanding on the points in response to questions
from the Panel, when asked why 7am was proposed instead of the
sought 6am Mr Hennessy stated that they believed 6am was excessive
and that they would otherwise be happy to have a discussion with
the Applicant in the future about further amending the times if
needed.
 
Submissions by the Applicant
 

19)     
During the hearing the Agent
explained that the reason for the application was to
streamline the licensable hours to match those of the opening
hours. The Applicant was said to not be looking to increases sales
of alcohol and said he was happy to take on board the suggested
amended hours from the Objectors. He highlighted to the Panel that
there had been no issues or complaints regarding the Premises and
despite the existing Licence not having any conditions, the
Applicant was already complying with many of the conditions being
suggested, including having CCTV, a challenge 25 police, staff
training and a refusal record. The Agent clarified that 3
conditions were disputed and that the third condition was the one
which restricted the sale of spirit miniatures, namely ‘No
sales of spirits under 5Cl in quantity (miniatures).’ He
emphasised that imposing these conditions would reduce footfall to
the Premises and that this was a small business already fighting
large businesses with no such conditions. He stated that it would
be unfair to add such conditions where the current licence does not
have any. The Agent added that there was no evidence against the
application and that as pointed out the Premises was not in a
Cumulative Impact Area or PSPO area. He therefore believed that it
would not be proportionate to add the disputed conditions as some
people do come to buy single cans, spirit miniatures or alcohol
above 6% ABV. On this basis the Agent referenced that under the
Statutory Guidance each application should be based on its own
merits, that the authority’s determination should be
evidence-based and that the track record of the business. The Agent
also reminded the Panel that the Licensing Act 2003 gives the
opportunity to review the Applicant’s licence if there was
found to be issues in the future. The Agent indicated to the Panel
that the Applicant would rather have the application for variation
rejected outright rather than impose the conditions as it relied
upon those sales / customers.
 

20)     
In response to questions regarding the Premises
current level of sales of single cans and higher level of strength
beer and the suggestion that the sales from these would surely not
be that significant, the Agent stressed that the Applicant would
lose business from the restriction on these. Explaining further, it
was highlighted that people would often come to buy single cans of
beers with other items and that there were other shops to which the
customers could go to which were operating without any restrictions
which would affect the footfall of customers as they would not
return to shop at the Premises. Giving an example, the Agent said
there was a fish and chip shop next door
and that people often come to buy single beers along with soft
drinks to eat with their food.
 

21)     
Further questions were to put to the Applicant as to
whether the business model was focussed around alcohol sales given the emphasis placed on
the suggestion that it would effect the
business and despite the suggestion that the level of beers with
over 6% of ABV level was only a small percentage of the total
alcohol section, consisting of approximately 6 or 7 brands. The
Agent refuted this stating that the business operated with small
margins and that the disputed conditions would not actually affect
the alcohol sales but would effect the footfall with regular customers
who bought other grocery items alongside the alcohol choosing not
to return to the Premises and instead going to other shops and that
this was more than enough to have a detrimental effect on the
business. Going further, an example was given of a recent
transaction in which the Premises did not have stock of an energy
drink a customer sought and therefore chose to leave the rest of
their shopping items they were purchasing and left the shop to go
elsewhere.
 

22)     
The Panel queried the suggestion of a condition
relating to the storage of alcohol and that it would
‘secure alcohol displays and storage areas to prevent
unauthorised access.’ The Agent confirmed this was in
relation to spirits which are retained behind the counter.

 

23)     
The Agent confirmed the Applicant was not expanding
the shop and that he had been managing the Premises for the last 6
months with the existing Licence being in place from 2014.

 

24)     
The Applicant was asked how they currently prevent
issues with potential street drinkers buying alcohol given there
were no conditions in place. The Agent acknowledged that there may
be some vulnerable customers who were looking to purchase alcohol
but that the staff training dealt with this to prevent such
issues and that the Applicant already
holds a list of people who have been refused alcohol. Moreover, the
Agent made reference to the Statutory
Guidance suggesting that there is a certain limit to responsibility
of individuals beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises.

