Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: March 4, 2025

Purpose:

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.