The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee of Brent Council was scheduled to consider a single application for a new premises licence. This application was for the API AVI Convenience Store, located at 383 Church Lane, NW9 8JB, and sought permission to sell alcohol for off-site consumption between 7 am and 11 pm daily. The meeting's report pack detailed the application, along with representations from the Police, Licensing Officer, a Ward Councillor, and a local resident, all of which raised concerns related to the licensing objectives.

Application for a New Premises Licence at API AVI Convenience Store

The primary item scheduled for discussion was an application for a new premises licence for the API AVI Convenience Store, located at 383 Church Lane, London, NW9 8JB. The applicant, Mr Thamotharampillai Tharmarasa, sought permission to sell alcohol for off-premises consumption from 7 am to 11 pm, seven days a week.

The report pack indicated that this application falls within the Kingsbury Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ)¹. The council's policy for CIZs creates a presumption against granting new licences or variations that increase the scope for alcohol sales, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the licence will not negatively impact the licensing objectives.

Several representations were received regarding this application. The Police raised concerns across all four licensing objectives, citing the premises' history, including a previous licence revocation in July 2025 following a drugs warrant and closure order. They proposed a comprehensive set of conditions to mitigate potential risks. The Licensing Officer, Edwin Maldoom, also acknowledged the CIZ and the premises' history but suggested that with robust conditions, there might be scope to depart from the CIZ policy. Councillor Amer Agha, representing Welsh Harp Ward, objected to the application, citing concerns about public nuisance, noise, anti-social behaviour (ASB), litter, and potential safety issues near schools and homes, believing it would increase street drinking and ASB. A local resident also submitted a representation, requesting the licence be refused due to the premises' significant history of licensing breaches, including a previous licence revocation and documented issues of congregation, noise, littering, and alcohol-related anti-social behaviour. This resident also outlined fallback conditions if the licence were to be granted.

The applicant's operating schedule, detailed in the Operating Schedule, proposed various conditions aimed at promoting the licensing objectives. These included the installation of a CCTV system, a refusals policy for alcohol sales, restrictions on stocking high-strength alcohol, and training for staff on preventing underage sales and proxy sales. The applicant also noted that Mr Tharmarasa had no involvement in the previous issues at the shop.

The Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider these representations and the applicant's proposed operating schedule when determining the application. The possible outcomes for the Sub-Committee included granting the licence, excluding certain licensable activities, refusing to specify a designated premises supervisor, or rejecting the application entirely.