 
Summing Up
 

25)     
In summing up, the Police acknowledged this was an
area in which not a lot of work had yet been don’t to tackle
the anti-social behaviour issues but it
is known to be a big street drinking area with one area just 100
yards away. The Police added that it was not just an issue of
street drinkers but the affect this had on the local community and
the schools nearby.
 

26)     
The Licensing Enforcement Officer reiterated his
point that he would ask the Panel to consider the application in
view of the variation from 7am onwards and with all the conditions
they have suggested within their representation.
 

27)     
The Applicant highlighted that the application
should be decided on its own merits, the Premises had a good track
record and that the Statutory Guidance states other measures can be
considered in such circumstance. The Agent acknowledged that the
Statutory Guidance does not take financial issues into account but
that it would be unfair to impose the disputed conditions as it
would damage the business.
 
Statutory Guidance
 

28)     
The Panel considered the Statutory Guidance further
which states:

 

“2.1    Licensing authorities should
look to the police as the main source of advice on crime and
disorder. They should also seek to involve the local Community
Safety Partnership (CSP).”
 

29)     
Furthermore, the Statutory Guidance states the
following:
 
“Public Nuisance

2.21      The 2003 Act
enables licensing authorities and responsible authorities, through
representations, to consider what constitutes public nuisance and
what is appropriate to prevent it in terms of conditions attached
to specific premises licences and club premises certificates. It is
therefore important that in considering the promotion of this
licensing objective, licensing authorities and responsible
authorities focus on the effect of the licensable activities at the
specific premises on persons living and working (including those
carrying on business) in the area around the premises which may be
disproportionate and unreasonable. The issues will mainly concern
noise nuisance, light pollution, noxious smells and litter.

 

2.22      Public nuisance
is given a statutory meaning in many pieces of legislation. It is
however not narrowly defined in the 2003 Act and retains its broad
common law meaning. It may include in appropriate circumstances the
reduction of the living and working amenity and environment of
other persons living and working in the area
of the licensed premises. Public nuisance may also arise
as a result of the adverse effects of
artificial light, dust, odour and insects or where its effect is
prejudicial to health.

…….
 

2.25      Where
applications have given rise to representations, any appropriate
conditions should normally focus on the most sensitive periods. For
example, the most sensitive period for people being disturbed by
unreasonably loud music is at night and into the early morning when
residents in adjacent properties may be attempting to go to sleep
or are sleeping. This is why there is still a need for a licence
for performances of live music between 11 pm and 8 am. In certain
circumstances, conditions relating to noise emanating from the
premises may also be appropriate to address any disturbance
anticipated as customers enter and leave.

.……

 

2.27      Beyond the
immediate area surrounding the premises, these are matters for the
personal responsibility of individuals under the law. An individual
who engages in antisocial behaviour is accountable in their own right. However, it would be
perfectly reasonable for a licensing authority to impose a
condition, following relevant representations, that requires the
licence holder or club to place signs at the exits from the
building encouraging patrons to be quiet until they leave the area,
or that, if they wish to smoke, to do so at designated places on
the premises instead of outside, and to respect the rights of
people living nearby to a peaceful night.

.……

 

Public safety

2.9       
A number of matters should be considered
in relation to public safety. These may include:

 

            
…

 

            
Good communication with local authorities and emergency services,
for example communications networks with the police and signing up
for local incident alerts (see paragraph 2.4 above);

 

            
…

 

            
Considering the use of CCTV in and around the premises (as noted in
paragraph 2.3 above, this may also assist with promoting the crime
and disorder objective).

 

…..

 

Protection of children from harm

 

2.29      The Government
believes that it is completely unacceptable to sell alcohol to
children. Conditions relating to the access of children where
alcohol is sold and which are
appropriate to protect them from harm should be carefully
considered.”

 

 

The Council’s Licensing Policy 2020-2025
 

30)     
The Council’s Statement Licensing Policy
2020-2025 (“the Policy”) states the
following:
 
“54. Each of the
four licensing objectives are of equal importance and therefore
each needs to be considered with equal weight.
 
55. The Council expects
applicants to risk assess their proposals and put forward measures
aimed at promoting the licensing objectives.
 
LP2 The
Four Licensing Objectives
 
1.
Prevention of Crime and Disorder
Whether the
proposal includes satisfactory measures to mitigate any risk of the
proposed operation making an unacceptable contribution to levels of
crime and disorder in the locality.
 
2. Public
Safety
Whether the
necessary and satisfactory risk assessments have been undertaken,
the management procedures put in place and the relevant
certification produced to demonstrate that the public will be kept
safe both within and in close proximity
to the premises.
 
3.
Prevention of Public Nuisance
Whether the
applicant has addressed the potential for nuisance arising from the
characteristics and style of the proposed activity and identified
the appropriate steps to reduce the risk of public nuisance
occurring.
 
4.
Protection of Children form Harm
Whether the
applicant has identified and addressed any risks with the aim of
protecting children from harm when on the premises or in close proximity to the
premises.”
 

31)     
The Panel noted that ultimately it is for a licence holder to
ensure they are operating in compliance with their licence and to
propose measures to promote the licensing objectives and tackle any
issues.
 

32)     
In relation to the core hours, the Council’s
Policy states that the hours for licensable activity will
generally be authorised subject to the Applicant demonstrating that
they understand the area where the premises are located and that
they will promote the four licensing objectives.  The core hours are:
 
· Monday
to Thursday 09:00 to 23:00
· Friday
and Saturday 09:00 to 00:00
· Sunday
10:00 to 22:30
 

33)     
Furthermore, the current policy goes on to state
that:
 
“Hours may be more restrictive dependent on the
character of the area and if the individual circumstances require
it. Later hours may be considered where the applicant has
identified any risk that may undermine the promotion of the
licensing objectives and has put in place robust measures to
mitigate those risks.
 

34)     
Section 2.5 of the Council’s Policy relating
to core hours states that “Applicants seeking a
licence outside of the core hours will need to provide evidence as
to how their application will not harm the licensing
objectives.” The section also refers to
issues of public nuisance from street drinking stating that
“as such, a premises, for example an
off-licence, wishing to sell alcohol before the core hours would
need to provide a compelling case why it would not compromise the
licensing objectives.”
 

35)     
Section 2.6 of the Council’s Policy makes specific reference
to Alcohol sales for consumption off the premises. Within this
section it states that “research commissioned by the
Council showed that the Borough appears to have a large number of convenience stores/supermarkets
that are licensed to sell alcohol until the early hours of the
morning. Many of these are located in
hotspots for drinking paraphernalia and cleansing
‘grotspots’.”
However, the Council’s Policy goes on to state
at section LP4 that “Hours for the supply of alcohol will
generally be restricted to between 09:00 and
23:00.”
 

36)     
In this case, the Applicant is seeking a variation
to extend the existing hours and is otherwise already operating
slightly outside of the core hours with the existing Licence
providing for alcohol sales from 8am to 11pm on weekdays.

 

37)     
The Panel noted that whilst there was no evidence of
any history of issues with the Premises, the conditions proposed
(subject to some amendments) and otherwise agreed by the Applicant
(save for the disputed conditions) would help address any suggested
issues and promote the four licensing objectives particularly given
the additional hours sought for alcohol sales. These included the
use of the CCTV, signage, a challenge 25 policy, and staff
training. In addition the Panel was
aware from the Applicant’s submissions that the Applicant was
otherwise already complying with such conditions. 
 

38)     
 The Statutory Guidance
states at 9.12
 
“Each
responsible authority will be an expert in their respective field,
and in some cases it is likely that a
particular responsible authority will be the licensing
authority’s main source of advice in relation to a particular
licensing objective…The police should usually therefore be
the licensing authority’s main source of advice on matters
relating to the promotion of the crime and disorder licensing
objective.”
 
Taking this into account the panel considered that the
Police’s representation supported by Licensing Enforcement
clearly showed a concern for the promotion of the licensing
objectives in the area for where the Premises is situated and which could lead to further issues with
the proposed extended hours.
 

39)     
Referring to the Statutory Guidance sections
referred to by the Applicant’s agent during the hearing it
states:
 
“9.43
The authority’s determination should be evidence-based,
justified as being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing
objectives and proportionate to what it is intended to
achieve.
 
9.44
Determination of whether an action or step is appropriate for the
promotion of the licensing objectives requires an assessment of
what action or step would be suitable to achieve that end. While
this does not therefore require a licensing authority to decide
that no lesser step will achieve the aim, the authority should aim
to consider the potential burden that any condition would impose on
the premises licence holder (such as the financial burden due to
restrictions on licensable activities) as well as the potential
benefit in terms of the promotion of the licensing objectives.
However, it is imperative that the authority ensures that the
factors which form the basis of its determination are limited to
consideration of the promotion of the objectives and nothing
outside those parameters. As with the consideration of licence
variations, the licensing authority should consider wider issues
such as other conditions already in place to mitigate potential
negative impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives and
the track record of the business. Further advice on determining
what is appropriate when imposing conditions on a licence or
certificate is provided in Chapter 10. The licensing authority is
expected to come to its determination based on an assessment of the
evidence on both the risks and benefits either for or against
making the determination.”
 

40)     
Considering this, the Panel noted that the financial
burden of a condition should be considered, however, the Statutory
Guidance also goes on to state that it is imperative  
that
the factors which form the basis of its determination are limited
to consideration of the promotion of the objectives and nothing
outside those parameters. The Statutory Guidance also states that
with variations wider issues should be considered as well as
conditions already in place and the track record of the business.
When making the determination, the Panel is expected to base it on
evidence on both the risks and benefits. In this case, there
appeared to be a track record without any issues, however, it was
evident from the representations received, there were issues in the
area and that these would need to be considered. Moreover, whilst
there was said to be no issues associated with the Premises, the
existing licence contained no conditions to mitigate against any
potential negative impact. In weighing this up, the Panel
determined that the conditions including those disputed conditions
were required in order to promote the
licencing objectives and were accordingly appropriate and
proportionate to what it is intended to achieve.  There was a clear risk of issues getting worse and
the conditions would be beneficial in mitigating these
issues.
 

41)     
The Agent had clearly stated that the disputed
conditions would effect sales of the business but this did not
equate to a financial burden in complying with the condition.
Moreover, the Panel were not satisfied by the Applicant’s
suggestion that imposing these conditions would have such a
detrimental effect on the business as it was also mentioned that
the single can sales and higher level of ABV beer etc was a small
percentage of the overall alcohol sales. Therefore it contrastingly suggested sales of these
items were the main source of sales for the business and this could
be effecting the promotion of the licensing objectives.
 

42)     
The Panel also took account that the application was
to be considered on its own merits and that possible issues with
other premises did not necessarily mean that there would be issues
with this Premises, however, this also meant that it was not of
particular importance that other premises may not have conditions
as the aim was to ultimately ensure compliance and promotion of the
licensing objectives. The Panel decided that adding the disputed
conditions would help to achieve this and to mitigate the said
issues within the locality. Moreover, whilst the Statutory Guidance
at 2.27 does refer to responsibility beyond the immediate area
surrounding the premises being an individual’s own
accountability, the Panel determined that if there were issues just
100 yards away as the Police had suggested, the conditions were
necessary.
 
43)     
As highlighted above, the
Panel were aware that as per the Statutory Guidance above,
“Licensing authorities should look to the police as the
main source of advice on crime and disorder.”
 

44)     
The Panel was therefore satisfied that the
conditions proposed by the Police and Licensing Enforcement subject
to some amendments were to be included in granting the variation to
the Licence.  These conditions would
also go some way to addressing any crime and disorder, public
nuisance and public safety issues, as well as ensuring the
protection of children from harm.
 

45)     
Overall, the Panel was of the view that there were
problems in the area and the extension of hours may have a further
negative impact in terms of anti- social behaviour, street drinking
and crime and disorder and therefore implementing the conditions
was necessary to ensure licensing objectives were met and the
conditions were enforceable. Although financial implications are
not considered part of the licensing objectives, the Panel was
however understanding of the impact on the business and were
therefore minded to grant the hours
sought in the application. This was a difference of two hours based
the discussions during the hearing and the Panel took the view that
a fair balance had to be drawn between the concerns of the
objectors and the Applicant’s business plan to extend its
hours.
 
Decision
 

46)     
Having taken all the representations into account,
the conditions recommended by the Licensing Enforcement Team, the
Police, the statutory provisions and the Revised Guidance issued
under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s
Policy, the Panel were satisfied that the Applicant will comply
with the licensing objectives for the variation sought.
 

47)     
In reviewing the conditions proposed, the Panel
noted the conditions proposed by the Applicant within the
Application at page 17 but determined that these were mostly either
already covered by the conditions proposed by the Objectors, not
necessary as they were covered by other legislation / requirements
or not fully enforceable as drafted. The applicant had however made
refence to conditions relating to preventing noise, having a
dispersal policy, collaborating with authorities and ensuring
delivery times minimised disruption. Whilst these were not
specifically discussed during the hearing, the Panel would like to
remind the Applicant that whilst conditions relating to these were
not implemented as conditions to the Licence, the Applicant should
look to continue ensuring these are met to better promote the
general operation of the Premises.
 
The
Panel did however note the Applicant made
reference to waste management and maintaining cleanliness
around the Premises and therefore decided to add the
Council’s similar Model Condition numbered 42 which covered
this aspect offered by the Applicant. Whilst not a specific concern
raised, this was suggested by the Applicant in the Application and
the Panel considered it would be beneficial to promotion of
licensing objectives.
 
In
addition, the Panel did not deem it necessary to specifically add
any condition relating to alcohol storage, although this was
briefly discussed during the hearing, as this was not suggested by
the Police or Licensing Enforcement it did not seem to be an
issue.
 

48)     
In respect of the conditions proposed by Licensing
Enforcement, these were broadly the same as those proposed by the
Police, however, upon review of the same, the Panel did consider
that some amendments were necessary, particularly to bring them in
line with the council’s Model Conditions. Whilst there is no
obligation to do use the Model Conditions, the Panel felt some of
these were best suited for clarity and to ensure compliance and
promotion of the licensing objectives. Accordingly the Panel decided as follows:
 
Conditions proposed by the Police and Licensing
Enforcement:
 

a.    
The condition regarding the use of CCTV was to be
included but amended to the council’s model condition (Model
Condition number 1)
 

b.    
The condition regarding having staff members
conversant with the CCTV system was to be included and retained as
drafted as it matched that of the model conditions.
 

c.    
The condition regarding staff training for alcohol
sales was retained as drafted.
 

d.    
The condition regarding the challenge 25 policy was
to be included but amended to the council’s model condition
(Model Condition number 47). However, as the Police’s and
Licensing Enforcement made reference to
posters being displayed to show the police in place, the Panel
resolved to add a line to the Model Condition to state
‘signage shall be displayed advising customers that
the scheme is in place.’
 

e.    
The condition regarding a restriction on sales of
beer, lager and cider equal to or greater than 6% ABV was retained
as drafted. This was one of the main topics of discussion during
the hearing and as per the Statutory Guidance responsible
authorities were considered the experts and the Panel therefore
felt it was important to take account of their suggestions in this
regard.
 

f.     
The condition regarding the restriction on sales of
single cans/bottles of beer, lager or cider was retained as
drafted. This was one of the main topics of discussion during the
hearing and as per the Statutory Guidance responsible authorities
were considered the experts and the Panel therefore felt it was
important to take account of their suggestions in this
regard.
 

g.    
The condition regarding the restriction on sales of
sales of spirits under 5CL in quantity (miniatures) was retained as
drafted. This was one of the main topics of discussion during the
hearing and as per the Statutory Guidance responsible authorities
were considered the experts and the Panel therefore felt it was
important to take account of their suggestions in this
regard.
 

h.    
The condition relating to retaining an incident log
proposed by Licensing Enforcement was retained as drafted as this
matched the Model Conditions. The Police suggested three similar
conditions but these were not included
as the condition suggested by Licensing Enforcement seemed to cover
these aspects and was clearer.
 

i.      
In respect of the condition proposed by the Police
where a serious assault had occurred, the Panel considered that,
although a Model Condition, the condition suggestion seemed more
akin to other businesses / premises as it included a suggestion
that ‘All measures that reasonably practicable are taken
to apprehend any suspects pending the arrival of the
Police.’ The Panel resolved to not add this condition as
they deemed it would be difficult to enforce.
 

j.      
The Police condition relating to alcohol being kept
on the premises whilst being produced and stored was also not
retained as it was not relevant to this type of
premises.
 

k.    
The Police condition relating to the consumption of
alcohol in the Premises was deemed not necessary as the Licence was
to be for consumption off the premises in any case.
 

l.      
The Licensing Enforcement condition relating to
areas used for smoking to have notices requesting patrons to
respect the needs of local residents and
use the area quietly was amended to the council’s model
condition number 21 as this was deemed more suitable for this type
of premises.
 

49)     
The Panel considered that the above amendments would
ensure compliance and promotion of the Licensing Objectives and
help to alleviate concerns, in particular
in relation to public nuisance and the prevention of crime
and disorder. The Licensing Panel has therefore decided to
GRANT the application for a variation of the premises
licence with the following modifications:
 
·      
Supply of alcohol for consumption off the
premises:

Monday to Sunday, 06:00 to 23:59

 
·      
Hours premises are open to the
public:

Monday to Sunday, 06:00 to 23:59
 
Additional Conditions:
 

1.    
The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system
as per the minimum requirements of the Hounslow Police Licensing
Team. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal
identification of every person entering in any light condition. The
CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open
for licensable activities and during all times when customers
remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a
minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of
recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of
Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day
period.
 

2.    
A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the
operation of the CCTV system shall be on the
premises at all times when the premises are open. This staff
member must be able to provide a Police or authorised council
officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute
minimum of delay when requested.
 

3.    
All staff responsible for selling alcohol shall receive regular
training in the Licensing Act 2003. Written records of this
training shall be retained and made available to Police and Council
officers on request.
 

4.    
The premises will not sell any beer, lager, or cider that is equal
to or greater than 6% ABV. For the avoidance of doubt, this does
not include specialist products from craft or microbreweries or
limited edition / seasonal products (e.g. Christmas gift packs),
subject to Police and Local Authority discretion.
 

5.    
No sales of single cans/bottles of beer, lager or cider.
 

6.    
No sales of spirits under 5Cl in quantity (miniatures).
 

7.    
An incident log shall be kept at the premises and made available on
request to an
authorised officer of the
Hounslow Council or the Police. It must be completed
within 24 hours of the
incident and will record the following:
(a) all crimes reported to
the venue
(b) all ejections of
patrons
(c) any complaints received
concerning crime and disorder
(d) any incidents of
disorder
(e) all seizures of drugs or
offensive weapons
(f) any faults in the CCTV
system, searching equipment or scanning equipment
(g) any refusal of the sale
of alcohol
(h) any visit by a relevant
authority or emergency service.
 

8.    
A Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the
premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are
recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving
licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS (Proof of Age
Standards Scheme) Hologram. Signage shall be displayed advising
customers that the scheme is in place.
 

9.    
Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting
patrons to respect the needs of local
residents and businesses and leave the area quietly.

10. 

11.During the hours of
operation of the premises, the licence holder shall ensure
sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent litter or
waste arising or accumulating from customers in the area
immediately outside the premises, and that this area shall be swept
and or washed, and litter and sweepings collected and stored in
accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements by close
of business.
 

50)     
The Panel would like to remind the Applicant that a
breach of the licence times and conditions could result in a review
of the premises licence, and potential modification of the
conditions and even a revocation of the premises
licence.
 
 
 
 
Right to Appeal
 

51)     
Any party aggrieved with the
decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee on one or more grounds
set out in schedule 5 of Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the
local Magistrate’s Court within 21 days of notification of
this decision.